Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by GuerillaTactix:

Making a character that wasn't gay to an optional gay in the second game. It selling or being popular doesn't make it any less true. To appeal to certain demographics something was added which based on past history likely wouldn't have been added before.

Funny how the only popular woke games are tacked onto huge franchises.. everything else it destroys.

I didn't know Hades 2 was from a massive franchise

Originally posted by DnD not me cup of T:

Originally posted by Hunter Este:

And then in KCD2 they bent the knee. :dos2skull:

-Christ is King! :gk_cross:

kcd2 was Daniel sold the whole enterprise to DeepSilver and they wanted to get some funds from EU.

BINGO! And people wonder why Deepsilver is linked to Blackrock/Vanguard and Howell Group...

Originally posted by DnD not me cup of T:

Originally posted by Hunter Este:

And then in KCD2 they bent the knee. :dos2skull:

-Christ is King! :gk_cross:

kcd2 was Daniel sold the whole enterprise to DeepSilver and they wanted to get some funds from EU.

And still somehow very positive with over 100k reviews..hmm

I guess "woke bad" aren't as large of a force they depict themselves to be

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

"Woke" is in everything as it simply is about tolerance.

Also funny how popular "woke" games turned "not woke" cause anti-wokes enjoyed the games.

I did not enjoy BG3 or KCD2.

Doesn't change things.

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

I did not enjoy BG3 or KCD2.

Doesn't change things.

Games don't have to specifically appease you.

I don't enjoy soulslikes. But that has no bearing on the games qualities.

COLUMNS

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

"Woke" is in everything as it simply is about tolerance.

Also funny how popular "woke" games turned "not woke" cause anti-wokes enjoyed the games.

My biggest issue with the woke agenda in video games is their attack on all things fanservice.

BG3 has attractive ladies, and it even features them in sex scenes. The game even had a "time until sex" speed run category.

But as always, you always ignore this point.

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Doesn't change things.

Games don't have to specifically appease you.

I don't enjoy soulslikes. But that has no bearing on the games qualities.

Exactly. Games like BG3 and KCD2 are good games. The former is in my interest so I'll get it at one point, the latter is not. Even though I apparently own the first KCD, I'm not interested in playing that either, lol.

Originally posted by They Live, We Sleep!:

Most strange phenomena can be pinned down to a single date or title, such as the first game to feature a turrent section, or the first game to feature quick-time events (I'm glad those two features are gone). So, what was the first game where the developers had a "activist" mindset, where they didn't care about their customers at all and actively fought against them brazenly. When did this terrible, narcissistic mindset start, and what's the first game to be plagued by it?

I can pinpoint such a mindset with movies, with Ghostbusters 2016. That was the first movie I saw where the director, the actors, and even the studio funding it actively went against the customers and fought against them so openly. It was pretty weird, which made it satisfying when the movie flopped and it sequel was cancelled.

But what about games? What was the first game to be plagued with the "activist" mindset that ruined it?

When did gamers start thinking that games were made just for them like its your Mom making it for her special little boy? Not every game is a mega Call of Duty level cash grab. I'm assuming you are butt hurt about subnautica 2. So which is it? Is a video game solely a product? Is it Art? Are projects people feel passionately about supposed to be for pure profit without trying to put out the creators vision? I can safely say you will get the answer wrong so let me tell you. It is what the creator of the game wants. Games are varying levels of product for profit and art and its 100% up to the creator. You shouldn;t get a say period. If gamers do get a say its because THE CREATOR ALLOWS AND WANTS IT. MAKING IT NOT YOUR DECISION AT ALL. Sorry for caps , but I'm guessing force is needed to really get you to hear truth.

Originally posted by Lux-X-Tenebri:

Originally posted by They Live, We Sleep!:

Most strange phenomena can be pinned down to a single date or title, such as the first game to feature a turrent section, or the first game to feature quick-time events (I'm glad those two features are gone). So, what was the first game where the developers had a "activist" mindset, where they didn't care about their customers at all and actively fought against them brazenly. When did this terrible, narcissistic mindset start, and what's the first game to be plagued by it?

I can pinpoint such a mindset with movies, with Ghostbusters 2016. That was the first movie I saw where the director, the actors, and even the studio funding it actively went against the customers and fought against them so openly. It was pretty weird, which made it satisfying when the movie flopped and it sequel was cancelled.

But what about games? What was the first game to be plagued with the "activist" mindset that ruined it?

When did gamers start thinking that games were made just for them like its your Mom making it for her special little boy? Not every game is a mega Call of Duty level cash grab. I'm assuming you are butt hurt about subnautica 2. So which is it? Is a video game solely a product? Is it Art? Are projects people feel passionately about supposed to be for pure profit without trying to put out the creators vision? I can safely say you will get the answer wrong so let me tell you. It is what the creator of the game wants. Games are varying levels of product for profit and art and its 100% up to the creator. You shouldn;t get a say period. If gamers do get a say its because THE CREATOR ALLOWS AND WANTS IT. MAKING IT NOT YOUR DECISION AT ALL. Sorry for caps , but I'm guessing force is needed to really get you to hear truth.

Gamers never thought games were only made for them. We have known from the start to just skip games we are not interested in.

The issue came about when activist started trying to force changes into the game THAT WERE targeted at us, to appeal to activists who have proven repeatedly, that they will NOT BUY ANYTHING even if it panders to them exclusively.

That is why the phrase, "get woke, go broke," came about. Devs and publishers were alienating their core audience in an effort to appeal to people who would never buy their games no matter what.

Originally posted by Revenge of the Nerd:

Gears of war isnt a FPS

Yeah yeah yeah, but if I say FPS instead of shooter, people probably understand what I mean more in that context. I suppose I could have said FPS/TPS. Most accurate. But that would have been annoying with how many times I used the word FPS in my three paragraphs.

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

"Woke" is in everything as it simply is about tolerance.

Also funny how popular "woke" games turned "not woke" cause anti-wokes enjoyed the games.

My biggest issue with the woke agenda in video games is their attack on all things fanservice.

BG3 has attractive ladies, and it even features them in sex scenes. The game even had a "time until sex" speed run category.

But as always, you always ignore this point.

The woke agenda isn't why games are getting censored on Steam and the consoles. Woke people have very little power over art (besides the fact that they are often the artist/developer themselves). It's the payment processors that have the power. And those payment processors were given the greenlight by Project 2025 to keep censoring titles coming to Steam.

Heck, that executive order you were convinced would stop banks/payment processors from censoring a while back clearly didn't work. And I remember telling you guys the head of the FCC told the payment processors that they didn't need to worry about the order and could keep censoring their usual stuff. Turns out I was right in hindsight. Project 2025's goal was never to end the censorship, but to continue and increase it. They got their wish.

Originally posted by Soren:

Originally posted by Revenge of the Nerd:

Gears of war isnt a FPS

Yeah yeah yeah, but if I say FPS instead of shooter, people probably understand what I mean more in that context. I suppose I could have said FPS/TPS. Most accurate. But that would have been annoying with how many times I used the word FPS in my three paragraphs.

Originally posted by D. Flame:

My biggest issue with the woke agenda in video games is their attack on all things fanservice.

BG3 has attractive ladies, and it even features them in sex scenes. The game even had a "time until sex" speed run category.

But as always, you always ignore this point.

The woke agenda isn't why games are getting censored on Steam and the consoles. Woke people have very little power over art (besides the fact that they are often the artist/developer themselves). It's the payment processors that have the power. And those payment processors were given the greenlight by Project 2025 to keep censoring titles coming to Steam.

Heck, that executive order you were convinced would stop banks/payment processors from censoring a while back clearly didn't work. And I remember telling you guys the head of the FCC told the payment processors that they didn't need to worry about the order and could keep censoring their usual stuff. Turns out I was right in hindsight. Project 2025's goal was never to end the censorship, but to continue and increase it. They got their wish.

Fake news.

The censorship ♥♥♥♥ was happening long before the activists prompted Visa and MC into action. Consultation groups like Sweet Baby Inc. were threatening publishers to censor their games long before that.

https://www.deviantart.com/jollyjack/art/The-Thing-They-Want-895234937

Not to mention how they would ♥♥♥♥ on characters like Bayonetta, 2B, etc. then turn around and claim them as "neo feminists icons" the second the next target emerged.

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

"Woke" is in everything as it simply is about tolerance.

Incorrect. "Woke" is about being "awakened" from a "false consciousness" into the supposedly "real" worldview, consisting of a simple scheme of collective power relations. There's no tolerance in that.

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Soren:

Yeah yeah yeah, but if I say FPS instead of shooter, people probably understand what I mean more in that context. I suppose I could have said FPS/TPS. Most accurate. But that would have been annoying with how many times I used the word FPS in my three paragraphs.

The woke agenda isn't why games are getting censored on Steam and the consoles. Woke people have very little power over art (besides the fact that they are often the artist/developer themselves). It's the payment processors that have the power. And those payment processors were given the greenlight by Project 2025 to keep censoring titles coming to Steam.

Heck, that executive order you were convinced would stop banks/payment processors from censoring a while back clearly didn't work. And I remember telling you guys the head of the FCC told the payment processors that they didn't need to worry about the order and could keep censoring their usual stuff. Turns out I was right in hindsight. Project 2025's goal was never to end the censorship, but to continue and increase it. They got their wish.

Fake news.

The censorship ♥♥♥♥ was happening long before the activists prompted Visa and MC into action. Consultation groups like Sweet Baby Inc. were threatening publishers to censor their games long before that.

https://www.deviantart.com/jollyjack/art/The-Thing-They-Want-895234937

Not to mention how they would ♥♥♥♥ on characters like Bayonetta, 2B, etc. then turn around and claim them as "neo feminists icons" the second the next target emerged.

I'm disappointed to see that you drank the kool-aid, mami.

Originally posted by hazydistance:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

"Woke" is in everything as it simply is about tolerance.

Incorrect. "Woke" is about being "awakened" from a "false consciousness" into the supposedly "real" worldview, consisting of a simple scheme of collective power relations. There's no tolerance in that.

Incorrect. Woke has been in use since the 1930s or earlier to refer to awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination faced by African-Americans, often as "stay woke".

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Fake news.

The censorship ♥♥♥♥ was happening long before the activists prompted Visa and MC into action. Consultation groups like Sweet Baby Inc. were threatening publishers to censor their games long before that.

That story you are citing was made up. I remember explaining that one to you in the past too. The original source was a random troll from weibo who claimed "chinese journalists" were saying it. The user in question often posted a lot of fake agitprop to get Americans to fight each other and no evidence was actually presented that this was happening. Piratsoftware (not piratesoftware) retweeted it without verifying it and the lie spread from there. He was wrong. Everyone makes mistakes though.

Let's talk about the actual issues tho. Project 2025 has their hands in all the censorship pies. Not just that executive order I mentioned. They were even secretly behind Collective Shout. It must be very nice to blame the feminists when those self evowed "feminists" are secretly tied to the Project 2025 Founder and hold mostly right wing beliefs in private. The org is anti-trans, anti-abortion, anti-porn, visits right wing churches regularly, and is allied solely with other right wing groups along with Project 2025. Why adopt the feminist label then? Project 2025 would rather you have a scapegoat than you blame the real culprit.

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Not to mention how they would ♥♥♥♥ on characters like Bayonetta, 2B, etc. then turn around and claim them as "neo feminists icons" the second the next target emerged.

Oh no, I'm mistaken. The twitter lefties actually do have a lot of power/control after all by the fact that they changed nothing and pretended they were right after the fact. What a powerful argument you have. I was clearly wrong. I apologize for their immense power over society that they used to change nothing.