Jump to content

Smash controversy regarding war bonnet


redlight
 Share

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Jotari said:

What on Earth gave you the impression I was deciding how people should or shouldn't feel about anything? I'm just dissecting the logic as to why people feel the way they do. What ethnic, gender, age or class background I come from is completely irrelevant. If I happened to be a native American and typed the exact same words, they wouldn't magically have a different meaning. I haven't even expressed my personal opinion on the matter (beyond thinking it was a wise business move on Nintendo's part). I'm trying to have an intellectual debate upon the whats, the wheres and the whys of it. Maybe you're reading more aggression into my words than I'm intending (and my intention is none).

I misread perhaps, yes, I apologize, though generally in trying to dissect the issue from a place of logic makes some of what you had said read like you were trying to determine what is fair game for taking offense and what isn't. I'm used to dealing with people who make disingenuous arguments so I'm perhaps over-vigilant towards people who take a position that they claim is "logic and reason based" when it's really an effort to pedantically spread toxic bullshit.

15 minutes ago, Jotari said:

On that point, is it a case that all caricatures are bad and unallowed then? If instead of Fire Attack, in 1982 Nintendo released a simple LCD game that featured Native Americans as the protagonists fighting off Wedingos with the same fire animation, would the animation still warrant removal? Is Mr Game & Watch completely unallowed to be depicted as a Native American under any and all circumstances? Even positive ones?

It's a complicated subject, but generally speaking, using racial caricatures is a bad idea, especially if you're either lacking an understanding of that group, or worse, part of the group that historically/currently takes advantage of the group being portrayed. If you consider that caricature denotes being that it's an embellishment of that person or group in comedic/grotesque ways, then yeah it's pretty much bad from the start. That's not to say that a Japanese company can't make Native Americans, black people, etc the focus of their games, but to do so without much thought or consideration given on how runs the risk of being offensive.

The video I linked earlier gives some good examples of how cultural appropriation is, strictly speaking, a neutral concept, just that it can be done in good/bad/ambiguous ways. As she says, "The real question people want the answer to is, where the line is between positive examples of representation and harmful cultural appropriation-- and that's the problem; there really isn't a line." Check out the video if you have time since it showcases and discusses some good, bad, and ambiguous cases.

30 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Regarding freedom of expression, perhaps that's the wrong turn of phrase, but it's absolutely true that there is a backlash against over political correctness and social justice warrior culture in modern society. That's why these things are called controversies in the first place.

True enough that it's not something everyone is agreeing on, though disagreements over cases like this ultimately come down whether or not to respect and listen to women, minorities, LGBT groups, etc. Gaming communities in general consist largely of straight white boys, and it's not uncommon to see dickish entitlement and hypocrisy when they complain about "the Ess Jay Dubs" ruining games by either wanting some respect or getting it from developers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

just to say my thought on it,

game and watch gallery 4 had different looking enemies for its fire attack, I feel like the change to reflect what north america had is a better representation in the west, while japan keeps what their version is.

thats just how I want to see it tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

Regarding freedom of expression, perhaps that's the wrong turn of phrase, but it's absolutely true that there is a backlash against over political correctness and social justice warrior culture in modern society. That's why these things are called controversies in the first place. It's one of the main reasons Trump got elected.

It’s more the case that dissent can actually be heard now. Getting upset over “SJW culture” is basically like getting upset over hearing that everyone thinks you give shitty Christmas presents. These aren’t new issues, even if they’re new to you or I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Thany said:

just to say my thought on it,

game and watch gallery 4 had different looking enemies for its fire attack, I feel like the change to reflect what north america had is a better representation in the west, while japan keeps what their version is.

thats just how I want to see it tho.

That’s most likely what will happen. It’s a pretty easy fix. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Johann said:

I misread perhaps, yes, I apologize, though generally in trying to dissect the issue from a place of logic makes some of what you had said read like you were trying to determine what is fair game for taking offense and what isn't. I'm used to dealing with people who make disingenuous arguments so I'm perhaps over-vigilant towards people who take a position that they claim is "logic and reason based" when it's really an effort to pedantically spread toxic bullshit.

It's a complicated subject, but generally speaking, using racial caricatures is a bad idea, especially if you're either lacking an understanding of that group, or worse, part of the group that historically/currently takes advantage of the group being portrayed. If you consider that caricature denotes being that it's an embellishment of that person or group in comedic/grotesque ways, then yeah it's pretty much bad from the start. That's not to say that a Japanese company can't make Native Americans, black people, etc the focus of their games, but to do so without much thought or consideration given on how runs the risk of being offensive.

The video I linked earlier gives some good examples of how cultural appropriation is, strictly speaking, a neutral concept, just that it can be done in good/bad/ambiguous ways. As she says, "The real question people want the answer to is, where the line is between positive examples of representation and harmful cultural appropriation-- and that's the problem; there really isn't a line." Check out the video if you have time since it showcases and discusses some good, bad, and ambiguous cases.

True enough that it's not something everyone is agreeing on, though disagreements over cases like this ultimately come down whether or not to respect and listen to women, minorities, LGBT groups, etc. Gaming communities in general consist largely of straight white boys, and it's not uncommon to see dickish entitlement and hypocrisy when they complain about "the Ess Jay Dubs" ruining games by either wanting some respect or getting it from developers.

Saw Lindsay's Pocahontas video months ago. It's a good video. Raises some interesting points. And that's exactly the question I'm asking. Where is the line considered here? Will this image always be racist, inherently, because it depicts an angry native American, or is it racist because it is a reference to something else that is racist given more context?

1

 

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Saw Lindsay's Pocahontas video months ago. It's a good video. Raises some interesting points. And that's exactly the question I'm asking. Where is the line considered here? Will this image always be racist, inherently, because it depicts an angry native American, or is it racist because it is a reference to something else that is racist given more context?

Glad you've watched it, she does some great work.

Anyway, in this case, the image by itself is racist. The added context of what it references makes it worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Johann said:

True enough that it's not something everyone is agreeing on, though disagreements over cases like this ultimately come down whether or not to respect and listen to women, minorities, LGBT groups, etc. Gaming communities in general consist largely of straight white boys, and it's not uncommon to see dickish entitlement and hypocrisy when they complain about "the Ess Jay Dubs" ruining games by either wanting some respect or getting it from developers.

Whatever you think about the complaints about Battlefield V (I think they are dumb) - calling people uneducated was perhaps not the best marketing strategy, and telling people not to buy the game if they don't like it may fly as a random person instead of a PR statement, but when people really don't buy it (and it's looking that way comparatively to previous games or competitors), you'll see how deeply EA really care about social issues to the point of overriding the developers in future.

do we really think EA, who have if not the worst, one of the worst reputations as a gaming corporation, really care about diversity and inclusion? they and DICE will say they do - until it hurts their bottom line. i don't know why people think corporations are genuine about their social issue perspectives, or why they need defending from gaming media on such things. Shilling for unethical corporations is not progressive. If Battlefield V does poorly (which while it's looking like it won't bomb, is less than expectations by a fair margin), then look at the next game and see how it's marketed if it's made at all.

I'm not going to say that all controversies are the same, and I have no desire to say that the people who dedicate themselves to talking about SJWs all the time really have consumers in mind either (though it is very profitable nowadays!), but the shitstorm that was the Diablo: Immortal announcement just happened, and I saw someone that worked in the industry, or at least as a Senior Account Director, try to tie the very poor reception to toxic masculinity because the mobile gaming market is traditionally associated with a heavily female audience. that's the "roll your eyes" type of statement.

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Whatever you think about the complaints about Battlefield V (I think they are dumb) - calling people uneducated was perhaps not the best marketing strategy, and telling people not to buy the game if they don't like it may fly as a random person instead of a PR statement, but when people really don't buy it (and it's looking that way comparatively to previous games or competitors), you'll see how deeply EA really care about social issues to the point of overriding the developers in future.

do we really think EA, who have if not the worst, one of the worst reputations as a gaming corporation, really care about diversity and inclusion? they and DICE will say they do - until it hurts their bottom line. i don't know why people think corporations are genuine about their social issue perspectives, or why they need defending from gaming media on such things. Shilling for unethical corporations is not progressive. If Battlefield V does poorly (which while it's looking like it won't bomb, is less than expectations by a fair margin), then look at the next game and see how it's marketed if it's made at all.

I'm not going to say that all controversies are the same, and I have no desire to say that the people who dedicate themselves to talking about SJWs all the time really have consumers in mind either (though it is very profitable nowadays!), but the shitstorm that was the Diablo: Immortal announcement just happened, and I saw someone that worked in the industry, or at least as a Senior Account Director, try to tie the very poor reception to toxic masculinity because the mobile gaming market is traditionally associated with a heavily female audience. that's the "roll your eyes" type of statement.

I honestly didn't follow the Battlefield stuff in its entirety, I only know that they added female characters and people lost their shit over it. Even if EA's bottom line is money (which is something anyone can verify by looking at their long history), positive inclusion is still very much a good thing.

I haven't followed the Diablo thing either (like I don't even know what the new game or whatever is supposed to be), but at the very least it wouldn't be incorrect to say that many vocal (predominately male) gamers possess a strong sense of entitlement and behave, well, in a toxic manner when they don't get what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seems kinda dumb on all sides.  Dumb that people are offended by it and dumb that people are raising a fuss over a pretty minor change.  Now I will say there have been times where the "PC" stuff has been taken too far to the point of crippling the original product. When that is placed above producing a good product or service particularly in entertainment it typically doesn't end well for anyone and a very inadvisable way to run a business.  Especially when the ones screaming the loudest tend to be the vast minority of people and most just want to buy a good game and enjoy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, LordOTaco said:

Just seems kinda dumb on all sides.  Dumb that people are offended by it and dumb that people are raising a fuss over a pretty minor change.  Now I will say there have been times where the "PC" stuff has been taken too far to the point of crippling the original product. When that is placed above producing a good product or service particularly in entertainment it typically doesn't end well for anyone and a very inadvisable way to run a business.  Especially when the ones screaming the loudest tend to be the vast minority of people and most just want to buy a good game and enjoy it.

Why do you think it's dumb that people are offended? You understand the context, right? That's the important part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that bothers me about this whole situation is that people are applying 2018 social standards to a character from a game made in 1982. Yes, if you portrayed a native american like a headdress wearing savage these days it would undoubtedly be considered racism, but 30 years ago it probably wouldn't have been seen with as much malcontent because time were different, what are now considered racist depictions were probably considered the norm back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Johann said:

I honestly didn't follow the Battlefield stuff in its entirety, I only know that they added female characters and people lost their shit over it. Even if EA's bottom line is money (which is something anyone can verify by looking at their long history), positive inclusion is still very much a good thing.

I haven't followed the Diablo thing either (like I don't even know what the new game or whatever is supposed to be), but at the very least it wouldn't be incorrect to say that many vocal (predominately male) gamers possess a strong sense of entitlement and behave, well, in a toxic manner when they don't get what they want.

If they dangle a carrot on a stick, that doesn't mean you should grab it. EA is a corporation who's sole purpose is to gain as much profit as they can - we see this through decisions such as Command & Conquer: Rivals. Think about it this way: how many socially-minded people are going to buy the game that weren't going to before? I'd wager, not many. If EA sees this is a significant reason for why/if Battlefield V doesn't do so well, do you think they are going to do it in future? Corporations co-opting progressive ideas and executing them terribly has never been a good thing (because they really don't care about inclusion over profit). I view it more as tokenism, and not in a good or natural way. This is disregarding any care I have for people getting upset about such things and then turning around and praising games like Doom: Eternal for "owning the SJWs" with comments from in-game holograms.

Actually, I find that Doom: Eternal thing relevant, because it had sections where the UAC (in-universe corporation) had holograms that would say things like:

“Earth is the melting pot of the Universe!”

“Remember, ‘demon’ can be an offensive term. Refer to them as ‘mortally challenged.”

https://www.vgr.com/why-people-find-doom-eternal-offensive/

In the exaggerated scenario of a corporation trying to downplay the significance of a demonic invasion as a result of their own greed, I find those pretty fitting for a jab at corporatism and corporate PR speak.

The Diablo thing in a brief context is that Blizzard (now merged with Activision) have an annual conference of their own called Blizzcon. They announce games there, and fans of Diablo were hoping for some new core game in the franchise that popularised the genre hack n' slash, and should be a flagship series. It's been four years since the Diablo 3 expansion and six years since Diablo 3, which had it's own controversies (real money Auction House at launch).

Blizzard announced a mobile game only called Diablo: Immortal at Blizzcon which is being outsourced in development to a company called NetEase, who do not have a good reputation in the Chinese mobile market, and had some PR blunders like asked if it would come to PC (Blizzard's core fanbase), the response was "you guys have phones, right?" Blizzard are a company known for their high standards and will cancel games that do not meet them - this is comparatively low effort to carry their name, but if they simply announced a mainline game at the same time (logo is all that was needed), people wouldn't care about the mobile game. Someone went up during their Q&A and asked if "this was a out-of-season April Fool's joke" for some context in the next image.

Longstanding fans showed their disapproval, especially since it also seems like this is evidence that Blizzard are going to more anti-consumer ways since fusing with Activision. This is the response from articles wrote about it or from various industry writers. The first guy is who I was referring to. When you start to go into something that nobody was saying or is even relevant, then you are losing people. I think the funnier part of this deal, however, is that the mobile game is clearly marketed for the Chinese mobile market (where mobile gaming is popular). So this game contains all the Diablo 3 classes, with the exception of the Witch Doctor. The Witch Doctor is the only black character, and it is likely that they were cut because China doesn't take too kindly to black characters being portrayed. These people remind me of politicians that have been living in a bubble for too long.

 

As for this entire thing, the part I don't get is why they would even begin with the original animation if they already changed it in the 2002 re-release. Surely this came up in development?

Edited by Tryhard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, TheGoodHoms said:

The thing that bothers me about this whole situation is that people are applying 2018 social standards to a character from a game made in 1982. Yes, if you portrayed a native american like a headdress wearing savage these days it would undoubtedly be considered racism, but 30 years ago it probably wouldn't have been seen with as much malcontent because time were different, what are now considered racist depictions were probably considered the norm back then. 

Especially for a Japanese company that only has any exposure to the history presented via cowboy movies.

23 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

They removed Chewbacca too :( That's just unacceptable.

Edited by Jotari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

If they dangle a carrot on a stick, that doesn't mean you should grab it. EA is a corporation who's sole purpose is to gain as much profit as they can - we see this through decisions such as Command & Conquer: Rivals. Think about it this way: how many socially-minded people are going to buy the game that weren't going to before? I'd wager, not many. If EA sees this is a significant reason for why/if Battlefield V doesn't do so well, do you think they are going to do it in future? Corporations co-opting progressive ideas and executing them terribly has never been a good thing (because they really don't care about inclusion over profit). I view it more as tokenism, and not in a good or natural way. This is disregarding any care I have for people getting upset about such things and then turning around and praising games like Doom: Eternal for "owning the SJWs" with comments from in-game holograms.

A fair point, there's not really a reason to trust that companies are necessarily sincere, but on the other hand, positive representation is still positive representation. It's showing a change for more inclusive games, and as that becomes more of the norm, other developers will shift in that direction as well. Reverting back due to the game not selling well (blaming inclusion) would be an extremely nearsighted move, especially as other companies shift more towards inclusion. I'm not going to bother predicting what EA as an individual company would do, but I think most would have more sense, especially as market analysis would provide a more clear picture than attributing it to whatever vocal idiots are saying/doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, this isn't up to the standards of Serious Discussion.  If you guys want to continue the talk about stereotypes, video games, and whatnot, make a topic there.

My thoughts: This is far too big of a deal.  It was changed.  Why is this still an issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow I missed this thread. 

It's good that Nintendo removed it. Yes, it's offensive when a group of people who've been victimized for hundreds of years, and who are still discriminated against, get represented in media as the bad guys coming to terrorize their oppressors. That's what the original game is. Of course it's a product of its time but that doesn't mean that it wasn't wrong back then too. It just means the opinion of Native Americans who it might have offended wasn't valued back then. And since the reference adds nothing positive to Smash Bros today, there's no reason to prioritize keeping it over not offending someone.

The comparison to Mario Odyssey doesn't work because the Tostarenans and Mario's outfit aren't offensive in and of themselves, they're the opposite, celebrating a culture. What would be offensive is if the Tostarenans were depicted as evil invaders of the Mushroom Kingdom or if Mario in his costume had to lead an invasion of the Beanbean Kingdom or some crap like that.

I do find it odd that people criticizing its removal are doing so by asking how anyone can be offended by such a small reference. If it was as unimportant as they claim then they wouldn't care that it got removed either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Book Bro said:

I do find it odd that people criticizing its removal are doing so by asking how anyone can be offended by such a small reference. If it was as unimportant as they claim then they wouldn't care that it got removed either.

The truth is, none of these people actually cared about the feather. They just care about this invisible "SJW" threat and want to stick it to those who they (wrongly) perceive to be "ruining video games."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
6 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

EDIT: I had some things to say about this subject, but I do not think I took the best approach in voicing my opinions, so I request that this post be deleted.

Curiosity intensifies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...