Yes, you are right. Everyone had to draw the line themselves. And if you only stop buying a game if it is from Putin, that is indeed your decision.
But it obviously also means, that you do made your decision not only on the game itself. So I am not sure what your argument is here.
I am using Putin as an extreme example to discuss the broader question of whether the ethics and actions of creators should influence consumer decisions, and not because Putin is directly related to the situation being discussed.
Even if a notorious figure like Putin were to release a game, some people, like you in this case, might argue that the game’s quality alone should be the deciding factor in whether to support it, while others might refuse to support it based on the creator’s actions or background.
I was just trying to find out if there is a line you are not going to cross or if you will play it no matter the circumstances as long as you think the game is good. And as it turns out, based on this conversation, there is a line for you and it’s literally “the game was created by Putin”
That’s an extremely oversimplified and overexaggerated comparison of someone comitting war crimes versus misogyny.
Supporting the game has nothing to do with it, just because people enjoy the game because it’s a good game doesn’t mean they support misogyny, same goes for the many developers that worked on the game.
It also doesn’t explain the other stuff they requested to not mention in game coverage, all of which seem to have nothing to do with the actual game.
Of course it is exaggerated. That is the point of a hyperbolic arguments.
Examining hypothetical edge cases in more detail is a useful tool for defining where the issues lie in a debate.
Would you support/play a game of 100+ devs if key management DID commit war crimes?
I’d like to think probably not.
It’s though it is clear from your response that misogyny isn’t a deal-breaker for you for this case, so the question then becomes; how shitty does a single person need to be before it becomes an issue for you then?
Other people drew a line in the sand at misogyny and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I’d say it is a respectable opinion.
You probably would prefer to just ignore any controversy and just judge the game on its merits alone, and that is fine in its own way too. It is exhausting keeping up with the news and you would be happier and find it easier to just blindly enjoy a game.
But don’t pretend that just because you are ignoring it, doesn’t mean that you aren’t supporting bad practices like misogyny when you do so.
Yes, you are right. Everyone had to draw the line themselves. And if you only stop buying a game if it is from Putin, that is indeed your decision. But it obviously also means, that you do made your decision not only on the game itself. So I am not sure what your argument is here.
You are avoiding the question.
What does Putin have to do with this?
I am sure you know that, but if not:
I am using Putin as an extreme example to discuss the broader question of whether the ethics and actions of creators should influence consumer decisions, and not because Putin is directly related to the situation being discussed. Even if a notorious figure like Putin were to release a game, some people, like you in this case, might argue that the game’s quality alone should be the deciding factor in whether to support it, while others might refuse to support it based on the creator’s actions or background. I was just trying to find out if there is a line you are not going to cross or if you will play it no matter the circumstances as long as you think the game is good. And as it turns out, based on this conversation, there is a line for you and it’s literally “the game was created by Putin”
That’s an extremely oversimplified and overexaggerated comparison of someone comitting war crimes versus misogyny.
Supporting the game has nothing to do with it, just because people enjoy the game because it’s a good game doesn’t mean they support misogyny, same goes for the many developers that worked on the game.
It also doesn’t explain the other stuff they requested to not mention in game coverage, all of which seem to have nothing to do with the actual game.
Of course it is exaggerated. That is the point of a hyperbolic arguments.
Examining hypothetical edge cases in more detail is a useful tool for defining where the issues lie in a debate.
Would you support/play a game of 100+ devs if key management DID commit war crimes? I’d like to think probably not.
It’s though it is clear from your response that misogyny isn’t a deal-breaker for you for this case, so the question then becomes; how shitty does a single person need to be before it becomes an issue for you then?
Other people drew a line in the sand at misogyny and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact I’d say it is a respectable opinion.
You probably would prefer to just ignore any controversy and just judge the game on its merits alone, and that is fine in its own way too. It is exhausting keeping up with the news and you would be happier and find it easier to just blindly enjoy a game.
But don’t pretend that just because you are ignoring it, doesn’t mean that you aren’t supporting bad practices like misogyny when you do so.