Then why were you asking me:

You likely know I didn't meant that, and that I meant to show how both groups pander to people who are easily influenced to make a quick buck.

This...this is partially why I have trouble taking you seriously and replying much to you.

Also question: If certain others made a game pandering to the extreme right and pushed things you'd likely find distasteful, would you also respect their freedom to do so and sell such to people?


This bit was unneeded and you know it....so then why post it? Can you not prove your point without such?

I know the story of Camel cigarettes and the like, that isn't what I didn't get about your analogy. Thanks for the history lesson @_@, maybe I can give one of my own:

Taking the cigarettes comparison.
Cigarette companies specifically made ads targetted to children. Cigarettes are bad for you, and children shouldn't be targetted before they are legally responsible for their own actions (to smoke and give themselves health problems). The issue in that situation wasn't the fact that children were being targetted in and of itself, it was that they were being targetted to buy cigarettes, a harmful product.
So you have other companies that specifically target children ("pander" to them), and there's nothing wrong in and of itself: Cereal companies, toy manufacturers, etc.

So when I asked you "What are the cigarettes in your analogy?", I was specifically asking you "What is the harmful product in this situation, being marketted towards this group that makes specifically targetting them reprehensible?"
Buying games is not harmful in and of itself.

PS: It's good that everyone with a brain knows that non-white people exist. Because apparently, up until maybe 20-30 years ago, game companies didn't know that.

Many people, some here, feel that they don't want to give money to certain movies or vidya games based on this hatred of a supposed ideology and agenda. Are you denying this? The comment was not even directed at you (how could it, you cherrypicked from my reply to someone else)...

How is it (pseudo) brainwashing? To tell a story with some minorities in it? What about it is exactly brainwashing? Brainwashing not only has a wholly negative connotation, it's also based on falsehoods and lies. Are you saying diversity is a lie?

Taking money from kids or teens, by 'pandering' to them, by making them relate more to the story if they're from those groups? Wow, that's truly evil. Having black people or gay people buy entertainment goods because they liked the story and they could relate to one of the characters. Truly criminal.

I had to dig through looking for your 'super important question in post #99), for this?

i disappoint
OK I see what's happening here - you might have missed the rest of my post comment, and the point of it. Specifically about the part that I didn't really care that Piranha Bytes games always have a straight white male protagonist.

That in no way diminished my argument regarding having diversity in entertainment goods - and why not to boycott them due to some imaginary perceived political agenda 'shoved down our throats'. Actually, it *enforced* my argument about not boycotting goods.

Let me know if something is still unclear, it would help if you posted the whole relevant portion of my comments.

In general or in such cases with messaging built into the games? If in general, one could argue possible harm even via just buying games, and if in cases of games with messages it depends on the message and how easily influenced the person buying and playing them is.

That aside, I was comparing them less about the harm and more about how both types of companies(cigs and games) have in some cases pandered to easily influences groups to make a buck.

They knew it...they just mainly(iirc) put more white people in games because that was(I believe) the biggest demographic of game players back then.

(Similar to how many games allow one to choose their sex and gender in games because more groups play them now)
========================================

No, I was just musing/stating that I don't do that personally(in most cases anyways).

I reply to most posts in interesting topics.....the board is slow and I have plenty of free time.

No, but an example: Like if they alluded that x group was all bad(even if they aren't) and y group all good(even if they aren't), and pushed for people(who played it) to side with them and believe as they do.

Brainwashing can also be done to get people to side with a particular cause of ideology over another as well(true or false, good or bad).....and that's what I meant here.

Imo they should buy it because it's good, not just because someone that looks like them is in it.

---------------------

Also what about post 108's question? I'd really like to know how you'd reply to that one.

Still not getting you, sorry. The entire purpose of marketting is to influence people to buy your thing. The entire purpose of selling a commercial product is to get people to buy your commercial product. You've somehow turned it into a negative thing if the people being influenced are minorities? So if a game panders to you by not featuring any non-white, non-male characters, that's ok?

"Oh no, I'm a minority in that I love fruit-based horror games, and this company made a fruit-based horror game, and is specifically targetting my sort of person to buy it. THE HORROR OF PANDERING!"

babark replied to you about this - I had the same points. I.e. with your analogy, why do you consider pandering to minorities, i.e. having diversity, as harmful brainwashing? What's so harmful about it? But I'll let you two discuss it some more.

The far right are kinda loonies and extremists - not sure how you can equate writing a bit of diversity into entertainment goods and hating most minorities because of how they were born? Not sure that's a fair analogy, even if you suspect it's the 'far left' controlling those damned Californian writers.

In any case, freedoms exist, such as the freedom of speech. In most of the world, it is not absolute however (in fact all of the UN countries ratified this, some like the US don't believe it in much though) and has caveats. As soon as you bring harm to a group of people, you're no longer free to express yourself (loosely based on UN charter of Human Rights).

So no, if the game is about exterminating a group of people, whilst slandering them (there's that word again) and lying about the group of people to influence the audience, then I would disagree that that far right extremist vidya game should even be published.

However, if it were a fictional game being lightly critical of some far right - relevant issues (of which I won't discuss much further) without slandering or harming any group of people, I don't see why that vidya game shouldn't deserve to be published. Not sure I would buy it though, maybe at a discount just to see it. Certainly would not boycott it out of ideological reasons or whatever it is that some people pretend their boycott is about.

Still, imo it is morally wrong to cross certain boundaries(like marketing cigs to children, in my earlier example). Should profit come before morals?

No, I meant I think it's wrong to use certain methods to get money easily from some easily influenced people of said groups(or anyone really).

Nope.....i'd also be offended by that as well.

Read above......it's more about them using such to part people from their money using somewhat underhanded tactics.

You misread from two seperate issues I had with companies, it seems.

I have a problem with them pandering in such ways to anyone to make a quick buck(in recent years it has been to some groups, but I take issue when it's done to anyone)....especially by doing such to those that re easily parted from their money(especially children).

I also dislike them using their products to try to influence people and their stances(brainwash may be too strong a term...maybe change people's minds through subtle influencing in their products would be better) if they can into their way of thinking. Games and media should be about entertainment for the most part, not to promote ANY agenda or ideology or stance(even ones I agree with)

This seems fair enough for the most part.

That said, what about all the recent games that slander or poke fun at those on the right(like christians, white males, etc)...ok or no for them to do so?

Care to provide a relevant vidya gaming example? Does this sort of thing happen often, as you portray it to be an issue?

Again, brainwashing and ideology alludes to an evil entity with specific intent to control the masses. Who is that exactly? How does a vidya gaming company benefit from 'converting' people to become liberal progressive lefties? Or are these your tinfoil hat conspiracies?

How are they mutually exclusive? They could think the game is better because they could relate to it more, hence justify spending money on it.

The only reason NOT to include diversity in vidya games / movies, is if you think the proportion of prejudiced majority people exceeds the new customers from the minorities. From a business point of view of course. From all other points of view, it shouldn't matter whether the protagonist is white or black.

Again, in the example of marketting cigarettes to children, the moral problem, the boundary of immorality that was crossed was the fact that these companies were marketting cigarettes (a harmful product) to children (a more vulnerable group in society). If they were marketting cornflakes specifically to children (which they do: colourful characters looking down to the eye level of kids off the shelf in the market, toys in boxes, etc.), or toys (basically every cartoon in the 80s was an ad for a toy line), that's different.

So if your issue is simply that these developers are trying to get more minorities to play their games, because they've done the market research and found that minorities play games (duh), and they want a piece of that sweet, sweet minority cash...so what?

What is still unclear to me, why have you mentioned Gothic series not having female protagonist, but completely ignored Jedi: Fallen Order backlash, Vampyr backlash and many other backlashes about games having white male protagonist? Kingdom Come: Deliverance was also chastised for not having black characters in Medieval Europe.

As you can see backlashes can go both ways.

How does having black or gay people in vidya games 'promote an agenda or ideology'? Or having a bit of diversity? How is that 'influencing people's minds'? Of what exactly is that brainwashing?

And just admit it already - the cigarettes analogy was completely hopelessly ill-suited for this comparison and complete hyperbole. Unless of course you're crazy enough to argue that diversity is detrimental (health or otherwise).

You can poke fun in satire almost at anything, that's why things like political satire shows exist. Completely out of the blue racial jokes are pretty offensive though, and rarely get a positive reaction. Maybe some decades ago it was still ok.

But using slander against an entire group of people? Even to make a joke? Pretty distasteful dude.

Now, I expect you will give me concrete examples where this has happened in the vidya gaming world. I have proof of you being dishonest already, so sorry for not believing everything you say without backing it up.

Might be spoilers:

The Last of Us 2 leaks, and how the bad guys are all christian religious white people and the protag or one of the characters fighting them is a trans character.

There are others, but as I have IRL memory issues i'd need to compile a list and it'd take some time...if you want to bother me listing more examples, that is.

Edit: Another one: When RE5 was being made people got upset the enemies in a game set in africa wre mostly black....so they had to change it.

That still doesn't discount if a company did it for the wrong reasons, and imo it is unwise to support such tactics...companies should do such because it's the right thing to do...not to make more money from those who identify with whatever they added to the media in question.

Also companies could make entirely new properties for said groups instead of shoehorning them into other series and properties to appear progressive to score points with some groups and get their money.

I never said or meant to infer(if I did) that they shouldn't include such...just to do it right and for the right reasons.

Agreed, as long as(as I said before) they are doing it for the right reasons....to me that matters, that companies have some morals like that and stick to them.

Some people** like such things just like some like dark humor...who are we to be their moral judges? I say let people laugh at what they want as long as it's in their own mind and confined to there alone.

(**=Even members of the group the joke is about)

===========================

To some it's an issue....just because it isn't to you doesn't mean it's not an issue worthy of consideration.

Heck, YT got in trouble awhile back for tailoring ads to children based on their viewing habits to make some of that "sweet cash".

Yes, and now Youtube blocks ad revenue from your channel if you're found to be targetting children and have mature content (cussing, violence, etc). Again, the goal here (however haphazardly being applied) is to have a vulnerable group protected.

How does this relate to "targetting minorities" with games involving diverse characters?

Yeah ok, sure there were probably *some* people who actually boycotted those games because of lack of diversity. Or maybe it was just due to lack of choice. How many do you think did that? How many people represent the ones that vocally go on forums to say they boycott vidya games based on politics? And what about how many actually follow through with their boycott?

How many copies did those incredibly succesful games sell again?

Extreme viewpoints happen on both sides - and it's wholly possible both of those extremist views are wrong and misguided.

And this is basically whataboutism and the 'both sides' argument. "What about the other side?! They are doing it too! Thus justifying our actions!" No, two wrongs don't make a right.

Once again, my entire point with my example and otherwise in general, was that stop jumping on hate bandwagons and pretending to be edgy by boycotting vidya games on misguided hateful ideals.