- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I’m honestly surprised that no one calls this game woke
Mainly because you can shove “woke” shit down peoples throats and they won’t care as long as they get to play a manly man or stacked chick and the story and characters are well developed. It’s just when the game is really bad that people care about it and then the studios can blame the poor performance on the alt-right as a cop out for their shitty game. I.e. Star Wars outlaws and Concorde
people have been very uppity about the new dragon age even though i hear that’s good.
Outlaws is a good game though
deleted by creator
What is woke about the game?
Literally everything mentioned in the 4chan post.
I don’t feel that it’s woke. It’s pretty standard for today. Maybe in the 1800s this could be defined as woke
The bar is extremely low now. Being a decent human being is woke.
Anti racism is woke. Arthur actively beats the shit out of or yells at anyone who is racist. Arthur is woke. This is a good thing.
Not sure if satire.
Being not racist is woke now? I thought it was just normal.
Always has been
I didn’t say not racist. I said anti racist.
Tax is woke. The neighbour who fills up my wheely bin is woke. Kids who play music on the bus are woke.
Not to say that youre wrong, or to imply that ‘woke’ is a real concept beyond whatever makes fascist chuds feel bad in their undeveloped brains, but being anti-racist is a lot different than being not racist, and takes a lot more courage.
Have you seen the average gamer responses lately? The needle for woke has now moved to female protagonist = woke unless she’s shaped like an anime girl anyway
What do you think “woke” means?
What did you think woke means?
Woke is just things the right don’t like. Even if it’s just a personal thing like salad.
I love comments like this. Reinforces how similar the left and right are.
Right: woke! socialism! communist! = thing they don’t like.
Left: racist! bigot! fascist! = thing they don’t like.
Two sides of the same coin.
Show me the example of a left-wing politician talking about woke.
Also, you can murder random Klan members and increase your honour.
Did not know that
They mean just in general.
Yep, there’s a bunch of Klan meets you can happen upon, where every attendee you kill nets you an increase in honour.
I like to start with the dynamite when they’re doing the racist Hokey Cokey.
Know what I’m doing when i finish dragon age.
I feel like people might have. I vaguely remember when it first came out that there was someone on youtube uploading videos of them assaulting the woman’s suffrage protester and they got taken down after blowing up.
Because the game sold and reviewed well, so it goes against the narrative of “get woke go broke”
I think literally every business in the world has managed to tow that line. It’s not like the right stopped drinking bud light. Although they probably should have.
Nobody except the craziest of crazy thinks negatively about woke stuff if the actual content is good. Examples of good ones from the top of my hat: Arcane S1, Last of Us S1E3, Twin Peaks S3E4.
This is how you actually influence opinions to a good direction.
When the wokeism was apparently more important to the producers than the quality of the actual product is when shit gets irritating and from the pov of activism, counter-productive.
i have only ever heard good things about that show. it apparently brought in a lot of new players (who then promptly left because they realized what the game and community were like).
I never played the game (League of Legends) and the show didn’t really make me want to play it. The show (at least season 1, I haven’t finished it yet) is still superb.
oh i read your post as if the show was an example of woke without substance.
Oh okay. No, I meant Arcane as an example of the good ones. Edited my post a bit.
Is it OK to do the opposite?
I need to fire this game up again when I get home
I love the fact that the slave owner is not only the one unarmed person you don’t lose honor for killing, but you actually gain honor for killing him.
You also don’t lose honor for killing this guy, and can do it right in front of the police without them reacting
Hmm, I’ll have to give that a try
I can shoot that dude without getting a bounty? :O
I would never have guessed. I can’t even walk down the street in Saint Denis without getting bullshit “disturbing the peace” bounties.
I’m going to remember that for my next playthrough. I always just punched him and made him run away.
Because attacking Norris will not affect the player’s honor, nor gain the player a wanted level, the player can hogtie Norris and drag him across the map to achieve the Rank 4 Horseman Challenge.
That guy was, I think, intended as a stand-in for real-life eugenicist and all-round villain Henry Laughlin. Killing him in-game was quite the treat.
Suddenly this has me wondering if the south is playing a whole’nother game.
Now that I think about it, RDR2 is set in the past. I don’t think people tend to question the past; the values set by the past is taken for granted today. Anyone who might complain about it makes them look outwardly supportive of regression.
The wild west was largely a myth sold to people who stopped in remote towns and the people there put on a wild west show. So whatever you think of the game, it’s based on a myth.
Much people forget before black slavery there was white slavery… So its just good if there is none slavery.
Not comparable
They’re both two types of slavery. They’re in the same category. They can be compared.
Of course they are comparable, just that the statement is a little strange in the context of American history.
Well sure anything can be compared in a literal sense. For example, based on your responses, I think you are either more racist or more ignorant than the average individual. However, the literal comparability of the two types of slavery is not exactly the point anyone is making here.
I must’ve misunderstood, sorry.
This argument is fucking stupid. And racist.
The argument that chattle slavery and ye olde roman slavery are wildly different is stupid and racist? Cool story.
Slavery is slavery no matter who does it or whom it’s done to.
I don’t think it was about “white vs black” as much as it was about “America can take any system, good or bad, and turn it into something so much worse”.
“White slavery” was white people that were slaves. Black slaves literally weren’t viewed as people! Thus, no one cared if you beat them, starved them, raped them, tortured them, and/or killed them. Which we as a country did. That’s the difference.
“viewed as people” is meaningless unless it confers some special rights afforded to people.
White slaves didn’t have any more rights than black slaves, largely because skin-color based distinction is a rather modern invention (compared to the institution of slavery) and the defining traits of both black and white slaves were that they’re slaves. And slaves were universally treated poorly. Even the most benevolent slave owners in antiquity were cruel, because why wouldn’t you be? The damn thing might start getting uppity if you didn’t remind it you’re in control. Just imagine it might cause damage to someone else, and you’d be dragged to court over it!
A crime against your slave was a crime against your household (assuming you’re the head of the household), which you were entitled to drag the other party to court for. But there was literally no legal framework that would allow any kind of prosecution for anything you did to your own household. You could also beat them, kill them, rape them, literally anything. They had no defense. The only person empowered to prosecute on their behalf would be the one beating them.
So no, “white people that were slaves” weren’t people in any meaningful sense, because oppression and supremacy in much of the pre-modern world didn’t care about skin color. The romanticism around white slavery is bullshit, because owning other humans has never been anything but cruel.
Try again
Not even close. Chattel slavery is much worse.
before black slavery there was white slavery
bzzt wrong. Portuguese slave traders worked out deals with african tribal leaders in the 1400s. Unless you’re going to relabel feudalism as slavery.
There was slavery before Portugal or feudalism were things. I’d wager slavery might even predate the homo sapien species and probably came soon after a species was able to communicate orders and threats.
ok, keep going, you’re almost there: if you follow that back to the Olduvai gorge, like you say, to the earliest humans - where were those hominids who were enslaving each other? come on, you can do it…
were they white people?
This idiotic statement:
Much people forget before black slavery there was white slavery… So its just good if there is none slavery.
Much people forget basic grammar too, apparently.
No, there’s always some idiot who has to bring up that some white people (maybe even their ancestors) were also slaves, so he shouldn’t have to XYZ. Or that people of color might have ancestors who enslaved each other, so XYZ. It’s all silly bullshit.
I was just responding to what you said, not the overall line of argument. I was going to add stuff about not being able to determine the colour of those first slaves and it not really being relevant either way, but it felt like it was getting rambly so I cut it back to the main point.
Are you saying white slavery was as systemic and width spread as black slavery in America? If so I’ve missed a big part of the American slave history.
No, I’m just saying what I wrote. It is not meant to be an equality or anything else but just a statement that it is good without any slavery no matter what origin, skin color and (even if I am an atheist and despise any religion) religious affiliation. It was also not referring to Americans but a general statement.
what is it that drives the desperate need you have to bring it up in this context?
the vast majority of people who know history know about indentured servitude. but it’s a footnote compared the the millions of people systematically stolen (not indentured, note), taken to another part of the planet and bred for labor.
Yes ok then say that you are happy that slavery of black people has stopped and that you don’t care about any other form of slavery. < That’s what the statement suggests because you’re not talking about slavery in general but explicitly about black slaves…
that’s what the statement suggests because you’re not talking about slavery in general but explicitly about black slaves…
pfft that’s the most 13-year old racist edgelord shit I’ve heard in ages.
No, that’s not what that says, you silly twat, lol… ok so there’s this thing called context. And the context in which slavery was introduced, in this thread, was regarding the protagonist in the game going after slavery supporters.
AND YOU HAD TO FUCKIN’ CHIME IN BUT BUT NOT ALL SLAVES-
motherfucking couldn’t resist the urge. So answer the fucking question: what is it, inside you, that is so desperate that you need to reply with that specious bullshit?
TAKEN IN THE CONTEXT OF RDR2, the history of the US, it’s referring to the human stain of racists enslaving black people for their entire lives, and the lives of their children in perpetuity. a very different thing compared to what irish indentured servants experienced.
The nice thing is that even population groups elsewhere on earth who never had anything to do with slavery condemn all slavery and also that it is good if slavery is generally ended. Without differentiating whether black or white because slavery is to be despised whether black or white. Do you think a black slave would have sought a difference to a white slave and vice versa? No…after all, both would have experienced the same fate… It is those who are not affected who want to differentiate as if one slavery is worse than the other… those who are affected would not do that…
The issue is Grice’s “maxim of quantity”. It’s a linguistic model of how we speak to each other - we provide the appropriate amount of information, and no more. Providing a surplus of details “for context” immediately puts people on guard because it quite literally is suspicious.
Breaking the maxim of quantity in this way is like saying “asbestos-free cereal!” It’s a detail that wasn’t necessary for context, and so its inclusion seems intentionally designed to communicate some implicit information that we’re meant to understand.
No, you don’t need to say “all slavery is bad” when someone says “slavery is bad” because that was an unnecessary detail to add in context.
People don’t need to defend themselves to you and say “you’re right, indentured servitude and prison labor are bad, so white slavery is bad too” because they weren’t talking about those things. They were talking about slavery as it is protrayed in RDR2 and you seem to be trying to change the conversation.
Sure, but the image is about a game taking place in American history. I agree that no slavery is good but you comment doesn’t add much to the historical context. If anything removes nuance.
Would be good without modern slavery right? Penal labor. But well affected are black white whatever.
But I could have expressed myself more directlyThere is a certain type of whataboutism where people are just super eager to remind people that “well, actually, white people were slaves too” when referring to slavery in America. It’s likely why they appear to be more on guard about what you’re saying.
The first time I ran into the KKK in the woods, I was really glad I had a stick of dynamite on me.
It’s funny if you watch them for a minute too, their burning cross catches its surroundings on fire, burning many of them to death.
Interesting. Muuuch more satisfying to blow them up, though.
And somehow this game is never part of the examples that some bigots are listing when talking about woke games.
Similarly with Cyberpunk 2077 and Baldur’s Gate 3. Both of those games are gay as fuck.
Cyberpunk got a lot of hate by that crowd leading into release, and they dunked on the release a ton as if it vindicated them.
I only saw hate on release for bugs and for the way it ran. Not for being woke. Idk
It’s obvious they’ve never read any of Mike Pondsmith’s stuff if they think gender and sexuality in the Cyberpunk universe is any way at all viewed from a conservative lense.
Well, yeah. That would require them to actually read and use their brain, and that’s liberal shit.
I mean, they were just chuds angry that you could have a character with male and female sexual characteristics, I don’t think any of them had the brainpower to read.
Which ones are they listing? I’m a bit out of the bigotry loop.
Usually it is any game that has a woman as a main protagonist.
The biggest examples are:
Horizon Zero Dawn
There was “controversy” where devs were releasing promotional material for the game and they released a video where they showcased graphical advancements and they zoomed in really close on the MC and you can see the very thin hair on her face that literally every person has. Some people didn’t like that.
The Last of Us 2 - very masculine woman
Fable - Not released yet, but the trailer had a woman that is not conventionally attractive.
Dragon Age Vanguard
Life is strange
Intergalactic The Heretic Prophet - new Naughty Dog’s game, Black Woman as MC
This is just from the top of my head.
That’s ridiculous, especially the Horizon one. On a positive note, I had no idea there is an upcoming Fable game, cheers!
"Women voting? Sure why not. Anyone dumb enough to want to vote should be able to”
It’s funny because moron used to be a medical term as well.
These actually had distinction:
Defectives was generally the term prior to like 1845, which is when Howe published “on the causes of idiocy”. That led to more classification
Idiot was what we could call severe intellectual disability. Requiring 24 hour care but some muscular control, cognitive, and speech capabilities. Use was phased out in the late 19th century because it had become pejorative
Fool was a subcategory of idiot with more significant impairment of reasoning and speech skills. This became pejorative and was phased out.
Simpleton was moderate intellectual disability. Some degree of functioning, capacity for speech, motor and reasoning skills, but required assistance with tasks. This also become pejorative and was phased out (see a pattern). This was replaced with several terms, including feeble minded, imbecile, and moron, which were also in turn phased out.
at one point in the 19th century there was a distinction when symptoms of dementia set in. If you got what we would now call early onset dementia, it was called “amentia”. By the early 20th century “ament” was kind of a catch all for “idiots, imbeciles, and feeble minded”
There was also “cretin” which was originally supposed to be a kindness for all intellectually disabled people as it means “Christian” in French or something, but it also became pejorative
Another super racist one was mongoloid/mongolism which was specifically for Down’s syndrome. This is because, no joke, John Down thought people with down syndrome looked like Mongolians. His reward for his racism was the condition bears his name forever, apparently. This was only changed because Mongolia had to petition the WHO to change it because it was offensive
Imo instead of policing language we should maybe recognize that the intentionality behind the use of these terms is what the problem is.
Saying the word “retarded” does not have to be inherently offensive. Describing something that is slowed or hindered as retarded is accurate. Using retarded as a pejorative term makes you a dick, sure. But if I go through all the effort to change “retarded” to “intellectually disabled” guess what happens? The same thing that has happened for the past 175+ years. The people who have used the terms in the pejorative sense will quickly adapt, making your efforts to police language pointless unless you intended to enrich their lexicon.
If you consider actions that could actually be meaningful for the individual it would be something that would address the harm caused by pejorative use. That’s a challenging road to go down (imagine criminal penalties: middle schools would be ghost towns!). we want to feel like we do something though so we instead do this, which is pointless.
That said if the disorder was named by an old racist based on his racism then by all means change it up but maybe don’t memorialize him when you do it. That doesn’t come up as much anymore, thankfully
Saying the word “retarded” does not have to be inherently offensive. Describing something that is slowed or hindered as retarded is accurate. Using retarded as a pejorative term makes you a dick, sure. But if I go through all the effort to change “retarded” to “intellectually disabled” guess what happens? The same thing that has happened for the past 175+ years. The people who have used the terms in the pejorative sense will quickly adapt, making your efforts to police language pointless unless you intended to enrich their lexicon.
I have addressed this argument elsewhere in this post, but please forgive me rehashing the message here, because your comment is prominent, informative, and based in historical fact.
The word “retard” was used and is used to cause harm to vulnerable people. So was idiot, cretin, and moron. The difference is it is the last and likely immortalized step of this particular euphemism treadmill.
The treadmill appears to have stopped. There is no one-size-fits-all diagnosis to replace “mental retardation” because that was a terrible diagnosis to begin with. That’s why something is wrong with the word. The people whose lives were ground up beneath the turning of the wheels that powered that euphemism treadmill are still alive today.
Yes, if the treadmill had continued for one more step before we stopped using such horribly broad diagnosis criteria to lump together vulnerable people with wildly different needs, the word would lose its weight and implications.
Whatever diagnosis that might have replaced it would be regarded with the same moral repugnance as this word is today, and this word would be used as casually and apathetically as we use the word “idiot” - because we can be reasonably certain that nobody in the room has any memories of themselves or someone they love being excluded, humiliated, and diagnosed by the word “idiot”.
Will other diagnostic terms be weaponized? Certainly. Will they ever be as prevalent or as ignorant in their origin and usage? Unlikely. I certainly hope not. And each new vernacular replacement is more awkward and holds less power than the last. That’s why you’re not here defending any term that came after this one.
That’s why - despite you mentioning it specifically as a spiritual successor to the word “retarded” - “intellectually disabled” is not successfully replacing it. It doesn’t bear the same emotional connotations, it never experienced the same popularity, and it shows no signs of ever coming close. Is it used in problematic ways, by people in good faith and bad? Yes. But terms like it are unlikely to ever even approach the moral repugnance of “retard” because they won’t carry quite the same history of professional ignorance and casual abuse.
The word “retard” - alone among these ableist terms we’re discussing - will forever bear the moral weight of all of them. Because it will be remembered as the last term used to humiliate and exclude a vulnerable group of people by a society that should have known better. A society that should have done better. A society that still needs to do better.
Other terms won’t be promoted to the same level of societal consciousness, because they hopefully won’t be promoted to the same level of professional malpractice at such a staggering scale. The word was misused and caused harm by doctors, and parents, and peers, some who used the word in good faith and watched helplessly as it became twisted, and others who used the word from a place of ignorance and later learned how much harm could be done by a simple word.
By a diagnostic label that was never enough to even describe the people it hurt, let alone help them.
Is it okay to use the term for purposes other than causing pain and perpetuating discrimination against vulnerable people? No. Because those vulnerable people are still alive and with us, and those wounds are still fresh. Will it ever be okay, long after they’re gone? Perhaps, but probably not.
The word’s abandonment will be a milestone on a path fraught with systemic and systematic abuses, and will probably never recover it’s original meaning. But that’s okay, because language constantly evolves, and we have plenty of old words to say what we mean, and we will find plenty of new ones along the way.
The treadmill stopped. It’s okay. You can join the rest of the world and step off of it now, knowing that we are better equipped to understand and protect our most vulnerable, while also knowing that there is still so much more work to be done.
deleted by creator
> You will not be able to play multiplayer without hackers ruining the experience
If you play on PC you can change 1 file in a text editor and get solo lobbies every time. Share the file or the changes with friends and you’ll all join each other, I assume it’s got something to do with file hashing
I made a YouTube video on it years ago when I noticed the load screen skip mod produced interesting results in lobbies and started testing and occasionally people comment that it still works lol
Article + video here: https://www.grunch.com/trick-play-red-dead-online-in-a-solo-private-session/
Oh fuck not only is that my video he hella stole my description lol
Not that I give a fuck the whole point was to give people the info
Is it as bad as GTA Online?
Worse. I’m convinced that Rockstar only keeps the servers running because nobody knows which ones they are among the sea of GTA5 servers. The game has been entirely abandoned by the devs, because it never took off like GTA5 did.
Hacking in RDO isn’t just rampant; It’s downright expected. If you’re not hacking, you’ll constantly get blown up from across the map by people with unlimited explosive ammo, no reloads, and auto-aim. The bare minimum requirement is an unlimited health hack, just so you can survive the cross-map snipes long enough to finish a mission or two.
Worse.
It’s worse. It is utterly abandoned by rockstar
I tried playing online when it first came out. It was fun for a few days, but wasn’t very long before cheaters would just spawn a hundred cougars right on top of you every game.
I’m sure that was frustrating for you, but from an outsider’s perspective that’s funny as fuck.
Yeah the first time was objectively funny. But it became a multiple times an hour thing, where you just couldn’t play the game any more.
Well if you can’t beat 'em, might as well join 'em.
Know of any good hacks?
David Cage is a pretty good hack
Eh nick cage is the hackiest hack of all time
It seems worse. Though now days whenever I play GTA Online, it’s in private friends only mode.
Can’t even bang prostitutes, cowboy gta 1/5 stars
instance checks out
You can? Tho they are quite expensive, still cheaper than a gf tho!
But what does that have to do with this game?
Nah if you say yes it’s a set up. Why code something that isn’t available. It’s like making a door that never opens. Or a war game with no blood. Or an empty building. Immediate world breaking. Those nice honorable cowboys who have killed hundreds of men lol. The game just seemed lazy and repetitive to me. Good job Rock $tar. Also fuck you for having your own loader.
?
If you agree to the one lady of the evening she leads you into a trap.
I was not talking about the game? I never played it?
Oh great. Now I just lost The Game. Thanks a lot.
Not that game.
And BTW, you won the game.
Neither of these sentences are questions? Stop using question marks on statements?
You know, I didn’t believe in postumus abortions until I read your comment?
Whoosh 😂
whoosh
Of course the only person who feels the need to voice negativity about the game is also the person with a demonstable inability to read.
Rustled your jimmies aye? Aren’t you clever, how many languages do you read/write? Just proficient at cowboy cock I see. Y’all have fun up on that mountain hopefully your back is ok now.
I see someone had their ego attached to that opinion.
Bends over glide and pulls his skin back. Animation waste several seconds of life. “He smells awful.” Skunk skin +1.
Anon wants to play as Micah
