Hotline Miami 2 Devs Remove "Rape Scene" From Demo

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Again, from the devs themselves:

"We were really sad that some people were so affected by it, because maybe they had been through something like that of their own. Maybe they had a terrible experience of their own that was triggered by the game. That was not intentional at all. We didn't add the scene just to be controversial. There is a meaning to these two characters. There's a lot more to them than just this scene.

We removed it for the demo. We're going to work with it, see if we can fix it. You get a bigger picture when you play the whole game, which is lost in the demo of course."

There are no social justice warriors and no censorship. In including the scene without context the creators jumped the gun in a distasteful way, they realized this and decided to act more responsibly. That's all there is to it.

Maiev Shadowsong:
Murder is alien to most of us. It's removed from our reality. We only see it in movies and we don't comprehend it. But sex is natural. We all have it and almost all of us want it. Rape poisons that. Rape takes away something we all feel and understand: choice. Free will. Power. It's personal. It's horrifying. And it's relatable. You can't ever imagine being murdered. Most of us will never be affected by it. But you can imagine being pinned down, your clothes taken off, having someone on top of you, stealing from you, touching you, hurting you. You can imagine the screams. You can imagine the crying. It's painfully human.

I disagree.

Nay, I call bullshit.

Murder is merely an extremity of violence, and violence is not alien to us at all. No, none of us have experienced what it is like to be murdered because then we'd be dead. No, none of can imagine what it is like to be murdered because none of us know what it is like to be dead. However, there are plenty of people alive today that have witnessed murder. There are plenty of people who have been on the receiving end of attempted murder (hi!). There are many people who have been in violent situations where murder was a distinct possibility (hi again!). There are plenty of people who have had someone they know be murdered. These can all be intensely traumatic experiences.

You could argue that these people aren't "true" murder victims since they weren't actually killed, but that would be like saying that someone isn't a "true" rape victim unless they actually underwent full unwanted penetration, and I suspect you would take exception to that.

I would say there's a good chance that these people could be reminded of their experiences by witnessing violent media and become distressed as a result. In fact, I know for a fucking fact that they can. I personally know an aged ex-soldier who had PTSD and gets distinctly uncomfortable around some warfare themed video games. (It's the sounds that get to him, not the images. Some modern military shooters have very authentic sounding gunfire.)

If we're so concerned about the feelings of victims, then where is the concern for violence victims? Where is the "intensely profound" treatment of violence in video games and media in general?

...

All that said, I should make it clear that I am neither for nor against the inclusion of rape scenes in this game or any other. If the developers wished to include it, then I would say that is their choice. If they wished to remove it, either for fear of provoking unwanted controversy, upsetting victims or because they felt the criticism was valid, then I would say that too is there choice.

What I am against is the notion that the creators of media should avoid certain subjects or only approach them in a certain way because it might upset people who have had horrible experiences with that subject matter. Quite frankly it's on the victims to avoid it. I have nothing against helping them to do so. For example, I would be fine with games/movies/etc carrying warnings for 'sexual violence' or whatnot, same as they do for violence/drugs/etc.

Rutskarn:
Somehow I know how this is going to play out.

"Hey, look, I liked Hotline Miami a lot, but when I saw the demo...it brought back a lot of horrible things, alright? It made me relive the worst day of my life. I just thought you should know."

"Oh, shit, we didn't want to do that. I mean, we're fucking game makers. We want people to have fun, not relive trauma. Let's see if we can maybe rework it so it's less horrible."

Later:

Internet Hate Brigade: "WTFOMG TEH CENSORSHIPZ! STFU RAPE SURVIVORS, STOP DISCUSSING WHAT THINGS ARE LIKE FOR YOU"

So what if the hyper-violent parts of the game make me relive the day I was savagely beaten by a crackhead with a knife? Does that mean we should remove the violence, or that I shouldn't play the game? Because I don't see anyone advocating for removing the violence on behalf of the victims of brutal assault or attempted murder (or the family/friends of murder victims), so I would assume the general consensus is "just don't play the game". Why does that not apply to rape?

Wait wait wait, it is removed FROM THE DEMO, right? As in, removed because it was out of context.
But it WILL be in full game (maybe changed a bit, "fixed" as they call it), right?

If so, i fully agree. It was bad marketing - they wanted shock, they got shock. more than they can handle.

Im not a fan of removing content because it could "hurt people's feelings". There are people who survived mugging, do you think they call for censorship of all violence? Do you think they protest GTA releases?

Well
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsASpecialKindOfEvil

So. Alright. I guess it will be better when put into the context of the whole story. You can't really relive the experience of being killed, so I'm fine with this re-working going through. Rape is really hard to write well, to give it the necessary impact and gravity that it requires.

Spaec:
Again, from the devs themselves:

"We were really sad that some people were so affected by it, because maybe they had been through something like that of their own. Maybe they had a terrible experience of their own that was triggered by the game. That was not intentional at all. We didn't add the scene just to be controversial. There is a meaning to these two characters. There's a lot more to them than just this scene.

We removed it for the demo. We're going to work with it, see if we can fix it. You get a bigger picture when you play the whole game, which is lost in the demo of course."

There are no social justice warriors and no censorship. In including the scene without context the creators jumped the gun in a distasteful way, they realized this and decided to act more responsibly. That's all there is to it.

No censorship? People campaigned to get it removed from the demo, and it worked. In what way is that not censorship? The devs didn't do anything irresponsible by creating their product the way they wanted it be. Rape is a terrible thing, but it happens. And it's irresponsible to look away from the issue and pretend its not real.

But that's exactly what people are doing, it offends them, so they demand it be swept under the rug to accommodate them. If some people find it so hard to deal with, then they shouldn't play the game. This is an unfortunate casualty of censorship, and it makes me sad.

Honestly I thought the developer's were better than this, they shouldn't have caved to social pressure.

Did people forget that the protagonists of Hotline Miami aren't supposed to be likeable people? That's like complaining that Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull was an asshole. In this game I popped a man's eyes with my thumbs. I poured boiling water down people's throats. Rape wouldn't be crossing the line; it would on par and in character.

Also, cactus is a genius when it comes to this kind of stuff. I trust that if he has a rape scene, it adds to the whole of the piece.

In this thread: idiots on both sides throwing strawman arguments left and right.

Not even gonna say which side I'm on, because I don't want to be associated with either after reading this thread.

It's up to the developers. Buy the game, don't buy the game, it's up to you. Vote with your wallet, it's the only thing that will ever make an impact, for better or worse.

Has anyone REMOTELY considered the blunt and irrefutable fact that this is not at all a game that has any true positivity in it in the first place, unlike they prove otherwise?

In the older game, I slowly walked over beaten, bashed, mutilated, and violated corpses every mission with absolutely no remorse or guilt. There is no glorification or trivializing of any negative aspect of society here.
Its the equal of complaining about Clockwork Orange's rape.
Now in the demo, I see the removal easily. It lacks no context and comes off as offensive for offensive's sake. If its gone in the actual game though....I call shenanigans.

As far as I know Hotline Miami is kind of travel down the insane persons psyche as that person breaks down more and more. Morally reprehensible actions are something like barometer of his psychic state. I have even heard that whole game is intended to be his own construct created by dialogues of his fractured personalities and never happened in real life. In that setting out of context rape would make perfect sense.

Never played the game though.

thenoblitt:
its called artistic expression, things like this dont get changed in other forms of art, but why video games?

The same reason you don't let a 13 year old drive on the freeway. Because they're bad at it, and they'll probably hurt someone.

All other mediums have proven that they can handle these serious subjects in a mature and meaningful way. Video games have yet to get past the phase of "Look, I put a rape scene in my game, that automatically makes it serious and grown-up, right? C'mon, I even played some classical music over it."

Maiev Shadowsong:
From the rest of the interview, it sounds like they are trying to push things and be controversial, but don't want to go too far into shock horror and make it obvious that it's all they've got. It comes off very, very fake and attention seeking. It reads like a well rehearsed lie that's dripping in insincerity and skeevy charm.

Murder and rape are not the same.

Stop complaining that murder is okay in video games and rape isn't. You will probably never murder someone. You will probably never know a murder victim. You will know a rape survivor. You will probably see multiple rape survivors every day.

For any medium of engagement to handle rape, it needs to be done with extreme care and consideration. It's not a check box, it's not bullet point, it's not a tool, it's not an effect and it's not a scene. It is intensely profound.

Yeah... I'm gonna stand here and call bullshit on this one.

I do know murder victims. They're the surviving loved ones of someone that was taken away from them suddenly and unjustly. You can't put the sliding scale of what's worse on shit, cause I know a greiving mother that it kills her everyday that her child was taken from her by a drunk driver. Would you really stand to tell her her pain and her loss is less than a rape victim? No you wouldn't, cause that's dick.

Bad shit is bad shit.

SaneAmongInsane:

Maiev Shadowsong:
From the rest of the interview, it sounds like they are trying to push things and be controversial, but don't want to go too far into shock horror and make it obvious that it's all they've got. It comes off very, very fake and attention seeking. It reads like a well rehearsed lie that's dripping in insincerity and skeevy charm.

Murder and rape are not the same.

Stop complaining that murder is okay in video games and rape isn't. You will probably never murder someone. You will probably never know a murder victim. You will know a rape survivor. You will probably see multiple rape survivors every day.

For any medium of engagement to handle rape, it needs to be done with extreme care and consideration. It's not a check box, it's not bullet point, it's not a tool, it's not an effect and it's not a scene. It is intensely profound.

Yeah... I'm gonna stand here and call bullshit on this one.

I do know murder victims. They're the surviving loved ones of someone that was taken away from them suddenly and unjustly. You can't put the sliding scale of what's worse on shit, cause I know a greiving mother that it kills her everyday that her child was taken from her by a drunk driver. Would you really stand to tell her her pain and her loss is less than a rape victim? No you wouldn't, cause that's dick.

Bad shit is bad shit.

This. There are plenty of terrible things that happen to human beings as the result of other human beings doing things they shouldn't. Sometimes....storytellers take advantage of those situations or the feelings that they inspire to create tension or drama. These are instances of emotional scarring that people remember years or even decades later. Some of them have similar tragic elements.

Where would we be without being able to go to those places and do those things? Much of the art I find that sticks with me comes from a dark place and reminds me of things I'd rather forget. But I'm glad those pieces of art went there, I'm glad they were able to shock, surprise, or inspire thought. I want them to be able to affect others. We wouldn't say that exploring these ideas is a bad thing in any other scenario except this one, and that, to me, shows how bad this whole thing has become.

I kinda hate both sides of this one more then the other but mostly I think the dev's need to be ashamed. This part isn't in the demo because it's a major part of the game they say, it's there to cause controversy get attention and in the end sell more copies of the game. Now not to say this shouldn't be in the game, but it shouldn't be the end of the demo, cutting out dramatically.

Really this shouldn't have to be a conversation we should be having over this type of game. A game like the first one easily purchasable and what not. While I do agree that anyone rather be dead then raped is completely and utterly wrong. Also that because you went through something your opinion Doesn't matter any more then someone's that hasn't went through it ((if you know anything about law their is an BIG difference between an witness and an expert witness.))

It's really something we aren't in the right place, the right scene to have an argument about. If they want this in their game, good for them, it's their art and ya it should be protected. But I have to ask, oh where or where, is the GOD DAMN ADULT'S ONLY RATING!

Why do we have this rating if it's not going to be used! Sexual Violence should be a no-brainer for this. This game deserves it from the demo and even tho AO is basically a kiss of death to a game and banned out of countries, Thats how you advertised your game.

We shouldn't have to argue our heads off because really this crap shouldn't be center table, this isn't for kids, this isn't for mature kids, this is ADULT.

Olikar:

HalloHerrNoob:

Pressured by whom?
If customers said they wouldnt buy the game (or sth. like that which I guess happened) how is that censorship? They cant force them to, but they have the right to express their opinion....or should they be forced to support the game?

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body"

....so no censorship happened. I rest my case.

Clearly you don't understand what censorship is, people applying pressure on an artist to remove content from his art due to their own social and political values is censorship. If people had said they simply wouldn't buy the game then that would have been acceptable and wouldn't have been a call for censorship but a market action based on personal taste, but that certainly wasn't the case and certain people very clearly asked the developers to remove content because it offended them, which is censorship.

But this is how the free market is supposed to work. How can you have a free market if the consumers aren't allowed to express their opinions/concerns about a product they don't like/find objectionable.

This is how freedom works. People are free to say and do things you don't like/agree with, and you have to deal with it. You are free to say and do things other people don't like, and you have to deal with the consequences. Even if that just means not giving a shit.

No matter which way you slice it, the developers had a choice to keep the scene in or not. Unless you have a crystal ball you don't have definitive knowledge of what would happen if they didn't respond to feedback. They responded in the way they felt was best. It was their decision. It was never yours.

Let's try an experiment:

You, Olikar, should stop posting on forums. I am asking you to stop. I am asking for your content to be removed.

Have you been censored? Are you oppressed? Or are you just as free as you were a second ago to do whatever you damned well pleased, barring breaking already established laws?

Mossberg Shotty:

Spaec:
Again, from the devs themselves:

"We were really sad that some people were so affected by it, because maybe they had been through something like that of their own. Maybe they had a terrible experience of their own that was triggered by the game. That was not intentional at all. We didn't add the scene just to be controversial. There is a meaning to these two characters. There's a lot more to them than just this scene.

We removed it for the demo. We're going to work with it, see if we can fix it. You get a bigger picture when you play the whole game, which is lost in the demo of course."

There are no social justice warriors and no censorship. In including the scene without context the creators jumped the gun in a distasteful way, they realized this and decided to act more responsibly. That's all there is to it.

No censorship? People campaigned to get it removed from the demo, and it worked. In what way is that not censorship? The devs didn't do anything irresponsible by creating their product the way they wanted it be. Rape is a terrible thing, but it happens. And it's irresponsible to look away from the issue and pretend its not real.

But that's exactly what people are doing, it offends them, so they demand it be swept under the rug to accommodate them. If some people find it so hard to deal with, then they shouldn't play the game. This is an unfortunate casualty of censorship, and it makes me sad.

Honestly I thought the developer's were better than this, they shouldn't have caved to social pressure.

There needs to be a mass internet campaign to educate people on what "censorship" actually is. This is in no way censorship; in fact, it's 100% the result of people exercising their freedom of speech. The devs were free to make their game, people were free to speak up and say that they were bothered by the game, and the devs were free to make the change. No one is being forced to do anything.

Censorship is when a government (or, if you want to be more general, anyone in a position of power) restricts speech; aka, they make it so that you are not allowed to say something. Rape victims are not in a position of power, and they are not preventing anyone from doing anything.

This is like, if I asked you politely to maybe help me move my couch, and you responded with "I'm not your slave! Stop forcing me to do whatever you say!"

bobleponge:
There needs to be a mass internet campaign to educate people on what "censorship" actually is. This is in no way censorship; in fact, it's 100% the result of people exercising their freedom of speech. The devs were free to make their game, people were free to speak up and say that they were bothered by the game, and the devs were free to make the change. No one is being forced to do anything.

Censorship is when a government (or, if you want to be more general, anyone in a position of power) restricts speech; aka, they make it so that you are not allowed to say something. Rape victims are not in a position of power, and they are not preventing anyone from doing anything.

This is like, if I asked you politely to maybe help me move my couch, and you responded with "I'm not your slave! Stop forcing me to do whatever you say!"

That's not really the case, in fact most censorship doesn't stem from any governmental position or people with authority at all but from an ingrained idea that "you are not supposed to say/depict that", here let George Orwell explain: http://www.orwell.ru/library/novels/Animal_Farm/english/efp_go

Any fairminded person with journalistic experience will admit that during this war official censorship has not been particularly irksome. We have not been subjected to the kind of totalitarian 'co-ordination' that it might have been reasonable to expect. The press has some justified grievances, but on the whole the Government has behaved well and has been surprisingly tolerant of minority opinions. The sinister fact about literary censorship in England is that it is largely voluntary.

Unpopular ideas can be silenced, and inconvenient facts kept dark, without the need for any official ban. Anyone who has lived long in a foreign country will know of instances of sensational items of news - things which on their own merits would get the big headlines-being kept right out of the British press, not because the Government intervened but because of a general tacit agreement that 'it wouldn't do' to mention that particular fact. So far as the daily newspapers go, this is easy to understand. The British press is extremely centralised, and most of it is owned by wealthy men who have every motive to be dishonest on certain important topics. But the same kind of veiled censorship also operates in books and periodicals, as well as in plays, films and radio. At any given moment there is an orthodoxy, a body of ideas which it is assumed that all right-thinking people will accept without question. It is not exactly forbidden to say this, that or the other, but it is 'not done' to say it, just as in mid-Victorian times it was 'not done' to mention trousers in the presence of a lady. Anyone who challenges the prevailing orthodoxy finds himself silenced with surprising effectiveness. A genuinely unfashionable opinion is almost never given a fair hearing, either in the popular press or in the highbrow periodicals.

bobleponge:

Mossberg Shotty:

Spaec:
Again, from the devs themselves:

"We were really sad that some people were so affected by it, because maybe they had been through something like that of their own. Maybe they had a terrible experience of their own that was triggered by the game. That was not intentional at all. We didn't add the scene just to be controversial. There is a meaning to these two characters. There's a lot more to them than just this scene.

We removed it for the demo. We're going to work with it, see if we can fix it. You get a bigger picture when you play the whole game, which is lost in the demo of course."

There are no social justice warriors and no censorship. In including the scene without context the creators jumped the gun in a distasteful way, they realized this and decided to act more responsibly. That's all there is to it.

No censorship? People campaigned to get it removed from the demo, and it worked. In what way is that not censorship? The devs didn't do anything irresponsible by creating their product the way they wanted it be. Rape is a terrible thing, but it happens. And it's irresponsible to look away from the issue and pretend its not real.

But that's exactly what people are doing, it offends them, so they demand it be swept under the rug to accommodate them. If some people find it so hard to deal with, then they shouldn't play the game. This is an unfortunate casualty of censorship, and it makes me sad.

Honestly I thought the developer's were better than this, they shouldn't have caved to social pressure.

There needs to be a mass internet campaign to educate people on what "censorship" actually is. This is in no way censorship; in fact, it's 100% the result of people exercising their freedom of speech. The devs were free to make their game, people were free to speak up and say that they were bothered by the game, and the devs were free to make the change. No one is being forced to do anything.

Censorship is when a government (or, if you want to be more general, anyone in a position of power) restricts speech; aka, they make it so that you are not allowed to say something. Rape victims are not in a position of power, and they are not preventing anyone from doing anything.

This is like, if I asked you politely to maybe help me move my couch, and you responded with "I'm not your slave! Stop forcing me to do whatever you say!"

It just so happens that this instance 'freedom of speech' is telling people what they can't put into their work, which is suppressing the dev's freedom of speech, in a way. I'm not downplaying the importance of freedom of speech, but I think freedom of creativity is just as important.

I think someone already brought up the whole Orwellian angle, so I'll skip that part. But if you think that only government officials or other people in positions of power have the ability to censor something, you're quite wrong. The greying herds of society are the ones who are constantly trying to strike things from the record because they consider something offensive. Yes, rape is an inflammatory thing, and it's a ballsy move to feature a rape scene in a game, but I believe that the developers have every right to make their product as they see fit, and I just have to trust that they'll do it tastefully and for the right reasons.

And for the record, I was going to help you move your couch, but now I just don't know...

Jarimir:

Olikar:

HalloHerrNoob:

Pressured by whom?
If customers said they wouldnt buy the game (or sth. like that which I guess happened) how is that censorship? They cant force them to, but they have the right to express their opinion....or should they be forced to support the game?

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body"

....so no censorship happened. I rest my case.

Clearly you don't understand what censorship is, people applying pressure on an artist to remove content from his art due to their own social and political values is censorship. If people had said they simply wouldn't buy the game then that would have been acceptable and wouldn't have been a call for censorship but a market action based on personal taste, but that certainly wasn't the case and certain people very clearly asked the developers to remove content because it offended them, which is censorship.

But this is how the free market is supposed to work. How can you have a free market if the consumers aren't allowed to express their opinions/concerns about a product they don't like/find objectionable.

This is how freedom works. People are free to say and do things you don't like/agree with, and you have to deal with it. You are free to say and do things other people don't like, and you have to deal with the consequences. Even if that just means not giving a shit.

No matter which way you slice it, the developers had a choice to keep the scene in or not. Unless you have a crystal ball you don't have definitive knowledge of what would happen if they didn't respond to feedback. They responded in the way they felt was best. It was their decision. It was never yours.

Let's try an experiment:

You, Olikar, should stop posting on forums. I am asking you to stop. I am asking for your content to be removed.

Have you been censored? Are you oppressed? Or are you just as free as you were a second ago to do whatever you damned well pleased, barring breaking already established laws?

Sure its not technically censorship because the government didn't get involved but if large pressure groups come together and start pestering or harassing the creator to change their product that is in a way censorship you can never tell if the creator is changing due to a change of heart or as a response due to large backlash because of a knee jerk audience and nowadays its becoming even worse and more frequent.

A better example would be you got many people to constantly tell Olikar to stop posting and to ask for his or her's content to be removed

Mossberg Shotty:

bobleponge:

Mossberg Shotty:

No censorship? People campaigned to get it removed from the demo, and it worked. In what way is that not censorship? The devs didn't do anything irresponsible by creating their product the way they wanted it be. Rape is a terrible thing, but it happens. And it's irresponsible to look away from the issue and pretend its not real.

But that's exactly what people are doing, it offends them, so they demand it be swept under the rug to accommodate them. If some people find it so hard to deal with, then they shouldn't play the game. This is an unfortunate casualty of censorship, and it makes me sad.

Honestly I thought the developer's were better than this, they shouldn't have caved to social pressure.

There needs to be a mass internet campaign to educate people on what "censorship" actually is. This is in no way censorship; in fact, it's 100% the result of people exercising their freedom of speech. The devs were free to make their game, people were free to speak up and say that they were bothered by the game, and the devs were free to make the change. No one is being forced to do anything.

Censorship is when a government (or, if you want to be more general, anyone in a position of power) restricts speech; aka, they make it so that you are not allowed to say something. Rape victims are not in a position of power, and they are not preventing anyone from doing anything.

This is like, if I asked you politely to maybe help me move my couch, and you responded with "I'm not your slave! Stop forcing me to do whatever you say!"

It just so happens that this instance 'freedom of speech' is telling people what they can't put into their work, which is suppressing the dev's freedom of speech, in a way. I'm not downplaying the importance of freedom of speech, but I think freedom of creativity is just as important.

I think someone already brought up the whole Orwellian angle, so I'll skip that part. But if you think that only government officials or other people in positions of power have the ability to censor something, you're quite wrong. The greying herds of society are the ones who are constantly trying to strike things from the record because they consider something offensive. Yes, rape is an inflammatory thing, and it's a ballsy move to feature a rape scene in a game, but I believe that the developers have every right to make their product as they see fit, and I just have to trust that they'll do it tastefully and for the right reasons.

And for the record, I was going to help you move your couch, but now I just don't know...

Again, "telling people what they can or can't put in their work" is protected free speech. That's someone expressing their opinion about something. You're telling people that they can't express themselves this way; you're doing exactly what you're criticizing. You're trying to limit the freedom of expression of the scene's opponents, because it offends you.

wulf3n:

Maiev Shadowsong:
You will probably never know a murder victim. You will know a rape survivor. You will probably see multiple rape survivors every day.

I know more murder victims than I do rape survivors.

Because what people tend to forget is that a single murder has many victims.

The Mother and Father that lose a child.
The person that loses a sibling.
The child that loses a parent.
The person who loses a friend.

Not to forget those that may be unfortunate enough to witness said murder. Seeing someone laying on the ground half their head missing severely traumatizes a lot of people.

Sure Murder and Rape aren't the same thing. But don't try and play one up as worse than the other.

Do you honestly believe that it's not the same rape survivors? (by the way I'm glad you knew to use the term survivor instead of victim). I'm not trying to provoke you or anything, I'm just asking because you only addressed murder in your answer, but also implied that it's somehow different for rape survivors.

I've posted several other responses on similar topics, because sharing my experiences can maybe help people understand. I am a survivor of a sexual assault, but what happened to me also victimized the people I care about, my father, who has to live with an ungodly amount of anger every day, so was my mother, who knows that no matter what she does she can't help me deal with it. My girlfriend is a survivor, we give each other strength.

As for the presence of the scene in the demo? It came out of nowhere, didn't seem to be relevant for anything other than shock value, and yet I can still see the value of it. The point of the "movie" levels in hotline miami 2 seems to be that seen from a different perspective, Jacket's actions in the first game were right out of a horror movie. I remember reading the newspaper clipping after the level "decadence" in the first game, it went something like, movie producer found dead in villa, unidentified female abducted from the scene. If I read something like that in a newspaper, I would jump to that conclusion too. So for the purposes of the FULL game and it's narrative, it makes sense. This is the director's perspective of Jacket's actions. But for the purposes of the demo, it seems unnecessary and It did make me uncomfortable, simply because I hadn't thought about it yet and connected it to a context I could understand. In the end I want the artists to include anything that they think will help tell their story, I'll still play it, I love Hotline Miami, but perhaps including that scene without context was in poor taste.

Rape is an incredibly, heinously invasive act, and can be used in media to very powerful effect. But it's so hard to handle well, it's always going to make those of us who have suffered through a similar experience very uncomfortable, but it can have value. So in the end it's a question of balance, is it worth it to include something that powerful that will alienate a portion of your audience? A tragically large portion at that, you won't know it, but you interect with rape survivors everyday, among your friends, coworkers, and family.

Azure23:

wulf3n:

Maiev Shadowsong:
You will probably never know a murder victim. You will know a rape survivor. You will probably see multiple rape survivors every day.

I know more murder victims than I do rape survivors.

Because what people tend to forget is that a single murder has many victims.

The Mother and Father that lose a child.
The person that loses a sibling.
The child that loses a parent.
The person who loses a friend.

Not to forget those that may be unfortunate enough to witness said murder. Seeing someone laying on the ground half their head missing severely traumatizes a lot of people.

Sure Murder and Rape aren't the same thing. But don't try and play one up as worse than the other.

Do you honestly believe that it's not the same rape survivors? (by the way I'm glad you knew to use the term survivor instead of victim). I'm not trying to provoke you or anything, I'm just asking because you only addressed murder in your answer, but also implied that it's somehow different for rape survivors.

I've posted several other responses on similar topics, because sharing my experiences can maybe help people understand. I am a survivor of a sexual assault, but what happened to me also victimized the people I care about, my father, who has to live with an ungodly amount of anger every day, so was my mother, who knows that no matter what she does she can't help me deal with it. My girlfriend is a survivor, we give each other strength.

I wasn't implying the only victim of rape is the person being raped. I only addressed murder because those that try to claim rape is worse than murder tend to argue that it's because the victim is dead, not realising that a victim is not just the immediately offended party.

Guys....they released a demo of a RAPE.....WITHOUT CONTEXT.......that's just bad planning, horrible planning, AWFUL planning, who thought the unanimously declared sin without possible justification would be good to have without context to advertise their game, I wasn't gonna buy it, but anyone that stupid can't be trusted with my money, GOOD DAY SIR.

Dante dynamite:

Sure its not technically censorship because the government didn't get involved but if large pressure groups come together and start pestering or harassing the creator to change their product that is in a way censorship you can never tell if the creator is changing due to a change of heart or as a response due to large backlash because of a knee jerk audience and nowadays its becoming even worse and more frequent.

A better example would be you got many people to constantly tell Olikar to stop posting and to ask for his or her's content to be removed

The article only mentions "considerable criticism". In fact every thread that I have read that echoes with "TEH FEMINAZIS R TAKIN MAH GAYMZ!" has only been in response to criticism. I have yet to hear of an organized "pressure group" being brought up in these discussions of "there is too much sexualization" or "we'd like to see more games that don't just pander to the hetero male demographic". You'd think "pressure groups" calling for banning or restricting games would be prime fodder for the opponents of these criticisms and expressions. Unless you can show me that a "pressure group" has been involved in this particular instance, I don't know how relevant it is.

Relegating criticism as "oppressive censorship" seems to be a very efficient way of shutting down other people's ideas, expressions, and opinions. And, therefore, is ALSO censorship under the broader definition of censorship people are clinging to in this thread.

"You/they cant say that because it might/does lead to censorship."

I don't know how things are "getting worse". Except for actually participating in rape or the murder of children, just about every other despicable human act can be repeated in a video game. *Ever play "Escape from Neverland"? Criticism has come and gone, and you still have your GTA's, Saints Row, and Miami Hotline, etc. which will still have a rape scene according to the last thing any of us has heard from the creators. The only thing that has gotten worse is that thanks to social media you are exposed to more people's opinions, criticisms, and expressions more often.

It's ironic when one side of this debate accuses the other side of overreacting when they are currently tearing up the countryside on a wild horse called "Speculation" screaming things like "What if!?" and "Oppression!"

*Now that I mention "Escape from Neverland" where you play as Michael Jackson using tasers and other "less than lethal" means to capture kids trying to escape from his ranch; I also recall a game where you play as a catholic priest trying to find new and inventive ways to throw parents off of the fact that you are molesting their child. These were fairly low-quality Flash-based games you played on a web browser so maybe they somehow don't count in this context. I dunno.

NeedsaBetterName22:

thejackyl:

Another thing I would like to point out (As someone no doubt had already done before me, but I'm saying it again.) One can justify murder, but I doubt anyone can justify rape.

One cannot justify murder. One can justify killing in self-defense, but it is morally repulsive to consider murder a justified offense. Objectively, killing in self-defense IS NOT murder, by any legal or moral definition. The word you're looking for is homicide, and in the context of self-defense it can be seen as 'justified homicide'. But murder is a malicious act of violence that terminates the life of another individual.

Ok, this is bugging me so I [I]have/I] to respond (now that I can formulate a coherent argument about it).

Murder is only murder if it is against the law. But in some places it can be against the law to kill someone in self-defense. In a place like Somalia, there is no effective rule of law, so technically NO KILLING is murder there.

All this points to the fact that "murder" is a subjective term, yet you keep trying to apply it objectively. Morals are subjective as well, so trying to define murder under morality isn't going to get you any closer to objectivity.

Also, your definition of murder doesn't show up in my dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder?s=t

bobleponge:

Again, "telling people what they can or can't put in their work" is protected free speech. That's someone expressing their opinion about something. You're telling people that they can't express themselves this way; you're doing exactly what you're criticizing. You're trying to limit the freedom of expression of the scene's opponents, because it offends you.

I'm not even going to try to assume what level of irony you're operating on. Nowhere did I command the politically-correct crusaders should stop what they're doing, I'm simply pointing out that its an act of censorship. Which it is. But you're right about it offending me. But unlike the out-criers, I don't demand that the world bend to my will, to accommodate my over-sensitivity.

But you want to order the developers not to include something in their product, and then accuse me of oppressing free speech when I point out that it's a completely bullshit thing to do, even when I'm doing no such thing, or telling anyone what they can't say?

You're obviously content to point your fingers in every direction, but the developers have done nothing wrong, and the fact that some people have the audacity to tell them what they can and can't include is sickening.

Jarimir:

Dante dynamite:

Sure its not technically censorship because the government didn't get involved but if large pressure groups come together and start pestering or harassing the creator to change their product that is in a way censorship you can never tell if the creator is changing due to a change of heart or as a response due to large backlash because of a knee jerk audience and nowadays its becoming even worse and more frequent.

A better example would be you got many people to constantly tell Olikar to stop posting and to ask for his or her's content to be removed

The article only mentions "considerable criticism". In fact every thread that I have read that echoes with "TEH FEMINAZIS R TAKIN MAH GAYMZ!" has only been in response to criticism. I have yet to hear of an organized "pressure group" being brought up in these discussions of "there is too much sexualization" or "we'd like to see more games that don't just pander to the hetero male demographic". You'd think "pressure groups" calling for banning or restricting games would be prime fodder for the opponents of these criticisms and expressions. Unless you can show me that a "pressure group" has been involved in this particular instance, I don't know how relevant it is.

Relegating criticism as "oppressive censorship" seems to be a very efficient way of shutting down other people's ideas, expressions, and opinions. And, therefore, is ALSO censorship under the broader definition of censorship people are clinging to in this thread.

"You/they cant say that because it might/does lead to censorship."

I don't know how things are "getting worse". Except for actually participating in rape or the murder of children, just about every other despicable human act can be repeated in a video game. *Ever play "Escape from Neverland"? Criticism has come and gone, and you still have your GTA's, Saints Row, and Miami Hotline, etc. which will still have a rape scene according to the last thing any of us has heard from the creators. The only thing that has gotten worse is that thanks to social media you are exposed to more people's opinions, criticisms, and expressions more often.

It's ironic when one side of this debate accuses the other side of overreacting when they are currently tearing up the countryside on a wild horse called "Speculation" screaming things like "What if!?" and "Oppression!"

*Now that I mention "Escape from Neverland" where you play as Michael Jackson using tasers and other "less than lethal" means to capture kids trying to escape from his ranch; I also recall a game where you play as a catholic priest trying to find new and inventive ways to throw parents off of the fact that you are molesting their child. These were fairly low-quality Flash-based games you played on a web browser so maybe they somehow don't count in this context. I dunno.

Whoa calm down and I'm also a little offended by that its only because of social media I perceive that the problem is worse thing and that "TEH FEMINAZIS R TAKIN MAH GAYMZ" thing as well no need to be such a dick about it.

Firstly I use pressure groups in the business sense

Non-profit and usually voluntary organization/group whose members have a common cause for which they seek to influence political or corporate decision makers to achieve a declared objective. Whereas interest groups try to defend a cause (maintain the status quo), the pressure groups try to promote it (change the status quo).

technically by asking for more females that aren't sexualised you are part of a pressure group and there is nothing wrong with that in fact industries need pressure groups or else they more often then not will act unethically. I commend you for it and agree with you on the women in games thing. (Wasn't there like some sort of organizing of getting signatures to change the demo or something?)

What I mean by its getting worse is that the topic has become to a significant degree toxic with discussions full of all sorts of fighting amongst people and a slew of overreactions such as no offense yourself and even more completely moronic arguments with no one ever willing to come to any form of compromise or agreement. You also see much more social justice warriors jumping at everything for example Hideo Kojima's (did i spell that right?) comment on cosplayers people made a big stink about that if any other metal gear was released during these "troublesome" times it would probably receive just as much shit regardless that it has been doing that sort of things since the beginning. You've got feminazis and NRA nuts crawling out of woodwork making everyone look like assholes and there's like a feminism thread every other day on most gaming websites.

Game creators may think that they can't do what they want due to fear of backlash but that's for many aspects.

Also that "you still have your GTA's" argument is getting old especially since I wasn't talking about anyone taking games away its just the dumbass mentality of never just sometimes letting things be. Not everything needs to turn into a shitstorm this is the problem I mostly have with these discussions they do nothing but make people fight and make the community bitter.

Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world that WANTS TO SEE WHAT PURPOSE THE SCENE ACTUALLY SERVES BEFORE DECIDING ON IT

I'm so sick of seeing both "you can't have rape in games" (because PTSD is only a problem for rape victims, apparently. Yeah, it's totally not a problem for soldiers or anything) and "they can do whatever because it's art."

Have people complaining about the scene actually played the original Hotline Miami? If not, here's a basic summary: It was brutally violent but at it's core it was questioning that violence and the justification for it in videogames. It wasn't just shocking violence for the hell of it. For now I'm working on the assumption that HLM2 does something similar, so the possibility that this scene truly is important to the narrative as a whole isn't something that should be ignored.

Hopefully the developers don't prove me wrong

Here is, I think, the difference between killing in games, and rape in games. Let's say that you're a soldier with PTSD, and graphic violence is very emotionally upsetting to you. For you, it's pretty easy to avoid games with graphic violence; games like Hotline Miami are pretty obviously about killing a lot of people. If this bothers you, you can easily avoid it.

Now, let's say that you're a rape survivor, and scenes of graphic sexual violence are very emotionally upsetting to you; however, regular violence is not. You can play shooters and whatnot all day long and you'll be fine. If HLM2 didn't have a rape scene, you could enjoy it to your heart's content; but it does, and you can't. It's up to the developers to prove that the rape scene is actually worthwhile, because if it isn't, they're preventing a large portion of their audience of enjoying their game for no good reason. The demo made it seem like this was the case, which is not what the developers intended, and is why they changed it.

Jarimir:

Ok, this is bugging me so I [I]have/I] to respond (now that I can formulate a coherent argument about it).

Murder is only murder if it is against the law. But in some places it can be against the law to kill someone in self-defense. In a place like Somalia, there is no effective rule of law, so technically NO KILLING is murder there.

All this points to the fact that "murder" is a subjective term, yet you keep trying to apply it objectively. Morals are subjective as well, so trying to define murder under morality isn't going to get you any closer to objectivity.

Also, your definition of murder doesn't show up in my dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder?s=t

I'm not quite sure if you're bringing this up in the context of the 'differences between killing and rape' scenario, but if that is the case, then rape is only rape if it is against the law as well (thus, examples such as rape as an institutionalized psychological tactic in warfare in the Congo is not immoral or illegal, and I really don't think we want to use that argument). This also applies to your 'morals are purely subjective' argument. Also as an aside I have no idea where you're getting this 'Somalia has no laws' nonsense. Somalia is ruled by numerous warlords and they do enforce a form of conduct that can be considered an (entirely arbitrary) legal structure.

Also, if you're going to argue for a legal structure being the only standard for murder, then you can't pull out a simplistic dictionary definition as an actual objective definition, because as you said, 'morals are subjective'. I really have no idea what you're arguing because these two points are logical fallacies when argued together. Also, you assume that the state is a moral entity and that its laws establish moral principles, which is a whole discussion (and very much a 'chicken or egg' scenario). Assuming that moral and legal principles are one and the same is a leap in logic and the subject of much historical debate.

And you assume the 'morals are subjective' argument when that's been a major philosophical discussion for thousands of years. One argument based on fallacies and assumptions does not discredit this.

I guess what I'm saying is I need further explanation of your argument, because it's completely incoherent at present time. You can argue for a subjective moral standard but you need WAY more philosophical backing and less circular reasoning ('morals are subjective because of laws and laws establish morals therefore morals are subjective' is the new 'The Bible says God is all powerful and the Bible was written by God therefore God is all powerful' apparently).

NeedsaBetterName22:

Jarimir:

Ok, this is bugging me so I [I]have/I] to respond (now that I can formulate a coherent argument about it).

Murder is only murder if it is against the law. But in some places it can be against the law to kill someone in self-defense. In a place like Somalia, there is no effective rule of law, so technically NO KILLING is murder there.

All this points to the fact that "murder" is a subjective term, yet you keep trying to apply it objectively. Morals are subjective as well, so trying to define murder under morality isn't going to get you any closer to objectivity.

Also, your definition of murder doesn't show up in my dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder?s=t

I'm not quite sure if you're bringing this up in the context of the 'differences between killing and rape' scenario, but if that is the case, then rape is only rape if it is against the law as well (thus, examples such as rape as an institutionalized psychological tactic in warfare in the Congo is not immoral or illegal, and I really don't think we want to use that argument). This also applies to your 'morals are purely subjective' argument. Also as an aside I have no idea where you're getting this 'Somalia has no laws' nonsense. Somalia is ruled by numerous warlords and they do enforce a form of conduct that can be considered an (entirely arbitrary) legal structure.

Also, if you're going to argue for a legal structure being the only standard for murder, then you can't pull out a simplistic dictionary definition as an actual objective definition, because as you said, 'morals are subjective'. I really have no idea what you're arguing because these two points are logical fallacies when argued together. Also, you assume that the state is a moral entity and that its laws establish moral principles, which is a whole discussion (and very much a 'chicken or egg' scenario). Assuming that moral and legal principles are one and the same is a leap in logic and the subject of much historical debate.

I have to disagree. Rape is forced intercourse/penetration against the will of the target of that force. The will of a/the person can operate and exist independently of the rule or enforcement of law.

The definition of murder on the other hand is dependent on the rule of law. For instance, self defense is considered murder in some areas especially under other considerations, like the "stand your ground" law or it's opposite. In Texas you can use deadly force to defend your property after dark. The neutral term "homicide" with it's varying qualifiers would be a much better "catch all" term for describing the various states in which one person can be found at fault for causing the death of another.

Perhaps a better statement I could have used would be "Morals can be subjective." And indeed I agree that an objective set of morals has been the topic of much philosophical debate over the millennia.

Upon further review, my comments on Somalia were inaccurate and too absolute to be true. However, I still am certain there are areas of Somalia where multiple warlords lay claim where attempts to tease out the "right" justification for a homicide would be easily lost in the noise of all of the violence there. There are areas with "effective rule of law". You are correct there. What I had hoped to be a clear example is a muddy one, but still demonstrates the varying degree in which the law can apply to and define "murder".

Also, if you're going to argue for a legal structure being the only standard for murder, then you can't pull out a simplistic dictionary definition as an actual objective definition, because as you said, 'morals are subjective'. ...you assume that the state is a moral entity and that its laws establish moral principles...

When, where, how did I assume this? I tried to keep my language short and too the point. I can see where that "rubbed you the wrong way/raised red flags". But I don't see where I made that particular assertion. "The state is a moral entity" Legal structure is a standard for murder and certainly not the only one. I do believe that the dictionary is a good place to look for the objective definitions of words. I was not aware that this/these were a dangerous/false assumptions. If the dictionary is not objective then why is it a standard by which academic discourse is measured?

And you assume the 'morals are subjective' argument when that's been a major philosophical discussion for thousands of years. One argument based on fallacies and assumptions does not discredit this.

The existence of the debate and lack of a clear "winner" is my evidence for why morals are/can be subjective. I am certainly not discrediting the philosophical debate, if anything I brought it up, however indirectly.

I guess what I'm saying is I need further explanation of your argument, because it's completely incoherent at present time. You can argue for a subjective moral standard but you need WAY more philosophical backing and less circular reasoning 'morals are subjective because of laws and laws establish morals therefore morals are subjective'

This last paragraph is incoherent. I never said "laws establish morals". You have created assertions I never made, and in a patronizing and dismissive tone, point to them as reasons why you don't understand what I am saying. I will take responsibility for the bit about Somalia and have amended it to the point I was trying to make all along.

Feel free to continue this debate, I feel it is shaping up nicely.

Jarimir:

NeedsaBetterName22:

I have to disagree. Rape is forced intercourse/penetration against the will of the target of that force. The will of a/the person can operate and exist independently of the rule or enforcement of law.

The definition of murder on the other hand is dependent on the rule of law. For instance, self defense is considered murder in some areas especially under other considerations, like the "stand your ground" law or it's opposite. In Texas you can use deadly force to defend your property after dark. The neutral term "homicide" with it's varying qualifiers would be a much better "catch all" term for describing the various states in which one person can be found at fault for causing the death of another.

Perhaps a better statement I could have used would be "Morals can be subjective." And indeed I agree that an objective set of morals has been the topic of much philosophical debate over the millennia.

Upon further review, my comments on Somalia were inaccurate and too absolute to be true. However, I still am certain there are areas of Somalia where multiple warlords lay claim where attempts to tease out the "right" justification for a homicide would be easily lost in the noise of all of the violence there. There are areas with "effective rule of law". You are correct there. What I had hoped to be a clear example is a muddy one, but still demonstrates the varying degree in which the law can apply to and define "murder".

Also, if you're going to argue for a legal structure being the only standard for murder, then you can't pull out a simplistic dictionary definition as an actual objective definition, because as you said, 'morals are subjective'. ...you assume that the state is a moral entity and that its laws establish moral principles...

When, where, how did I assume this? I tried to keep my language short and too the point. I can see where that "rubbed you the wrong way/raised red flags". But I don't see where I made that particular assertion. "The state is a moral entity" Legal structure is a standard for murder and certainly not the only one. I do believe that the dictionary is a good place to look for the objective definitions of words. I was not aware that this/these were a dangerous/false assumptions. If the dictionary is not objective then why is it a standard by which academic discourse is measured?

And you assume the 'morals are subjective' argument when that's been a major philosophical discussion for thousands of years. One argument based on fallacies and assumptions does not discredit this.

The existence of the debate and lack of a clear "winner" is my evidence for why morals are/can be subjective. I am certainly not discrediting the philosophical debate, if anything I brought it up, however indirectly.

[quote]I guess what I'm saying is I need further explanation of your argument, because it's completely incoherent at present time. You can argue for a subjective moral standard but you need WAY more philosophical backing and less circular reasoning 'morals are subjective because of laws and laws establish morals therefore morals are subjective'

This last paragraph is incoherent. I never said "laws establish morals". You have created assertions I never made, and in a patronizing and dismissive tone, point to them as reasons why you don't understand what I am saying. I will take responsibility for the bit about Somalia and have amended it to the point I was trying to make all along.

Feel free to continue this debate, I feel it is shaping up nicely.

Yeah, I think I'll skip this debate, and just point out why: Your first rape point makes no sense in the context of your larger argument. By contextualizing it on the grounds of will you act as if people are willingly murdered. Also, by making that statement you're stating an objective moral definition, which breaks your whole argument again. Another logical fallacy, mostly likely based on your emotional opinions towards rape. All your arguments in legality towards murder can be equally applied to rape, as what constitutes rape is established by laws and vary between states (Sweden, for example, has completely different consent laws to that of the U.S., and thus grounds its notion of 'willingly' differently). Your own central argument discredits your point.

'The lack of a winner' is also a massive logical fallacy. By using 'lack of a winner' to point to morals being subjective, you're just assuming a winner. Once again, circular reasoning (the 'lack of a winner' shows that moral subjectivity is correct therefore there is a 'winner' because there is a 'lack of a winner').

In regards to the 'laws establish morals' argument, I'm discussing this in the context you offered. You stated that morals were subjective, and then pointed to definitions of murder as an example of how murder is determined by the state, and thus is not objective. However, even in the context of subjective morals, your argument concludes that laws establish or at least reinforce subjective moral standards. You're using this as evidence to back up your point, and then disregard or refuse to support the logical conclusions of your argument.

I'm patronizing largely because I feel you're intellectually dishonest in your statements. You establish definitions, then change those definitions or discredit them in order to state something else, only to go back and validate your previous statement. You also continue to use circular reasoning to back up your points and then cite it as 'evidence'. I'll openly drop the argument in your favour just to prevent you from arguing nonsensical points at me.

The problem everyone is missing with emotional impact is that some people DO live great lives and move on after being raped. Not all of them, and people use that as an argument. How are people who have witnessed murder or survived a murder attempt ANY different? They might move on, they might spend the rest of their lives depressed. There isn't a fucking difference. This is only because people STILL fucking think videogames are just for kids, and they want to protect kids from teh rapists. If it had ANYTHING to do with the rape victims, they would be bitching about every other form of media including rape as well.

But they don't, and they shouldn't here.

I know 'lol double standards' and all but can someone please explain to me why I can not only brutally murder in games but get points for it too and a rape scene or even an implied rape scene IS SO OUT THERE! What the fuck?

Dante dynamite:

Whoa calm down and I'm also a little offended by that its only because of social media I perceive that the problem is worse thing and that "TEH FEMINAZIS R TAKIN MAH GAYMZ" thing as well no need to be such a dick about it.

Firstly I use pressure groups in the business sense

Non-profit and usually voluntary organization/group whose members have a common cause for which they seek to influence political or corporate decision makers to achieve a declared objective. Whereas interest groups try to defend a cause (maintain the status quo), the pressure groups try to promote it (change the status quo).

technically by asking for more females that aren't sexualised you are part of a pressure group and there is nothing wrong with that in fact industries need pressure groups or else they more often then not will act unethically. I commend you for it and agree with you on the women in games thing. (Wasn't there like some sort of organizing of getting signatures to change the demo or something?)

What I mean by its getting worse is that the topic has become to a significant degree toxic with discussions full of all sorts of fighting amongst people and a slew of overreactions such as no offense yourself and even more completely moronic arguments with no one ever willing to come to any form of compromise or agreement. You also see much more social justice warriors jumping at everything for example Hideo Kojima's (did i spell that right?) comment on cosplayers people made a big stink about that if any other metal gear was released during these "troublesome" times it would probably receive just as much shit regardless that it has been doing that sort of things since the beginning. You've got feminazis and NRA nuts crawling out of woodwork making everyone look like assholes and there's like a feminism thread every other day on most gaming websites.

Game creators may think that they can't do what they want due to fear of backlash but that's for many aspects.

Also that "you still have your GTA's" argument is getting old especially since I wasn't talking about anyone taking games away its just the dumbass mentality of never just sometimes letting things be. Not everything needs to turn into a shitstorm this is the problem I mostly have with these discussions they do nothing but make people fight and make the community bitter.

Ok, ok, I admit to using an "extreme" edge to try to prove my point. I don't feel it was an overreaction, per se. And I was merely venting my frustration at the people who demonize the feminism movement and concoct paranoid conspiracy theories about their actions independent of definitive knowledge of their actual involvement or intent. Your follow-up statement clearly places you outside of that group. I apologize for any implication that you were part of that group. I certainly didn't mean to say that you were. We both seem to be bothered by the level of vitriolic hyperbole that boils up over this issue.

I am not sure why you are offended by the "social media" comment. In my experience I have seen many people in many walks of life claim things have gotten worse when in reality it's only been increased media exposure of something that's been happening all along with either the same frequency or even a declining frequency. I sometimes have to remind myself of this. If this forum and other forums were not so prevalent these "toxic discussions" would be happening with less frequency and they would have a smaller audience. "Social justice warriors" use social media for communication between themselves and as a platform to broadcast their ideas.

Specifically I hopped into this thread because I wanted to defend the exchange that happened between the developers and the people that were bothered by the content of their demo. Not every artist creates for an audience or is concerned with the reaction of an audience, but these developers are. It can be hard to judge the reaction of other people to things. The developers of this game did seem genuinely surprised at the reaction their demo received. It wasn't the reaction they wanted. They made changes accordingly.

I too fail to see the problem or need for a "toxic discussion", nor would I characterize the original exchange as a "shitstorm". I do leave open the possibility that it might have been. The content of the article at best uses incomplete/inconclusive evidence.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 59924)