The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

Well this is nice.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ransphobic-game-removed-from-steam-greenlight

What the article doesn't point out however is that the studio head and lead designer is (and I quote his twitter) "Composer, 3D artist, game programmer/designer, skateboarder, and follower of Jesus Christ."
Source: https://twitter.com/randallherman

He's quite evangelical in his approach as well, setting up a skate shoe company to “to promote the words and teachings of Jesus Christ through quality footwear,”; given that I find his 'just trolling' justification a little hard to swallow.

Nice to see however that just about every voice actor and musician associated with his studio have pulled the right to use their material from him. He had his moment of free speech and now has the consequences.

It is interesting though, isn't it - that a game which promotes violence against a particular group of people is so much more appalling than a game like grand theft auto which promotes violence against random people. It must have something to do with a deeper sense of justice. Like random killing with no motive is at least even-handed, whereas killing people because they're a member of a group is clearly injustice. Strange how our brains are wired.

 

[Scaff]

It is interesting though, isn't it - that a game which promotes violence against a particular group of people is so much more appalling than a game like grand theft auto which promotes violence against random people. It must have something to do with a deeper sense of justice. Like random killing with no motive is at least even-handed, whereas killing people because they're a member of a group is clearly injustice. Strange how our brains are wired.

It is to a large degree, I would agree, that GTA is at least even handed in its violence while this is very, very specific.

 

[FoolKiller]

It is interesting though, isn't it - that a game which promotes violence against a particular group of people is so much more appalling than a game like grand theft auto which promotes violence against random people. It must have something to do with a deeper sense of justice. Like random killing with no motive is at least even-handed, whereas killing people because they're a member of a group is clearly injustice. Strange how our brains are wired.

It's virtual hate crimes. We all know killing a gay man because he is gay is worse than killing a random man for his car. There are just certain lines you shouldn't cross when murdering someone. The random guy is a statistic. The gay man is a horrible tragedy.


/sarcasm

 

[TenEightyOne]

It's virtual hate crimes. We all know killing a gay man because he is gay is worse than killing a random man for his car. There are just certain lines you shouldn't cross when murdering someone. The random guy is a statistic. The gay man is a horrible tragedy.


/sarcasm

As @Scaff noted; this game is very specific in the group of people that it promotes violence against. GTA is full of different characters of different backgrounds and orientations and there is no distinction between violence against (or collaboration with) any of them.

 

[FoolKiller]

As @Scaff noted; this game is very specific in the group of people that it promotes violence against. GTA is full of different characters of different backgrounds and orientations and there is no distinction between violence against (or collaboration with) any of them.

Because targeted violence is worse than indiscriminate violence?

 

[squadops]

Only in the eyes of prosecutors, it seems insulting to survivors of victims doesn't it.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Because targeted violence is worse than indiscriminate violence?

Yes, I'd say so. In a game like GTA where violence is an optional activity (outside SP tasks) it's a completely different proposition from a game where the only task is to "eliminate AIDS carriers".

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes, I'd say so. In a game like GTA where violence is an optional activity (outside SP tasks) it's a completely different proposition from a game where the only task is to "eliminate AIDS carriers".

Choosing to kill unnecessarily, and being rewarded for it, is better?

The point is: murder is murder. Violence is violence. The reasoning shouldn't matter, virtual or real. Players can choose to play or not play a targeted game just as they can choose to kill or not in GTA.

That said: Steam can run their business as they wish.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Choosing to kill unnecessarily, and being rewarded for it, is better?

The point is: murder is murder. Violence is violence. The reasoning shouldn't matter, virtual or real. Players can choose to play or not play a targeted game just as they can choose to kill or not in GTA.

That said: Steam can run their business as they wish.

I wasn't discussing players' freedom of choice or Steam's business, simply what I thought the majority opinion would be. It seems that Steam may agree with that majority opinion given their statement and subsequent actions.

Murder is indeed murder, violence is indeed violence. Why would those things be better than another? GTA pushes neither of those into the majority of gameplay scenarios. The game under discussion has violent murder as its sole purpose. To my mind that makes this game a nasty piece of work when compared (as I was doing) to a wider-reaching game such as GTA.

 

[Dan]

With GTA, the game doesn't force you to kill innocent civilians. It even punishes you if you choose to do that by giving you a Wanted level. In that other game, you are forced to kill innocent people and are rewarded for doing so.

 

[Danoff]

With GTA, the game doesn't force you to kill innocent civilians. It even punishes you if you choose to do that by giving you a Wanted level. In that other game, you are forced to kill innocent people and are rewarded for doing so.

Let's not pretend that that's the reason why one of these is more offensive than the other.

 

[FoolKiller]

With GTA, the game doesn't force you to kill innocent civilians. It even punishes you if you choose to do that by giving you a Wanted level. In that other game, you are forced to kill innocent people and are rewarded for doing so.

So in one you choose to kill. In the other you have no choice.

But if you want a better comparison, what about Postal? Free speech gamers defended that, and many other violent games, over the years.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So in one you choose to kill. In the other you have no choice.

But if you want a better comparison, what about Postal? Free speech gamers defended that, and many other violent games, over the years.

But the premise was that the NPCs were armed and therefore offering a presumptive reciprocal threat. There was no specific targetting of gay characters. The game also pulled up short before the school massacre, if I recall correctly.

The game we're discussing was deliberately designed to piss off those who are overly way-sensitive, that seems a pretty clear agenda in itself. Why doesn't it surprise you that such an attitude does cause offence? If he can find a market that'll take it and players that will buy it then that's fine... that doesn't change how a sensible majority might see it.

 

[LeMansAid]

For the most part.....

He had his moment of free speech and now has the consequences.

.... sums it up.

But also, I usually find myself considering what the next level of maturity is with these issues. It takes me back to a question I raised in the racism thread a while ago. Is the idea of a black vs white sporting event simply offensive, or would it be a sign of maturity if we could divide teams on that arbitrary point of difference as readily as the arbitrary differences we already divide with? ie. Nation, state, town, etc.

Would someone choosing to kill a white, rich, muscle-bound, jock guy over a poor, old, black woman, with a limp, in a game, need to take a good hard look at themselves for their prejudice? Would a game that has an overt and ironic penchant for jock slaying be as shocking as the game in question here? And would the irony part be the only deciding factor? This Randall Herman guy appears to at least claim something vaguely equivalent to irony.

 

[Imari]

The game we're discussing was deliberately designed to piss off those who are overly way-sensitive, that seems a pretty clear agenda in itself. Why doesn't it surprise you that such an attitude does cause offence?

It doesn't surprise me that it causes offence.

What surprises me is what I suspect surprises Foolkiller, that a game where you're assassinating gays is somehow more offensive than a game where you assassinate everyone wearing red, or everyone wearing a hat. Targeted murder does seem to be more disturbing to most than indiscriminate murder, for no particularly rational reason as far as I can tell.

 

[FoolKiller]

But the premise was that the NPCs were armed and therefore offering a presumptive reciprocal threat.

Really? I threw a Molotov cocktail into a parade and got rewarded for it. None of them were considered "hostiles," and if I recall, I could wander around unbothered in the early levels until I began my indiscriminate killing, which the story used to explain why I was then being chased by mostly hostiles. I wonder if that would stand out more to people if it had been a gay pride parade.

There was no specific targetting of gay characters.

Kind of my point.

The game we're discussing was deliberately designed to piss off those who are overly way-sensitive, that seems a pretty clear agenda in itself.

I can't think of how many different forms of art or entertainment were designed just to be offensive to the overly-sensitive.

Why doesn't it surprise you that such an attitude does cause offence?

Did I ever say I don't see why it caused offence, or that I was surprised it did? I know enough about sociology to know when you pick on a specific demographic you are far more hated than if you are indiscriminate. The question is, why? Why does targeted offense receive a stronger reaction? Why do we feel the need to protect groups from offense, but not the average guy? Why is this worse than the upcoming game Hatred?

Hatred is an upcoming shooter video game developed by Destructive Creations and scheduled for release on June 1st, 2015 on Microsoft Windows. The player-character is a mass-killing sociopath who hates humanity and begins a "genocide crusade" to kill innocent civilians and police officers. The developer described Hatred as a reaction to video game aesthetic trends such as political correctness, politeness, vivid color, and games as art

On December 15, 2014, Hatred briefly appeared on Steam Greenlight, but was promptly removed, with a Steam representative stating that the company "would not publish Hatred." On December 16, the game was returned to the service, and an apology to the development team was sent by Gabe Newell. Following this, it became the most voted game on the service and was approved successfully on December 29.

This game is also designed to be offensive to the overly-sensitive, but it was the "most voted game" on Steam.

 

[Danoff]

Hatred?

Oh God... a whole game designed to give newscasters a reason to blame video games for mass killings. It's like the writers hate games...

 

[Mike458]

Oh God... a whole game designed to give newscasters a reason to blame video games for mass killings. It's like the writers hate games...

Here we go again...

 

[Dan]

I think Hatred is a stupid game that shouldn't have been created, but I will respect the right to create it because of the 1st Amendment. However, it will put gamers in a bad light, yet again. As if gamers didn't have enough flack from psycho misandrist social justice warriors who claim to be "feminists."

 

[Carbonox]

I think Hatred is a stupid game that shouldn't have been created, but I will respect the right to create it because of the 1st Amendment. However, it will put gamers in a bad light, yet again. As if gamers didn't have enough flack from psycho misandrist social justice warriors who claim to be "feminists."

I have a suspicion that a lot of gamers flat out don't give a 🤬 about what some SJW's think.

 

[Danny]

Oh my word that Kill The Bundles Of Sticks saga is a trainwreck.

So they've moved on to release an official statement where it turns out it's a social experiment. Oh but wait, then it turns out that it's just a troll game to annoy the SJWs.

And then...

I didn't make this game to attack LGBT people personally, and no I don't hate gays and think they should be treated farily

But then...

That just proves my point that the majority of the LGBT community are truly the hateful ones

and that those criticising the game that apparently he made specifically to be criticised...

are proving you have no [sic] time on your hands

If you don't know how to work PR, don't try working PR.

 

[TenEightyOne]

He's found out how normal society works and he still seems shocked by the "waste of time". We didn't agree any of our normal, sensible founding principles in a day.

 

[DK]

Oh my word that Kill The Bundles Of Sticks saga is a trainwreck.

So they've moved on to release an official statement where it turns out it's a social experiment. Oh but wait, then it turns out that it's just a troll game to annoy the SJWs.

Ah, so the developer is just a basement-dwelling obese neckbearded white guy. Got it. 👍

 

[Mike458]

He's found out how normal society works and he still seems shocked by the "waste of time". We didn't agree any of our normal, sensible founding principles in a day.

Why am I not surprised by any of this?

 

[Carbonox]

Ah, so the developer is just a basement-dwelling obese neckbearded white guy. Got it. 👍

Oh, does his race have something to do with this too?

 

[DK]

I'm just making an educated guess as to his identity.

 

[Mike458]

Oh dear...

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm just making an educated guess as to his identity.

I'll hold you to the ethos that such musings based on generalisations are ok. Still, maybe you didn't quite know what you were typing. You no doubt would have been drunk, since you're from Ireland.

 

[FoRiZon]

Oh dear...

So if someone says Africans spreads ebola at 7 Eleven, should we eradicate Africans?

/Sarcasm

 

[TheCracker]

So if someone says Africans spreads ebola at 7 Eleven, should we eradicate Africans?

/Sarcasm

Or Christians spreading it at church.