Originally posted by Hunter Este:

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

I said 2012 as well. Yes she was a large catalyst.

Her and Quinn both were absolutely dreadful to gaming as a whole. I am just thankful that studios are realizing the "modern audience" doesn't exist at a large enough scale to keep their AAA studios afloat.

-Christ is King! :gk_cross:

Same its good to see most Activist companies closing, i would feel sorry for them if they weren't so hateful.

Originally posted by They Live, We Sleep!:

When did the "activist" game developer mindset start?

It started circa 2014-2024. Woke mind virus infested everything that it touches. SBI (sweet-baby inc.) for woke gaming companies promoted leftwing ideology and political messaging.

For gaming, dustborn, BG3 to name a few of political messaging and woke tropes.

Originally posted by datCookie:

Originally posted by Hunter Este:

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

-Christ is King! :gk_cross:

Bent the knee to what? KCD 2 was still a very popular title and well loved.

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.

Originally posted by GuerillaTactix:

Originally posted by datCookie:

Bent the knee to what? KCD 2 was still a very popular title and well loved.

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.

So providing a singular optional character pathway is somehow bending the knee? How does that singular option appeal to "certain demographics" exactly?

And yes, it being popular is in fact relevant, because as soon as that was announced, people called it woke and that it would die. It didn't die, at all.

Originally posted by datCookie:

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.

So providing a singular optional character pathway is somehow bending the knee? How does that singular option appeal to "certain demographics" exactly?

And yes, it being popular is in fact relevant, because as soon as that was announced, people called it woke and that it would die. It didn't die, at all.

Are we really acting like chaging a character's sexual orientation isnt to appeal to a demographic? They did it just because they thought in game two he should sleep with someone of the same gender and in the first game it just didn't fit the story? What is next, creating an action adventure game isnt to done to appeal to demographics that like those games? The influx of female main characters isnt to appeal anyone?

Sales and popularity being relevant means that the Steam Machine being sold for over $1000 means its a great deal?

Games and the development choices made are never made to appeal to anyone and sales means right. What an obscene hill to stand on.

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?

I think peta first did it in the 1990's against the pokemon company. So it has been some time for awhile that activists been active in the gaming community. And yes, PETA considered catching pokemon, a video game, hurting electronic animals..still don't get it, but it happened. They did not make a parody game against pokemon until 2012 though. Still, they were still mad about it in the 1990's against pokemon red and blue. I remember hearing them on the news complaining about it. They even made a anti mario game against mario 3, because of him wearing a tanooki suit they considered animal abuse. Again, unsure how a fictitional video game is a platform for animal abuse.

Originally posted by They Live, We Sleep!:

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

I don't know about the oldest but BG3 is the most recent that I can recall. I think poor businessmen exist in most lines of work and fortunately for me I find it amusing when they cause themselves to struggle or even run themselves out of business.

Originally posted by Strandly:

Originally posted by They Live, We Sleep!:

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

I don't know about the oldest but BG3 is the most recent that I can recall. I think poor businessmen exist in most lines of work and fortunately for me I find it amusing when they cause themselves to struggle or even run themselves out of business.

BG Siege of Dragonspear was before that. It had all that activists nonsense and was ♥♥♥♥ to play

People often mistake activism for creativity or art. The difference between them is only intent really. If anything, the word (activism) is pretty useless because you can't really know intent most of the time.

It's an invisible thing that can only be guessed through discloser (what if the discloser itself is not honest though?). Most just assume something is or is not activism based on their own beliefs and they often act like activists themselves in response to what they think is activism. Hence why the word gets more and more useless these days.

That depends on whichever guy's narrative you have been following. I haven't been following the guys that you have been listening to, so I don't know about it.

Originally posted by AustrAlien2010:

That depends on whichever guy's narrative you have been following. I haven't been following the guys that have been talking to you, so I don't know about it.

You can narrow which internet personalities people follow just by the talking points and the 'outrage of the week' they're angry about.

Also by which year they date the start of the activism.

Originally posted by PocketYoda:

Same its good to see most Activist companies closing, i would feel sorry for them if they weren't so hateful.

And how long have they 'been closing' already? Because this starts to sound like 'another gaming crisis is coming', which I've been hearing since the 90s.

Originally posted by datCookie:

So providing a singular optional character pathway is somehow bending the knee? How does that singular option appeal to "certain demographics" exactly?

Sometimes I feel like people need to be reminded no one is losing their straight card for playing a gay character in a videogame. No one is losing their man card for playing as a non-sexualized woman in a videogame.

Sometimes I feel like I need to remind people that games are not reality. You do not need to see yourself in games. You do not need to be represented in games.

Originally posted by GuerillaTactix:

Sometimes I feel like I need to remind people that games are not reality. You do not need to see yourself in games. You do not need to be represented in games.

Look at the history of the FPS genre. The common logic from these higher ups back then were FPS games only appealed to men. So make them only for men. CoD. Gears of War, Battlefield. Manly men doing masculine things. Muted grey colour tones because that statistically was proven to appeal more to men (guess I was one of the few who loved brighter colors). Realistic guns.

Then Overwatch came out. Bucking all these trends. More vivid colours, more character representation, unrealistic guns. It proved to these executives that women would actually play FPS games if you make your games for them too. As it had twice the female to male gender ratio over other FPS titles. After that, CoD, Battlefield, etc. They all started copying OW. Representation up the wazzu. Which can be annoying when forced and obvious. These corporate mandates. But keep in mind the mandates always existed. They just felt invisible.

Maybe the moral of the story is we're all weaker to pandering than we actually know. I for one found the whole China pandering in Hollywood movies to be cringey. Like that Transformers movie that has 1/3 the movie take place in China, or in Marvel movies where they'll put in a Chinese only scenes where the heroes are rescued by some Chinese field medic or something. I thought those things were obvious and dumb pandering. But the Chinese kind of loved it for a while. Seems people hate pandering except when it's towards them.

Originally posted by GuerillaTactix:

Sometimes I feel like I need to remind people that games are not reality. You do not need to see yourself in games. You do not need to be represented in games.

Then it should be no problem if a character stops 'representing you' or you stop 'seeing yourself' in a character because they changed their sexual orientation.

I was told earlier in this thread that changing a straight character from one game into an optional gay character wasn't bending the knee to appeal to a certain demographic. Game decisions are apparently not made to appeal to anyone when it comes to the development process. Which is why at every Summer Game Fest we have focus on different social groups like Black Game Developers to totally appeal to no one

Speaking of Overwatch, those same people acting like game decisions arent made to totally appeal to certain demographics would just have you believe they added sexual orientations and genders pronouns for several of its characters just because...

Its totally important that you know that Tracer like women because it ups your K/D ration don'tcha know.

I do agree with your point though.