Liberalism should not be exploited to sell video games

Did not read but liberalism shouldnt be exploited in any regards. Liberalism is a disease.

Citation needed.

@GreySeal9:

lol, the only thing to worry about is being wrong. i'm good.

I think most of what you've said is pretty ridiculous, but you don't need to be worried about being wrong on an internet forum of all places. It's not a big deal. Also, you should probably chill out because other people might want the thread to remain open even if you don't care. There's no need to ruin the discussion for everyone else because you can't be mature.

@GreySeal9:

I state and will continue to say everything I think about liberalism and its disease. it's a true idiot rehab. I don't even have to think about my responses. and, THAT should be meaningful. dispute and opposing pts of view are good; the laughable liberalism is so easily rendered I laugh.

is the idiot from hbo still yapping?

do you find yourself agreeing with him?

there you go: go pray for anything.

It's pretty clear that you don't think about what you're saying.

Anyway, have fun raging about "teh liberals" if that makes you happy.

lol, do I really have to think about anything but the fact that liberalism is a way of life? what would you, lol, like to tell me about to, help me understand?

if you have a specific pt to yap about , i'm good. thank god im not aliberal who 'r

Did I hit a nerve? Shame

That's exactly my point. Why are devs like Heir suddenly worried about the 'stereotypical protagonist'? Nothing beats character customization options. Even if shareholders refuse to provide financial backing on a game they consider a risk, kickstarter funding has proven to be highly successful.

Instead of simply making the type of games he wants to create and letting gamers decide for themselves, he is more concerned with critiquing what other games did, using their work as a basis to push his liberal agenda.

Heir is trying to influence people to shift focus on gender, color and sexuality instead of talking about things that really matter in gaming. Things like quality content, better gameplay, top notch writing, milked franchises, more new IP's, less season pass bullshit, cut content being sold as DLC, microtransactions, etc.

Devs like Heir will talk all day about the 'stereotypical protagonist' and liberal crap but this guy was nowhere to be found when millions of Mass Effect fans were wondering why Bioware would release a Day One DLC with probably one of the most important characters in the franchise.

It is kinda strange. Based on games media at least, you'd think a third of the world is gay. Maybe that audiolog is metacommentary on how many gay gamers are fans of recording themselves speaking.

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous post I have seen on here so far. I think the overall message we're getting from this thread is " Nooo, I don't want to hear or see anything that could conflict with my own narrow-minded views of the world around me so please stop!! I don't want things to make me think!" lol Try acting like an adult and dealing with the fact that you share this planet with billions of other people, many of whom are not like you so you need to learn to accept that. Its a better options than spending all of your time screaming about the liberals, the minorities, the women, the gays, the non-christians and every other group you have issues with... I'm sorry to tell you but you are not the center of the universe.

Commander Shepard was in a day one DLC? Or are you talking about the pointless Javik?

@hailtothequeen:

well, I was trying to be ridiculous, but, oh well, not everything works, lol.

the point remains: selling liberalism isn't about tolerance and accepting of all views; liberalism is anything but. lol and not wanting forced liberalism in games isn't "narrow-minded" or "bigotry."

@udubdawgz1: Really? I'm pretty sure its almost always conservatives that want to create laws to discriminate against others. ;O)

@hailtothequeen:

lol, yes, you would be incorrect in that assumption. statists are the ones that force unconstitutional laws upon society.

@wiouds: Javik. Probably the most anticipated character in the whole trilogy. Bioware decided to release him as Day One DLC.

@HipHopBeats: He was so unimportant that I forgot his name and had to go through a few link to find him. The best argument you can make about him a ripoff is by saying what her gave to those that paid for it. The game did not improve one bit because of him and I would skip him if I play ME3 again to improve the game by just a bit.

No, conservative types of people have always hated the idea of equal rights for everyone. They fought against civil rights, women's rights and religious freedom (except for them) throughout U.S. history and still want to create laws to prevent LGBT people from gaining equal rights. And then consistently attack reproductive rights, even thought it was already settled as a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court and is supported by the majority of people. And they supported gutting the Voting Rights Act so they can try to prevent minorities from voting or at least make it as difficult as possible and justify it by claiming it was a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist. And religious conservatives want to place monuments on public property but get upset when atheists or other religions do it and attempt to stop them. Conservatives love big government as long as it doesn't have any affect on THEIR rights.

I'm gay, atheist, liberal and I agree with the original poster. Games should not be intentionally created for the sole purpose of showcasing a character's sexual orientation, religious beliefs or other attributes. Instead, they should just casually feature characters that happen to be gay or atheist or straight or whatever. Or not, if the developer chooses not to.

@hailtothequeen:

lol, I haven't read such blatant liberal revisionist ridiculousness in quite some time.

thanx for the morning laugh!

Oh really? I already know what your arguments will be but feel free to tell me which statements about CONSERVATIVES (not republicans) are not accurate. I'll be waiting to shred them with a little thing I like to call reality. ;O)

Which is harmless. Especially when he's just talking about it. This guy has a stage and he will use that stage to get his ideals across. As you said, it happens everywhere and all the time on all levels. If they feel strongly about something, people from all backgrounds will seize the opportunity if it presents itself. It's inevitable. If you're suggesting that using that stage somehow detracts from making good games, then you have Spartan standards. It's their job, they don't have to focus on making games all the time. There is no correlation between publicly pushing an agenda and making crappy games, even though you might perceive one in Bioware's (or more specifically Heir's) case. I get the feeling you're simply annoyed by this whole issue, without it actually being in any way seriously harmful (other than it leading to subjectively observed bad writing)...

Also, this is not just about pushing a liberal agenda and convincing other people to change their opinions, but it's also about supporting the minority in question, about letting that minority know there's someone in the business who made it and who tries to look out for them. As a matter of fact, if Heir's actually trying to influence people, then he's doing a pretty questionable job, because he's not really arguing why it's good to have minority characters, other than variety. He won't convince or influence anyone who didn't already agree with him.

Besides, what 'really matters' in gaming is not for you to decide. If Heir thinks otherwise and forces all kinds of messages into his games, then sales will tell how harmful those messages will be. And if the sales don't reflect the serious flaws you perceive, then I think you should blame the consumer for not caring enough about this agenda pushing..

Well, that's the problem right there. The original poster used an example (Cortez from Mass Effect 3) that arguably illustrated the blatant promotion of a gay character. I disagreed and thought it was rather casual and harmless. We both presented arguments and I wouldn't say one of us really won that discussion (judge that for yourself). So, when is something casual and when is it intentional? And if it is intentional (because some developer told you that in an interview), but it's casually presented, is it still bad?

Go by what Naughty Dog devs said with The Last of Us. It shouldn't matter because motivation is primary. What does the character want is always higher priority than who do they define as. The former defines the latter.

See if genuine motivations supersede one's sexual identity. The latter should not be the primary defining aspect of a character, otherwise, straight or gay, tbh who'd give a shit about their problems really? Any character regardless of their orientation can come off plastic or layered, look at how defined MGS villains or Silent Hill characters were. And better a smaller cast of resonant personalities than worlds upon worlds full of cardboard people.

In this case with hip-hop beats, Its just easier I guess for some to ignore gender politics, immerse and empathize with any character, when the game illustrates their motivations and conflicts with others first. Our internet wars sorta vanish, under the game and theres a bridging or understanding.

NOW when a character's seeking their sense of independence or sexual identity, and it becomes THE story, or an important part of it. thats how it can be front and center and folks with different views can still appreciate the movie, game or whatever.

@platinumking320: I'm not sure I understood everything you said, but can't motivations just aswell come off as plastic or layered? And could it be that certain motivations start off a little bit more plastic or layered, because their (direct and/or added) context is different?

My bad. by plastic I meant "two-dimensional" and layered as "three-dimensional". Great characters can have all sorts of motivations. Noble ones, grounded ones, naive ones, silly ones, evil ones etc. They can have shallow motivations, like greed, selfish ambition, desperate validation from others, nihilism and misanthropy and still be a very honest and powerful character that affects the plot. Even if they only give hints to their depth. You just have to get an idea what conditioned them.

Usually people complain when the motivations of a character don't fit them, or their state of mind, and that becomes more a sign of a broken 'character' than their motivations. Then you become suspicious and wonder if they were just tossed in as filler or, fan-service and cheap wank material or a focus group recommendation etc.

This reminds me of the thread over on Comicbookresources where some posters on the Avengers forum whined that Wiccan and Hulking's(Billy and Teddy) relationship was being shoved down their throats. I'll say the same thing here that I said over there. People who complain about this stuff only complain when it is a gay relationship being portrayed. You never see anyone complain that straight relationships are being shoved down their throats. Some people are gay and are culture is finally starting to reflect that. Get over it!

@platinumking320: That makes sense.

Oh man, how I would love to complain about that. ;-P Why do so many movies have to have this romantic and/or sexual tension between main characters of the opposite sex? These people fall in love with each other based on nothing but one being a man and the other being a woman. A lot of romances in movies are highly unnecessary and a waste of narrative time. I could also say that the way relationships develop in movies is highly unrealistic, but well, they're movies, so that one doesn't really fly.

@loafofgame: So true. Its cringeworthy at times. There is a lot of 'young love' wedged into popcorn entertainment w/o plot significance. But hey. That's commercialism.

I say if we're gonna boldly continue to sow hetero-porn into all of popular entertainment, its gotta have plot significance and be part of character development, and all the negative consequences that come with it.

mature cable TV dramas are 'usually' a better format for that stuff than movies anyways. Single player games actually have more time to frame realistic pairings than movies too, unfortunate that so many don't take advantage of that.

Movies usually have to frame believable pairings in-media res, and the romance still looks forced when written into other genres.

I strongly disagree. Gone Home was one of the most polarizing games I have ever seen, but reviewers that gave it a negative review received no such backlash. The only backlash I saw was the typical backlash that pretty much every video game review gets (both the good and bad reviews) when a typical immature gamer reads an opinion they don't agree with.

-Byshop