Now THAT'S a cop-out.
I might be pushing it too far, but to me that sounds like 'It's a bad world, what does it matter what I do?'.
How is it not?
However some consumption is still more ethical than others. For instance I can choose an RPG not made under the purview of somebody who loudly supported a harassment campaign.
The survival mechanics is what puts me off the most. Might give it a go one day but having to sleep/eat/bathe etc just sounds boring. Especially as there are timed quests.
Isn't the save system strange as well?
If you don't play on hard core or whatever the ultra simulationist option is called those elements do not come up much. You need to eat and sleep occasionally but there are plenty of easy/cheap opportunities to do so in the game world. It helps if you bathe when trying diplomancy. But generally it's not really a deal breaker.The survival mechanics is what puts me off the most. Might give it a go one day but having to sleep/eat/bathe etc just sounds boring. Especially as there are timed quests.
Isn't the save system strange as well?
Now THAT'S a cop-out.
I might be pushing it too far, but to me that sounds like 'It's a bad world, what does it matter what I do?'.
I mean if you live in a first world country you are undoubtedly giving money to terrible corporations who are much worse for the world than some racist guy on Twitter who owns a game studio. If someone wants a nice RPG and this scratches that itch I won't berate them for it. Just like I don't berate people who eat at Chikfila or shop at Amazon. Everyone has a right to not support these things for moral reasons if they choose, and I don't berate them either.
However some consumption is still more ethical than others. For instance I can choose an RPG not made under the purview of somebody who loudly supported a harassment campaign.
I can't see anybody being berated for playing the game though. All I'm seeing is signal boosting of the dev's beliefs, which I think is a grain of salt that should accompany every discussion of this game.And that's fine, just like someone choosing not to support Chikfila is fine. I don't berate those that do though. Amazon is up there for companies I despise the most, and I try not to use it best I can. I don't berate my roommates whenever they get an Amazon package though. Inform people so they can choose what they consume, but I think the post I quoted was a bit loaded and wanted to comment.
We're not shitting up anything, nor are we going anywhere. Problematic views of people directly related to a games development and publication is always on topic for any discussion related to said games, and thankfully the mod team agrees.
To me, the problem with this is claiming someone is a nazi who isn't one. Or racist. Vávra can be accused of some things - yes he was an asshole to some people on twitter, yes he likes music by Burzum (and black metal in general), yes he supported gamergate (in as much as he stupidly considered it fight against censorship), yes he is a conservative.
We're not shitting up anything, nor are we going anywhere. Problematic views of people directly related to a games development and publication is always on topic for any discussion related to said games, and thankfully the mod team agrees.
Sure, you do you and I largely agree - but the blank slate that is 'eh, everything's shit anyway so whatever I do doesn't matter' isn't a great philosophical position imo.
Mod team sanctioned derailment is always good time and lets not pretend that discussions about e.g. questionable or abhorrent political views of game dev team member don't absolutely derail and hijack general discussion threads about their game(s).
The person in question has oversight and input on crucial high-level decisions. The person in question still did, likely, a minority of work on the game. Not the grunt work or implementation work or marketing or art or bug fixing, which will have been handled by tens of other people. (I'm being a tiny bit disingenuous - he'll have done a lot of that stuff, but I mean the entire team have done the majority of work - it's a huge collaboration, so pinning the label "most important" on anyone is daft.
The person in question has oversight and input on crucial high-level decisions. The person in question still did, likely, a minority of work on the game. Not do the grunt work or implementation work or (I'm being a tiny bit disingenuous - he'll have done a lot of that, but I mean in terms of the entire team he'll have done the minority - just like every other individual.)
What about your workplace? Assuming you have a boss, would you be OK if people on forums started boycotting YOUR work because your boss got outed as an intolerant/prejudiced person?
Or think about a film set, where it's easier to visualise all ther roles. The director is one dude standing behind a camera to one side. There are three cameras, each with two OTHER staff members around them (grips, dolly guys, camera operators). There are two sound guys. There is a first assistant director, two second assistant directors, two third assistant directors. There are three runners. There are five make-up artists. There are five costumes and dress artists and one costumes director. There are several script supervisors. There are two producers. There are several actors.
After the film comes out, it turns out the director is an intolerant, sexist asshole. Does this one person's beliefs/actions represent the beliefs of (and invalidate the joint collaborative work) of the other 35+ people who were on set?
And this is before we even get to the tens of people in pre-production and post-production, at the publisher/studio, at all the outsourced agencies, etc, etc.
Yes, the director behind Kingdom Come: Deliverance was an asshole and for me (as well as you, I'm sure) that has "tainted" the product somewhat. It's totally understandable. But the reality is that this guy is a mid-sized cog in a very large machine where tens of smaller and larger cogs did tons of honest work and we can't smear HIS belief across all of them and count their work as invalid because of this.
I suppose there's an argument that by slandering the game or boycotting it based on his beliefs we send the message that this sort of thing isn't acceptable. That's the only rebuttal I could see here. But it doesn't work out anyway because 99% of the audience who buy the game will never hear about his beliefs or have any knowledge of this situation.
While I agree with this idea in principle (separating the artist from their work), in practice, that doesn't change the fact that his problematic viewpoints have (according to others who have played the game) actually found their way into the product, even if only subversively. If you could separate his viewpoints from the game, I would gladly play it but from what I've read, you actually cannot (not unless you willfully ignore certain aspects of the game).The person in question has oversight and input on crucial high-level decisions. The person in question still did, likely, a minority of work on the game. Not do the grunt work or implementation work or (I'm being a tiny bit disingenuous - he'll have done a lot of that, but I mean in terms of the entire team he'll have done the minority - just like every other individual.)
What about your workplace? Assuming you have a boss, would you be OK if people on forums started boycotting YOUR work because your boss got outed as an intolerant/prejudiced person?
Or think about a film set, where it's easier to visualise all ther roles. The director is one dude standing behind a camera to one side. There are three cameras, each with two OTHER staff members around them (grips, dolly guys, camera operators). There are two sound guys. There is a first assistant director, two second assistant directors, two third assistant directors. There are three runners. There are five make-up artists. There are five costumes and dress artists and one costumes director. There are several script supervisors. There are two producers. There are several actors.
After the film comes out, it turns out the director is an intolerant, sexist asshole. Does this one person's beliefs/actions represent the beliefs of (and invalidate the joint collaborative work) of the other 35+ people who were on set?
And this is before we even get to the tens of people in pre-production and post-production, at the publisher/studio, at all the outsourced agencies, etc, etc.
Yes, the director behind Kingdom Come: Deliverance was an asshole and for me (as well as you, I'm sure) that has "tainted" the product somewhat. It's totally understandable. But the reality is that this guy is a mid-sized cog in a very large machine where tens of smaller and larger cogs did tons of honest work and we can't smear HIS belief across all of them and count their work as invalid because of this.
I suppose there's an argument that by slandering the game or boycotting it based on his beliefs we send the message that this sort of thing isn't acceptable. That's the only rebuttal I could see here. But it doesn't work out anyway because 99% of the audience who buy the game will never hear about his beliefs or have any knowledge of this situation.
They were happy to let Vávra be the face of the studio and the game, despite his bullshit.
To what extent are his viewpoints actually reflected in the game? I wasn't aware of this. :grimace:While I agree with this idea in principle (separating the artist from their work), in practice, that doesn't change the fact that his problematic viewpoints have (according to others who have played the game) actually found their way into the product, even if only subversively. If you could separate his viewpoints from the game, I would gladly play it but from what I've read, you actually cannot (not unless you willfully ignore certain aspects of the game).
It's absolutely understandable that it reflects poorly on the company, as it should. On my end I'm only defending the game because I work closely with teams who make such products and feel the need to stand for the team as a whole (and their work) – seeing that the work and effort of these tens or hundreds of people get reduced to 0 because one senior member is an asshole just isn't right, even if in terms of optics/politics I'm totally with you.Exactly and that reflects poorly on the company as a whole, which shouldn't really be that hard to grasp.
Yep it's seriously great. I sunk about 40 hours into the PS4 version at release but several quests got bugged and couldn't be completed so I set it aside waiting for patches. Still haven't gotten back to it yet but I am really looking forward to doing so.
Obviously, I'm relying on other people's reports here since I haven't played the game so I cannot personally vouch for their accuracy but I've read more than once that there are several issues with the game's story:To what extent are his viewpoints actually reflected in the game? I wasn't aware of this. :grimace:
There is this mod overhaul which was recommended in rpgcodex review
https://www.nexusmods.com/kingdomcomedeliverance/mods/651
I can picture all that being true. I own the game but haven't dug deep into it yet. Will be interested to see how this pans out.Obviously, I'm relying on other people's reports here since I haven't played the game so I cannot personally vouch for their accuracy but I've read more than once that there are several issues with the game's story:
-Female characters are portrayed to be largely passive with little agency
-The only two gay characters shown in the game are bad guys and reportedly portrayed as being pretty bad people
-The political conflicts in the game are portrayed with a certain nationalist tinge that ignores/leaves out some groups' viewpoints or motivations in order to make another group look more heroic/righteous than they maybe actually were
OK. I'm also greatly looking forward to Biomutant, published by the same motley crew, and The Last Night, whose main creator probably ruffles your feathers as well. Is there any other way I can upset you today?
They were happy to let Vávra be the face of the studio and the game, despite his bullshit.
Ah, sorry for misinterpreting your post. I tend to be of the opinion that, if the work is something I would like and if it wasn't created under problematic/objectionable circumstances, then I'll usually try and ignore any grievances I might have with its creators, though there are certainly exceptions to that rule if said grievances are too big to ignore. And often times, those types of creators tend to make works I would not enjoy anyway (as is the case here where I probably would enjoy the gameplay but the story seems to be too tainted by Vavra's viewpoints for me to want to play the game).Quick FYI - I wasn't touting Death of the Author or separating art/from artist above. My main argument here is that these creative projects are giant collaborations on multiple, intense levels. These projects are bigger and more complex, with more moving parts, than a film from a few decades ago or, say, a novel or painting or sculture (which is mainly one person's output). Basically I'm saying it's like knocking down a whole bridge because one of the supporting struts is problematic. This director guy is only a small part of the puzzle, really - as much as he's important. A load-bearing strut.
My brother played through the entire game on OG ps4 with out too many issues, it really is up to how much that stuff affects you (I probably wouldn't be able to do it).Always wanted to try this game, but I would only be able to play it on a base PS4 and I think the performance wouldn't be good enough.
He's the director. I do not think "let" is the correct verb to use here.