The Not So Hidden Israeli Politics of 'The Last of Us Part II'

[Siggy-P]

At first I thought this article was reaching but having read through it and also the posts in this thread explaining what they said on the podcast I've come round to sort of agreeing.

The game honestly has a very both sides take on everything. It doesn't condemn the WLF or the scars, presents both as equally capable and doesn't seem to understand the nuance on how violent people actually behave outside of "Oh god I need to revenge so bad.".

The article is absolutely fucking terrible at explaining it's point though. Like Jesus, it seems like it wants people to misunderstand it.

Edit: Ofcourse this and to be top of the page...

The hetero-normative accusation is BS btw. The game is not and the idea that any sort of relationship can be described that way is the dumbest shit. You should feel bad for even thinking it.

 

[Azzanadra]

That's...why the piece says that the examples in the game are problematic and typical of Israeli nationalist thinking...

Click to shrink...

That's only if you already accept the piece's premise and work backwards to justify the argument. I don't accept the premise because, because as I said before, there's nothing in the Seraphite-WLF conflict that specifically calls distinct attention to the unique circumstances of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that can't be observed in any other historical conflict.

The fact that the writer of the article made this connection says more about them than anything. The moment you get into the historical basis of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the religious and colonial factors, the actual beliefs (religious and otherwise) of each group in comparison to the beliefs of the WLF/Seraphites, this connection falls apart.

 

[Weltall Zero]

For real. You know what's actually a representation of heteronormativity in the game? The difference in what's shown in the 2 sex scenes. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy they didn't show much more of Ellie and Dina, because it would be fetishized by straight dudes. But while you can argue that the Abby/Owen scene needed to show more to get the narrative point across, it's still a pretty stark difference.

Click to shrink...

I think the difference is meant to highlight the more wholesome, romantic, love-driven relationship of Ellie and Dina, versus the more animalistic, desire-driven, more questionable act of infidelity between Abby and Owen. It would have felt kind of wrong for the game to depict the latter as tender and loving rather than a spur-of-the-moment "mistake" (at the very least, it would have made Owen seem like much more of a manipulative asshole regarding both Mel and Abby). There's also the fact that Abby and Owen, for some reason, looks considerably more grown-up than Ellie and Dina (even though they're all supposed to be the same age).

I don't think heteronormativity had much anything to do with it. If anything, as you say, depicting Ellie / Dina more explicitly would be criticised as male-gazey (and probably rightly so).

 

[RDreamer]

Their point being that by using Israel-Palestine as an inspiration the game is doing the both-sidesing.

Click to shrink...

Being inspired by something doesn't mean you've made a metaphor of that thing. One can take a feeling elicited and put that in something wholly different.

 

[The Fabled Englishman]

I think the biggest problem I have with equating the WLF vs Seraphite conflict (or any other conflict with equally matched sides) to the Israel-Palestine situation is that it doesn't reflect the asymmetrical nature of the conflict. One side is an economically thriving nation backed with billions of dollars worth of cutting edge home-grown and US developed military hardware, the other is a bunch of starved, isolated, economically deprived people fighting back with whatever Cold War era equipment they can put together. Implying both sides are just caught in a cycle of hatred is both-sidesing a genocide.

Click to shrink...

Is this not reflected in the game to some extent? The WLF are several battalions strong with modern weaponry and an organised command structure. The Seraphites consist of a small, underequipped fighting force and a series of primitive villages on an island. The oddity stems from the fact that the Seraphites are framed as the initial aggressors - seeking control of the forest areas and the martyr gate. I'm not going to claim that there are analogues of the Gaza Strip, West Bank or Golan Heights here, but make of that what you will.

RE: the Hereonormativity argument:

Spoiler

Discounting the fact that TLoU2 replicates a lesbian relationship of the white, lipstick and/or femme variety commonly seen in popular media (OitNB, BitWC, the L Word, so on and so forth), I think the issue I have with it is that it represents idyllic window-dressing to the core plot which is mired in brutality and nihilism. The relationship between Dina and Ellie begins and ends where it started. Potential sources of conflict are either outright divested from the relationship or rendered retroactively inconsequential (i.e. Jesse). One half of the relationship is fridged for a large section of the game until roughly 7/8 in, where the game realises that there has to be some sort of development and manufactures Ellie's rejection of the Dina-relationship in favour of the Joel-relationship.

 

[microgreen]

I got to the point in the podcast where this is fully articulated (around minute 48 of Part 2) and yeah I don't even know if half the people shitting on Vice have actually read/heard the takes. That's not to say nobody's allowed to disagree with their take. Everyone can disagree with it, but at least hear it out instead of dropping one-liners from a summary of a summary. At that point it's just shitposting.

Click to shrink...

I listened to it and it didn't make it any better. She literally says "Dina is the mom and Ellie is the deadbeat dad. It's very gender normative." First of all, nothing in the game supports that claim and it boggles my mind that anyone would come to that conclusion. Second, sure, she could say as many disclaimers as she wants about how she's not invalidating any kind of queer relationship but she's full of shit. Multiple times she goes "I'm not trying to disrespect the people who relate to the queer relationship in this game/the queer people who work in this game but here's me disrespecting them anyway" or some variation thereof. I'd respect her more if she just outright said that she couldn't relate to this game and that's why it's bad but no, she had to hide behind some bullshit cover. Her constant insistence that this is a game made for straight people shows that. The least she could do is own up to that.

 

[deepFlaw]

Yeah, discourse like that has always existed within the queer community and it was toxic back then and is still toxic now. What's especially annoying about these criticisms is whenever I ask for examples of what they want it's just met with silence. I will never, ever be okay with anyone who refers to any gay relationship as "heteronormative." That shit is not cool at all and just makes it apparent that the speaker has nothing worthwhile to say about queer relationships.

Click to shrink...

I think calling a real gay relationship that is fucked up, but that's also a very different thing than using it while discussing the portrayal of a fictional relationship that someone wrote.

But ultimately it really feels like odd criticism. Because ultimately no matter how you slice it- the criticism is harmful. And purposes this idea that a queer couple needs to have an expected level of "gayness" to be considered good.

So to a queer couple who finds Ellie and Dina relatable to how they're, this criticism makes them seem like they (those who find Ellie and Dina relatable) aren't "gay-enough".

You can sort of see why that criticism is harmful then, right?

Click to shrink...

But I think there's more nuance to this argument than "they're not gay enough" or "they don't have the right level of gayness", though?

Like I don't really just want to throw simple arguments back and forth over this, because I don't think what you're saying is wrong in general and I don't want to come across as super patronizing, but I just don't think it directly applies here? Like the only way to respond becomes: isn't it also harmful to say that queer women can't criticize a fictional portrayal of queer women like this, because it would somehow inherently become gatekeeping of/placing judgement upon real life relationships?

Cause Ellie and Dina are not real people. You can discuss the things that they do and how that's portrayed, their roles in the story, what you think motivated the decisions about that behind the scenes and what the intent was, etc. without inherently making any definitive declarations about real people or their relationships.

 

[Deleted member 4976]

That's only if you already accept the piece's premise and work backwards to justify the argument. I don't accept the premise because, because as I said before, there's nothing in the Seraphite-WLF conflict that specifically calls distinct attention to the unique circumstances of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that can't be observed in any other historical conflict.

The fact that the writer of the article made this connection says more about them than anything. The moment you get into the historical basis of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the religious and colonial factors, the actual beliefs (religious and otherwise) of each group in comparison to the beliefs of the WLF/Seraphites, this connection falls apart.

Click to shrink...

This is made even more obvious because if you accept the premise, you have to take it to its natural conclusion which is a pretty hefty calling out of the "islamophobia present in TLOU2."

How the author manages to form the first connection while ignoring the massive elephant in the room that results from the articles spurrious reasoning is beyond me.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

That's only if you already accept the piece's premise and work backwards to justify the argument. I don't accept the premise because, because as I said before, there's nothing in the Seraphite-WLF conflict that specifically calls distinct attention to the unique circumstances of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that can't be observed in any other historical conflict.

The fact that the writer of the article made this connection says more about them than anything. The moment you get into the historical basis of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the religious and colonial factors, the actual beliefs (religious and otherwise) of each group in comparison to the beliefs of the WLF/Seraphites, this connection falls apart.

Click to shrink...

I agree with this. Also the conflict that this article ascribes as inspiration is better realized between Abby and Ellie. Maybe there is a critique to be made there about both sidesing a conflict as you are literally walking a mile in the "enemy's" shoes to understand their point of view. But the both sidesing there falls apart for me because ultimately Ellie does save Abby and let her go, so does that mean Neil feels Isreal should do the same for Palestine? I don't know, but it's possible to view the story from that lens. Or maybe he just wanted people to feel what he felt, intense hatred, regret, and forgiveness and it is no more complicated than that.

WLF and the Seraphites to me were just metaphors for the eternal and futile struggle between in and out groups. You can almost map any long standing conflict on to them in some way.

 

[Not Spaceghost]

At first I thought this article was reaching but having read through it and also the posts in this thread explaining what they said on the podcast I've come round to sort of agreeing.

Click to shrink...

I don't know, it feels like if someone looked at a solve for X math problem, and they decided X= 10 and then forced the rest of the equation to fit so that X would equal 10. Yeah they might have used math and all the information available but they put things in the wrong order and ignored order of operations.

 

[microgreen]

I think calling a real gay relationship that is fucked up, but that's also a very different thing than using it while discussing the portrayal of a fictional relationship that someone wrote.



But I think there's more nuance to this argument than "they're not gay enough" or "they don't have the right level of gayness", though?

Like I don't really just want to throw simple arguments back and forth over this, because I don't think what you're saying is wrong in general and I don't want to come across as super patronizing, but I just don't think it directly applies here? Like the only way to respond becomes: isn't it also harmful to say that queer women can't criticize a fictional portrayal of queer women like this, because it would somehow inherently become gatekeeping of/placing judgement upon real life relationships?

Cause Ellie and Dina are not real people. You can discuss the things that they do and how that's portrayed, their roles in the story, what you think motivated the decisions about that behind the scenes and what the intent was, etc. without inherently making any definitive declarations about real people or their relationships.

Click to shrink...

Then it comes to the point of asking what it was about Ellie and Dina's relationship that's allegedly so normative? Is it because Ellie was not angsting over her gayness? Was it because Ellie was not the type of person to talk about her feelings, making her "the man" in the relationship as opposed to Dina who was more open? Was it because we saw a glimpse of their lives where Dina was washing the dishes and Ellie herded sheep while carrying JJ (the opposite of a deadbeat btw)? Did people want Ellie to write about struggling with gender norms in her journal? Or maybe they wanted Ellie and Dina to have a poly relationship with Jesse. Maybe that would have made it queer enough and not "meant for a straight audience." Please tell me because I'm legitimately at a loss.

I've consumed so many different types of really good and really shitty media - books, movies, shows, games,etc all because they had a lesbian/bi character. So believe me when I say I'm very familiar with how queer relationships are portrayed. TLOU2 is one of the better and more honest portrayals out there.

 

[Siggy-P]

I don't know, it feels like if someone looked at a solve for X math problem, and they decided X= 10 and then forced the rest of the equation to fit so that X would equal 10. Yeah they might have used math and all the information available but they put things in the wrong order and ignored order of operations.

Click to shrink...

It's not a 1:1 comparison but on a vary basic level it is there. It's a long standing rivalry between two adjacent groups, one traditionalists and god-fearing, the other militant and supposedly progressive.

I don't think it's an attempt to say anything specific on Israel or Palestein but it's an attempt to say something on that sort of conflict.

Like Halo doesn't exactly fit into a comparison to the conflicts between the US invasions in the Middle East but it's almost a lie to pretend that the story isn't drawing from that.

 

[nonoriri]

I think calling a real gay relationship that is fucked up, but that's also a very different thing than using it while discussing the portrayal of a fictional relationship that someone wrote.

But I think there's more nuance to this argument than "they're not gay enough" or "they don't have the right level of gayness", though?

Like I don't really just want to throw simple arguments back and forth over this, because I don't think what you're saying is wrong in general and I don't want to come across as super patronizing, but I just don't think it directly applies here? Like the only way to respond becomes: isn't it also harmful to say that queer women can't criticize a fictional portrayal of queer women like this, because it would somehow inherently become gatekeeping of/placing judgement upon real life relationships?

Cause Ellie and Dina are not real people. You can discuss the things that they do and how that's portrayed, their roles in the story, what you think motivated the decisions about that behind the scenes and what the intent was, etc. without inherently making any definitive declarations about real people or their relationships.

Click to shrink...

As someone else who has discussed this in the spoilers thread, I think you can absolutely criticize the relationship as written. I just think criticizing it for being heteronormative comes across as gatekeeping. Instead, one could criticize ND for showing the only queer relationship as one that is already dominant in media. Or that it lacks a queer lens in its depiction. There's lots of ways to criticize it without writing off dynamics that many queer people have in their relationship (including my NB femme self and my trans girlfriend) instead of just calling it heterosexual.

 

[NinjaGarden]

It's not a 1:1 comparison but on a vary basic level it is there. It's a long standing rivalry between two adjacent groups, one traditionalists and god-fearing, the other militant and supposedly progressive.

I don't think it's an attempt to say anything on Israel or Palestein but it's an attempt to say something on that sort of conflict.

Like Halo doesn't exactly fit into a comparison to the conflicts between the US invasions in the Middle East but it's a lie to pretend that the story isn't drawing from that.

Click to shrink...

There's a better post about this earlier in the thread, but this is absolutely not how I would describe the Israel/Palestine situation. I think boiling it down to a rivalry is actually harmful.

As a Palestinian, this never even crossed my mind while playing the game. It really doesn't make sense to me afterwards either. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is about settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing. Contrary to what many people would like to believe, it's not about a never ending war with an endless cycle of violence and revenge. There is a hegemony in place with a clear settler-colonial Israeli government and the oppressed Palestinian population who is forced to live under that illegal occupation.


I just don't agree with the premise of this article and it seems to me to very unfairly use the fact that Neil is Israeli against him. Sure some of his personal experiences might have influenced some of the emotions as he described, but to me that's a specific example that happens to be borne out of the conflict. He could have easily used a different one.

Click to shrink...

 

[Siggy-P]

There's a better post about this earlier in the thread, but this is absolutely not how I would describe the Israel/Palestine situation.

Click to shrink...

I don't mean to intend in any way that it's how I would describe it.

Don't act like I'm pulling out of thin air when video games and media have been using Religous Savages with obvious implications metaphors for well over two decades.


edit:

Let me put it better. When you play a call of duty game you aren't fighting real terrorist groups. Theres differences in ideology and cause. But it:s obvious what they're 'meant' to represent.

Saying that there's a comparison does not mean that it's the same. Theres many differences and you can draw them, but on a very basic surface level point it's arguably trying to evoke a similar situation or conflict.

 

[pizzabutt]

As someone else who has discussed this in the spoilers thread, I think you can absolutely criticize the relationship as written. I just think criticizing it for being heteronormative comes across as gatekeeping. Instead, one could criticize ND for showing the only queer relationship as one that is already dominant in media. Or that it lacks a queer lens in its depiction. There's lots of ways to criticize it without writing off dynamics that many queer people have in their relationship (including my NB femme self and my trans girlfriend) instead of just calling it heterosexual.

Click to shrink...

Heteronormative isn't even the right word, the criticisms should be about the relationship being homonormative. When I heard about the criticism I thought it was going to be about how it's once again a gay couple between two feminine women.

 

[bbg_g]

That's only if you already accept the piece's premise and work backwards to justify the argument. I don't accept the premise because, because as I said before, there's nothing in the Seraphite-WLF conflict that specifically calls distinct attention to the unique circumstances of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that can't be observed in any other historical conflict.

The fact that the writer of the article made this connection says more about them than anything. The moment you get into the historical basis of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the religious and colonial factors, the actual beliefs (religious and otherwise) of each group in comparison to the beliefs of the WLF/Seraphites, this connection falls apart.

Click to shrink...

Thank you for your perspective on this and I agree with you. I have limited knowledge of the Israel-Palenstine conflict, but I have friends who are on both sides and from my limited knowledge on the history and context the points made in the article so far don't hold any ground and can quite frankly be problematic.

The article premises the Seraphites representing Palestinians based on terminology used. I think these terms are actually fairly neutral when it can come to opposing sides and in my opinion in no way make the argument better.

• The same note from the Seattle FEDRA commander that bitterly says the Wolves are in charge explains that it's now their responsibility to not only feed and shelter the people of Seattle, but deal with the "religious fanatics," referring to the Scars.
  • In my opinion the use of "religious fanatic" to other a body of people and make an enemy out of them does not reflect uniquely on Palestinians
• The Scars are able to get around Wolf patrols and various barriers around the city via an elaborate, secret system of bridges between skyscrapers. These function as a kind of flipped version of the underground tunnels Palestinians use to bypass Israeli blockades and other means of limiting free movement in order to get supplies and carry out attacks on Israel.
  • Again, using underground tunnels and other means of traversal during war and in war zones is not unique to Palestinians

If anyone could provide some more points about how the Seraphites uniquely represent Palestinians in this conflict I would love to read more.

 

[dragonbane]

You can see how that would hurt people that connected to Ellie as a lesbian though....with then saying Ellie could easily be replaced with a guy and make no difference.

Click to shrink...

I mean, it goes both ways. Some are hurt by what's in the game as well. Queer people are not a monolith. It's fine if some are hurt by the game and others love it. It's important to listen to both sides. You say lesbians who connected to Ellie are hurt by other queer folk saying they can't identify with it? Well those queer folk are possibly hurt by what they saw in the game written by a cis guy. They are both valid, as both draw from their own queer experience.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

My read on the Seraphites were that they were a religious cult born out of a leader seizing power by convincing enough people lost and looking for answers that the "old world" brought this upon them. Then how they should ignore and cast out any old world items, including books, because those old world objects are why they are suffering today, while simultaneously allowing the leader to maintain control of how the group thinks and behaves and ultimately maintain power. An outside group like the WLF would ultimately call BS on that, and thus conflict is born.

 

[Kalentan]

As someone else who has discussed this in the spoilers thread, I think you can absolutely criticize the relationship as written. I just think criticizing it for being heteronormative comes across as gatekeeping. Instead, one could criticize ND for showing the only queer relationship as one that is already dominant in media. Or that it lacks a queer lens in its depiction. There's lots of ways to criticize it without writing off dynamics that many queer people have in their relationship (including my NB femme self and my trans girlfriend) instead of just calling it heterosexual.

Click to shrink...

This exactly.

Ultimately the part that the criticism is focusing on just seems odd to focus on. It boils down to: "This queer couple didn't represent me exactly or my ideal version of one, therefore it's bad representation". So it's odd, because it's ignoring that for some this is good representation and makes it out to be bad instead.

Like how do you even argue against that? The person is arguing for different representation rather than simply better. Which is fine on it's own, but only made bad (imho) when you start to argue the other representation is bad for the reason listed before.

That's why it would make more sense to focus on criticism of how it's written (i.e. does it actually do a good job at portraying them as a real couple or does it come across as fake? and so on) or as you said the criticism of them focusing on maybe a bit of representation that is already common (though considering this is the first(?) big AAA game with a queer couple in the main focus this seems like a weird time to criticize that specifically imho).

 

[Previously on Lost]

Yeah... the authors position is a pretty huge reach.

 

[Mezentine]

As someone else who has discussed this in the spoilers thread, I think you can absolutely criticize the relationship as written. I just think criticizing it for being heteronormative comes across as gatekeeping. Instead, one could criticize ND for showing the only queer relationship as one that is already dominant in media. Or that it lacks a queer lens in its depiction. There's lots of ways to criticize it without writing off dynamics that many queer people have in their relationship (including my NB femme self and my trans girlfriend) instead of just calling it heterosexual.

Click to shrink...

This is literally just about word for word what Maddy Meyers actually says in the spoiler podcast in question. Basically every single point she says explicitly.

 

[SlimCharles]

I think the article makes a lot of good points and I don't think it's a huge reach.

 

[Omnistalgic]

You're right, you do need to educate yourself a lot more on this if you're going to cast such an awful aspersion on me and other supporters of BDS.

Click to shrink...

I just read what this stands for, can you shed light on who controls what over there and who are oppressed and just exactly what the hatred is between these two groups?

My wife is Lebanese and my only interaction with it is her telling me someone at work once told her "there isn't a such thing as Palestine" with a lot of animosity in his voice. She was simply describing where her parents come from and he just got angry all of a sudden. It was very strange and she was like there's very deep seeded hatred in that part of the Middle East, her parents don't talk about it much and she doesn't bring it up either.

 

[daegan]

TIL that subtext isn't supposed to be "sub" apparently

 

[4Tran]

That's only if you already accept the piece's premise and work backwards to justify the argument. I don't accept the premise because, because as I said before, there's nothing in the Seraphite-WLF conflict that specifically calls distinct attention to the unique circumstances of the Israel-Palestine conflict, that can't be observed in any other historical conflict.

The fact that the writer of the article made this connection says more about them than anything. The moment you get into the historical basis of the Israel/Palestine conflict, the religious and colonial factors, the actual beliefs (religious and otherwise) of each group in comparison to the beliefs of the WLF/Seraphites, this connection falls apart.

Click to shrink...

I like how the article says that TLOU2 presents a poor reading of the Israel-Palestine conflict when it's making a huge assumption that it is talking about it in the first place. An assumption that I think is poorly founded because the organizations simply don't resemble what they're supposed to be modeled on. In particular, the Seraphites don't resemble the Palestinians at all; not in their tactics, not in their goals, not in their dress, not in their social structures, and not even in the symbology they use. It takes a certain blindness to not see what this group is actually modeled after, and the result are bad articles like this.

And you're right, it really does feel like the writer made the assumption that a connection existed first and then worked backwards to find evidence. It's a terrible way to write articles and it's a disservice to its readers.

 

[JusDoIt]

My read on the Seraphites were that they were a religious cult born out of a leader seizing power by convincing enough people lost and looking for answers that the "old world" brought this upon them. Then how they should ignore and cast out any old world items, including books, because those old world objects are why they are suffering today, while simultaneously allowing the leader to maintain control of how the group thinks and behaves and ultimately maintain power. An outside group like the WLF would ultimately call BS on that, and thus conflict is born.

Click to shrink...

Not exactly. Nothing indicates the Seraphites were out to seize power. Nothing really indicates they have beef with anybody who isn't a Wolf or an apostate.

But the game does illustrate that the WLF created a totalitarian state after they defeated FEDRA. They didn't allow civilians to leave and executed all FEDRA collaborators.

The Seraphites simply weren't compliant and did their own thing on their island. We also see the elders were radicalized after their prophet was killed by the WLF.

 

[Aaron D.]

Instead, one could criticize ND for showing the only queer relationship as one that is already dominant in media. Or that it lacks a queer lens in its depiction. There's lots of ways to criticize it without writing off dynamics that many queer people have in their relationship (including my NB femme self and my trans girlfriend) instead of just calling it heterosexual.

Click to shrink...

But...that's literally exactly what they say.




Cripes people, just listen to it for yourself (around 47:00) it's not that hard. And only takes less than 10 min.

 

[ClickyCal']

But...that's literally what they say.



Cripes people, just listen to it for yourself (around 47:00) it's not that hard. And only takes less than 10 min.

Click to shrink...

On twitter she literally agreed with a (straight) guy saying that Ellie could replaced with a guy and it wouldn't make a difference.

 

[AncientReptileBrain]

But...that's literally exactly what they say.




Cripes people, just listen to it for yourself (around 47:00) it's not that hard. And only takes less than 10 min.

Click to shrink...

the podcast is like six hours long, as someone who loves loves loves Waypoint's work and this podcast, it's a giant ask of someone.

 

[MRORANGE]

very good post. thanks!...

Click to shrink...

Thanks!

There's a lot more I can go into in terms of similarities but this thread is so derailed by the article, it would make more sense to have a separate thread discussing the geo-political nature of TLOU2 and it's many interpretations.

 

[nonoriri]

This is literally just about word for word what Maddy Meyers actually says in the spoiler podcast in question. Basically every single point she says explicitly.

Click to shrink...

But...that's literally exactly what they say.




Cripes people, just listen to it for yourself (around 47:00) it's not that hard. And only takes less than 10 min.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough, though I was just responding to someone else who asked about how the relationship should be criticized without falling into criticizing the queer relationship itself but I could have been clearer I wasn't actually addressing the podcast itself. That said, based on some of what Maddy Myers has written/tweeted, I still find her takes on this pretty off putting nor do I particularly like her content overall so please forgive me if I don't want to listen to her 3 hour podcast.

 

[Man-is-Obsolete]

Not exactly. Nothing indicates the Seraphites were out to seize power. Nothing really indicates they have beef with anybody who isn't a Wolf or an apostate.

But the game does illustrate that the WLF created a totalitarian state after they defeated FEDRA. They didn't allow civilians to leave and executed all FEDRA collaborators.

The Seraphites simply weren't compliant and did their own thing on their island. We also see the elders were radicalized after their prophet was killed by the WLF.

Click to shrink...

I didn't say the Seraphites sought power I said the leader who started the Seraphites sought power. And that doesn't mean in a control of land sort of way, but in the classic cult leader way of pathological narcissism. There is a missable interaction in the game where two Seraphites are talking about books and one of them mentions how maybe they could learn something from them so they don't repeat the same mistakes the Old World did, and the other Seraphite quickly shoots it down saying they should not talk like that ever again for fear of punishment. That's a control of knowledge, another classic cult move.Because the second people think for themselves the facade is broken and the leaders power eroded. Even their physical location, an island, is a way for a cult leader to isolate the group from outside influence. Then they can use true believers as warriors to go out and get supplies, fight, or whatever it is the island needs, which there is in game text of a seraphite talking about those born as seraphites make the best warriors because they are free from old world/outside thinking. The game also points out via some dialogue that some of the WLF members have misgivings about executing the leader, because it made her a martyr and allowed others to pick up the torch.

Seraphites are a cult and I find it hard to believe the creators of the game would equate Palestinians with a cult.

 

[JusDoIt]

I didn't say the Seraphites sought power I said the leader who started the Seraphites sought power. And that doesn't mean in a control of land sort of way, but in the classic cult leader way of pathological narcissism. There is a missable interaction in the game where two Seraphites are talking about books and one of them mentions how maybe they could learn something from them so they don't repeat the same mistakes the Old World did, and the other Seraphite quickly shoots it down saying they should not talk like that ever again for fear of punishment. That's a control of knowledge, another classic cult move.Because the second people think for themselves the facade is broken and the leaders power eroded. Even their physical location, an island, is a way for a cult leader to isolate the group from outside influence. Then they can use true believers as warriors to go out and get supplies, fight, or whatever it is the island needs, which there is in game text of a seraphite talking about those born as seraphites make the best warriors because they are free from old world/outside thinking. The game also points out via some dialogue that some of the WLF members have misgivings about executing the leader, because it made her a martyr and allowed others to pick up the torch.

Seraphites are a cult and I find it hard to believe the creators of the game would equate Palestinians with a cult.

Click to shrink...

I get what you're saying now

 

[ApatheticDolphin]

I mean, it goes both ways. Some are hurt by what's in the game as well. Queer people are not a monolith. It's fine if some are hurt by the game and others love it. It's important to listen to both sides. You say lesbians who connected to Ellie are hurt by other queer folk saying they can't identify with it? Well those queer folk are possibly hurt by what they saw in the game written by a cis guy. They are both valid, as both draw from their own queer experience.

Click to shrink...

I don't think anyone is hurt by someone saying they don't identify with it, that they don't like it, don't think it was done well, or wished they had taken a different approach. For me, the issue is saying that it's a 'straight' story. That their relationship echoes heteronormative stereotypes. Or that ND was somehow cowardly for depicting the relationship this way and not being more 'bold'. You simply can't say that the relationship is straight without invalidating the queer people who actually live that way. This analysis and point of comparison has to come from somewhere, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's inherently ranking queer existence on a spectrum from "less radical" to "more radical", and suggests that "more radical" = better. And I don't think that's okay. There's no right way to be queer. A story with two monogamous lesbians raising a baby is not inherently worse representation than a story about a poly couple. You can argue that it's over represented, but that still doesn't make it a straight story.

 

[Hilarious_Bearious]

Is this not reflected in the game to some extent? The WLF are several battalions strong with modern weaponry and an organised command structure. The Seraphites consist of a small, underequipped fighting force and a series of primitive villages on an island. The oddity stems from the fact that the Seraphites are framed as the initial aggressors - seeking control of the forest areas and the martyr gate. I'm not going to claim that there are analogues of the Gaza Strip, West Bank or Golan Heights here, but make of that what you will.

RE: the Hereonormativity argument:

Spoiler

Discounting the fact that TLoU2 replicates a lesbian relationship of the white, lipstick and/or femme variety commonly seen in popular media (OitNB, BitWC, the L Word, so on and so forth), I think the issue I have with it is that it represents idyllic window-dressing to the core plot which is mired in brutality and nihilism. The relationship between Dina and Ellie begins and ends where it started. Potential sources of conflict are either outright divested from the relationship or rendered retroactively inconsequential (i.e. Jesse). One half of the relationship is fridged for a large section of the game until roughly 7/8 in, where the game realises that there has to be some sort of development and manufactures Ellie's rejection of the Dina-relationship in favour of the Joel-relationship.

Click to shrink...

Edit: oops accidentally hut post before typing.

I think a key difference is that the Seraphites CHOSE to use simpler, more primative weapons. Also, in the TLOU setting, this confers some benefits advantages in terms of stealth, abundance and renewability. Palestinians are using crappy old mortars and improvised devices because that's all they can acquire due to being isolated, robbed of their autonimy and having their economy actively sabotaged.

Edit 2: Also, the Seraphites seem more than capable of holding their own. If you listen to the radio when you break into the theatre as Abbie, it sounds like both sides have pretty much wiped most of each other out.

 

[LifeLine]

I'm as pro-BDS as any poster you'll find on Era but this article makes me deeply uncomfortable that someone would draw attention to Druckmann's heritage in this way to write such a spurious thesis that falls apart if you have even a passing understanding of the plot and themes of TLOU2. This is going to provoke even more anti-semitism and Vice should have thought twice before publishing it.

Click to shrink...

didn't he draw attention to his own heritage? He connected the events of both games to the Israeli-Palestine conflict.

 

[4Tran]

Edit: oops accidentally hut post before typing.

I think a key difference is that the Seraphites CHOSE to use simpler, more primative weapons. Also, in the TLOU setting, this confers some benefits advantages in terms of stealth, abundance and renewability. Palestinians are using crappy old mortars and improvised devices because that's all they can acquire due to being isolated, robbed of their autonimy and having their economy actively sabotaged.

Click to shrink...

The big difference for me is that the Seraphites aren't any weaker than the WLF. When Abby first hears Isaac's plan she thinks it's nuts and that it won't succeed. And when the attack goes off, the WLF soldiers that get sent in get wiped out. Sure the Seraphites take a ton of losses as well, but it's still definitely not a case of a massively crushing an inferior one. And it's not as if the WLF is super well equipped to begin with. They have more gear than most groups, but they're still basically light infantry with little more than small arms at the end of the day. A proper army would wipe them out with incredible ease. I'm not sure how this can be considered similar to the Israel-Palestinian conflict if the facts are examined.

 

[RecLib]

I mostly clicked this thread because I knew the extremely hurtful harmful stuff that Maddy and Rob have been saying about Ellie and Dina would also come up. I don't want to get into the whole argument again as it has been extensively gone over in the spoiler thread but it should be stated plainly:


Stating that Dina and Ellie are too heteronormative is extremely hurtful and is from Maddy gate keeping and from Rob outright bigotry. To any lesbians like myself that saw themselves in Ellie, or saw an Ideal in Ellie and Dina's relationship, you are actively stating that we don't matter. That we aren't real gay people because we don't meed some arbitrary standard of queerness you decided on.
It is a lie to pretend they were not coming form a place of explicit exclusion. This was not a light take about how they wish other types of gay people were also represented in things, they were explicitly criticizing this representation for existing, and in turn criticizing me for existing.
A reminder that Mandy agree'd on twitter that "it is the same game if Ellie is straight and Dina is a man", which is Maddy explicitly stating that gay girls like myself are the same thing as straight men. It is EXTREMELY hurtful, and there is no defending this. Do not defend this.

None of this is relavent to the actual article the thread is about, but it needed to be said. Numerous queer women like myself and some queer men showed up to shout down how offensive this take is. Do not attempt to rationalize it or justify it, it is just a bad offensive hurtful take.

It is gross as fuck that on an ostensibly progressive forum like ERA someone can literally attack my existence as a lesbian, and people will say "well actually that is a valid opinion too."

 

[Minthara]

To be honest, my main issue with this article is that it easily comes off as sexist and borderline anti-Semitic with how it is written in its current form. Despite writing over 2500 words on the topic, not once does this "critique" of the game mention co-writer Halley Gross and her contributions to the project, her possible point of view or even asking either of them who wrote what parts of the game. Thus, the article and all the words within if just come off as a borderline personal attack against one part of the writing duo who wrote the actual narrative - hence the feeling of anti-Semitism. Thus, the author is saying, unintentionally or not, that Halley either contributed nothing to this game or that she did and she was overruled by Druckmann - both serious allegations that should not be nested in overwordy think pieces or implied "subtlety".

Yes, as game director Druckmann ultimately had the final say in a lot of the games creative choices, but slinging all of the final creative choices on him is a very poor decision, especially when someone can do 5 minutes of research, especially with the plethora of interviews coming out with both co-writers about the process they went through, which makes this article feel very poorly thought out and badly researched at best.

When I consider those facts along with other feelings I have about how the article is written, the entire narrative contained within it falls apart faster than a flimsy house of cards. The whole article feels like the author came at it from one point of view and attempts to drive that one point of view home, facts be damned. If this author is a professional writer and not a "contributor" - what on earth were they thinking.

 

[Deleted member 13101]

A crucial quote in the podcast is "this game is for straight people fundamentally", largely because it is "presented through a cis lens" (with both director and in-scene elements previously cited) and "the parts are all there, they just didn't move them around".

What space do these quotes allow for non-"straight" people who appreciate at least some of the representation of the people and their relationships in this game? Must people also agree with these quotes before their feelings and commentary are considered nuanced enough, or legit? Must they qualify their own statements of thoughts and feelings with "queer people are not a monolith" first, as if they don't already deeply understand this? Must they set aside their own reflection of themselves in fictional characters before their feelings are considered real?

You can say "listen to the podcast" all you want. Gate-keeping is still happening right here in this thread. If it wasn't happening, the thread wouldn't be so off-topic to the article.

 

[RecLib]

You can say "listen to the podcast" all you want. Gate-keeping is still happening right here in this thread. If it wasn't happening, the thread wouldn't be so off-topic to the article.

Click to shrink...

It is a common refrain of people defending bigots in the age of youtube videos and podcasts. You would see it a lot during gamergate and other similar shitty movements. "You would actually see how he's right if you watch this video of his".
I've seen Maddy's twitter posts, I've read Rob's article. I do not need to listen to any of this part 2 podcast and see if they've gotten better at masking their hateful bs under their phony progressiveness because they already shown their true fucking faces.

 

[sandyph]

I like how the article says that TLOU2 presents a poor reading of the Israel-Palestine conflict when it's making a huge assumption that it is talking about it in the first place. An assumption that I think is poorly founded because the organizations simply don't resemble what they're supposed to be modeled on. In particular, the Seraphites don't resemble the Palestinians at all; not in their tactics, not in their goals, not in their dress, not in their social structures, and not even in the symbology they use. It takes a certain blindness to not see what this group is actually modeled after, and the result are bad articles like this.

And you're right, it really does feel like the writer made the assumption that a connection existed first and then worked backwards to find evidence. It's a terrible way to write articles and it's a disservice to its readers.

Click to shrink...

Agree, during my playthrough I immediately identified them with WBC or some other radical cult, even during the skyscraper chapter, Lev say that the Seraphites are twisting the prophet's words and all these violences and hatred are not in her teaching at all. And for people to actually read the scriptures.

 

[Cerulean_skylark]

To be honest, my main issue with this article is that it easily comes off as sexist and borderline anti-Semitic with how it is written in its current form. Despite writing over 2500 words on the topic, not once does this "critique" of the game mention co-writer Halley Gross and her contributions to the project, her possible point of view or even asking either of them who wrote what parts of the game. Thus, the article and all the words within if just come off as a borderline personal attack against one part of the writing duo who wrote the actual narrative - hence the feeling of anti-Semitism. Thus, the author is saying, unintentionally or not, that Halley either contributed nothing to this game or that she did and she was overruled by Druckmann - both serious allegations that should not be nested in overwordy think pieces or implied "subtlety".

Yes, as game director Druckmann ultimately had the final say in a lot of the games creative choices, but slinging all of the final creative choices on him is a very poor decision, especially when as someone can do 5 minutes of research, especially with the plethora of interviews coming out with both co-writers about the process they went through, which makes this article feel very poorly thought out and badly researched at best.

When I consider those facts along with other feelings I have about how the article is written, the entire narrative contained within it falls apart faster than a flimsy house of cards. The whole article feels like the author came at it from one point of view and attempts to drive that one point of view home, facts be damned. If this author is a professional writer and not a "contributor" - what on earth were they thinking.

Click to shrink...

I think this is a result of disliking druckmann and working backwards from that conclusion.

 

[RDreamer]

To be honest, my main issue with this article is that it easily comes off as sexist and borderline anti-Semitic with how it is written in its current form. Despite writing over 2500 words on the topic, not once does this "critique" of the game mention co-writer Halley Gross and her contributions to the project, her possible point of view or even asking either of them who wrote what parts of the game. Thus, the article and all the words within if just come off as a borderline personal attack against one part of the writing duo who wrote the actual narrative - hence the feeling of anti-Semitism. Thus, the author is saying, unintentionally or not, that Halley either contributed nothing to this game or that she did and she was overruled by Druckmann - both serious allegations that should not be nested in overwordy think pieces or implied "subtlety".

Yes, as game director Druckmann ultimately had the final say in a lot of the games creative choices, but slinging all of the final creative choices on him is a very poor decision, especially when as someone can do 5 minutes of research, especially with the plethora of interviews coming out with both co-writers about the process they went through, which makes this article feel very poorly thought out and badly researched at best.

When I consider those facts along with other feelings I have about how the article is written, the entire narrative contained within it falls apart faster than a flimsy house of cards. The whole article feels like the author came at it from one point of view and attempts to drive that one point of view home, facts be damned. If this author is a professional writer and not a "contributor" - what on earth were they thinking.

Click to shrink...

Yeah after listening to a lot of these interviews it's abundantly clear that this is definitely not a Hideo Kojima type situation. Druckmann may have provided the tent poles and overall coordination but Gross did a helluva lot, even providing first drafts of the most important scenes in the game, and even on top of that the culture at naughty dog allows for a lot of change and critiques and suggestions throughout the team. They also have consultants that come in. They had some for the Seraphites, to make them destined. And while it may not directly be applicable to factions the voice actors themselves also contribute a good deal of nuance and character authority to get changes. I can think of some things they changed because Troy didn't think it worked for Joel. Pinning it all on Druckmann's perspective just doesn't seem right for me.

 

[AncientReptileBrain]

I do not need to listen to any of this part 2 podcast and see if they've gotten better at masking their hateful bs under their phony progressiveness because they already shown their true fucking faces.

Click to shrink...

this is an incredibly ungenerous take on a site that pays and amplifies the voices of minorities and other underrepresented or marginalised folks in the games industry

 

[RecLib]

this is an incredibly ungenerous take on a site that pays and amplifies the voices of minorities and other underrepresented or marginalised folks in the games industry

Click to shrink...

Good waypoint has done for diversity does not erase the shitty terrible and hurtful stuff Maddy has said on twitter. Saying that I'm not interested in listening to a podcast with Maddy, who has already explicitly shown herself to be a gate keeper who does not think women like myself matter or have any value to the queer community is not some attack on the voices of all people ever represented through waypoint.

This is not an argument. The stuff maddy said is terrible and hurtful, and I SHOULD NOT have to defend my existance. That she is being platformed by a site like waypoint makes this worse. It is infinitely more hurtful when a site that is supposed to progressive provides a platform for bigotry, it hurts way more than some shitty alt right youtuber saying hurtful stuff, that will bounce off of me.


You have to see how a platform like waypoint, that people trust to be progressive, providing a voice for gate keeping and bigotry is much more damaging and insidious than anything someone who is already only followed by shit heads can do.

 

[Deleted member 1003]

A crucial quote in the podcast is "this game is for straight people fundamentally", largely because it is "presented through a cis lens" (with both director and in-scene elements previously cited) and "the parts are all there, they just didn't move them around".

What space do these quotes allow for non-"straight" people who appreciate at least some of the representation of the people and their relationships in this game? Must people also agree with these quotes before their feelings and commentary are considered nuanced enough, or legit? Must they qualify their own statements of thoughts and feelings with "queer people are not a monolith" first, as if they don't already deeply understand this? Must they set aside their own reflection of themselves in fictional characters before their feelings are considered real?

You can say "listen to the podcast" all you want. Gate-keeping is still happening right here in this thread. If it wasn't happening, the thread wouldn't be so off-topic to the article.

Click to shrink...

They basically stop or shut down any non "straight" people from having an opinion or thought positive about the relationships or how they connect to the characters in the game.

It's a remarkably shitty for them to do such a thing. Queer or not, it doesn't stop people from being anti-Semitic, hateful or hurtful toward others.

 

[-Peabody-]

I guess I'm confused why people consider this gatekeeping or discounting of queer relationships that are more traditional in representation? Her tweets were replying to an article about how queer representation -isn't- a monolith. The section of the podcast where they talk about how queer stories in games seem to be written so they're more digestible by a heteronormative society has some good points to it. They aren't saying those types of relationships aren't 'queer enough' but rather it echoes a fear that this is as far as mainstream media will go in terms of representing different family structures.

 

[Tomeru]

It's kind of a dumb line when you consider the same is true of Abby/her Firefly friends. Joel didn't kill every Firefly, just the ones who tried to prevent him from saving Ellie. Abby wasn't there when it happened, but Owen was and he was left alive. They didn't abide by that 'rule', why would they expect Ellie to?

Click to shrink...

Its true about everyone. How is that a dumb line?