Paradox Interactive - New Images for Vampire Game

Ripper · March 24, 2019

Silver said:
Thats an extraordinarily disingenuous statement. I've told you why I don't like it and why I find it propaganda. Not to mention any number of RPG reasons.

I don't think it’s disingenuous at all. Your original statement was, “From the left side the most common mis-representation I see regarding politics in games is 'x game has this political theme so you should be okay with game y'. Where game y has propaganda not merely political themes. Its a false equivalence. No one objects to political themes.”

So, you are attempting to claim that the problem is not politics, but propaganda, and I don’t think you’ve successfully defended that at all. You’ve essentially asserted that some things are bullshit (on which you speak for 99% of the species), that some people complained about certain games, and EA had at least one dickhead working for them.

Silver said:
I find that a reaching statement. I've told you a personal metric I use to measure bullshit which accords with the basis of most laws. Don't make of it more than it is. The extreme left is considered the extreme left precisely because they don't value rationality over emotion.

It’s not reaching for anything – if you have decided that virtually everyone agrees with your definition of what’s bullshit, that tells a great deal about your thought processes. And, I think it informs the discussion, particularly what I’m saying about you trying to portray subjective political positions as objective facts that virtually everyone accepts. As for your definition of what constitutes the “extreme left”, that is your own invention. And I think it is laughably ironic given the state of right-wing exponents in this era.

Silver said:
I gave this the snip because you seem to want me to comment on other posters motivations plus its kind of obvious isn't it. Yeah the Taliban are freedom fighters to some but that doesn't mean that most people won't find them objectionable for good reasons.

Yes, that’s an obvious attempt at poisoning the well, but I think we could take a look at say, the Americans rising up against the British, or the Boers, or the Irish. All engaged in what would be described now as “terrorism” - but they had a genuine case to make as a struggle against oppression. Same with the suffragettes, the ANC – it goes on and on. The point, and I think it’s a clear one, is that the definition of what is propaganda relies very much on one’s political position.

Farflame · March 24, 2019

Cacheperl said:
The right wing case would be more credible if they actually worried about censorship in general, and not just when it is directed against them.

That means that many liberal/SJW/LGBT people are not credible in what they claim? Did you ever see liberal/SJW/LGBT/whatever fanatic that would be worried about censorship and especially censorship against anti-SJW etc?

What will you, guys, say about this, for example:
https://www.oneangrygamer.net/2019/...-criticizing-sjw-politics-get-censored/80775/

Who dont agree with this?

----
And regarding real intentions (not just general attitude to create game with political themes and RL politics) there is for example this quote:

Cara Ellison said that they’re trying to broaden Bloodlines 2 from the more masculine power fantasy of the original, so that it appeals to way more people this time.

Its from Rock Paper Shotgun. So I would like to ask all fans and Bloodline experts on Watch?

Do you think that story or characters of original game are designed as "masculine power fantasy"?

Silver · March 24, 2019

Ripper said:
I don't think it’s disingenuous at all. Your original statement was, “From the left side the most common mis-representation I see regarding politics in games is 'x game has this political theme so you should be okay with game y'. Where game y has propaganda not merely political themes. Its a false equivalence. No one objects to political themes.”

So, you are attempting to claim that the problem is not politics, but propaganda, and I don’t think you’ve successfully defended that at all. You’ve essentially asserted that some things are bullshit (on which you speak for 99% of the species), that some people complained about certain games, and EA had at least one dickhead working for them.

Sure. Feel free to disagree. I wouldn't expect to convince you of anything even if I said the sky is blue. I never claimed to speak for anyone else other than myself. And yes I think 99% of people agree with the concept of fairness. Some developers have become activists; it is a known fact. If you can't see that as a problem then I don't know what to tell you. You are a very literal person I think. I have the tendency to speak figuratively about things.

Ripper said:
It’s not reaching for anything – if you have decided that virtually everyone agrees with your definition of what’s bullshit, that tells a great deal about your thought processes. And, I think it informs the discussion, particularly what I’m saying about you trying to portray subjective political positions as objective facts that virtually everyone accepts. As for your definition of what constitutes the “extreme left”, that is your own invention. And I think it is laughably ironic given the state of right-wing exponents in this era.

So you think everyone is fine with everyone else making assumptions about them and treating them unfairly? Okay if thats your position thats your position. My opinion of the 'extreme left' is my opinion. News at 11. Thats what we are doing here Ripper, trading opinions.

Ripper said:
Yes, that’s an obvious attempt at poisoning the well, but I think we could take a look at say, the Americans rising up against the British, or the Boers, or the Irish. All engaged in what would be described now as “terrorism” - but they had a genuine case to make as a struggle against oppression. Same with the suffragettes, the ANC – it goes on and on. The point, and I think it’s a clear one, is that the definition of what is propaganda relies very much on one’s political position.

Sure we could. If you consider the 'extreme left' as members of a 'resistance' or some such nonsense. Do you consider yourself a russia-gater?

azarhal · March 24, 2019

Farflame said:
And regarding real intentions (not just general attitude to create game with political themes and RL politics) there is for example this quote:

Cara Ellison said that they’re trying to broaden Bloodlines 2 from the more masculine power fantasy of the original, so that it appeals to way more people this time.

Its from Rock Paper Shotgun. So I would like to ask all fans and Bloodline experts on Watch?

Do you think that story or characters of original game are designed as "masculine power fantasy"?

You might want to read her editorials about Bloodlines 1 and sex/relationship part 1 and part 2 to see what she means. Note that they contain spoilers for the first game, especially part 2.

Ripper · March 24, 2019

Silver said:
Sure. Feel free to disagree. I wouldn't expect to convince you of anything even if I said the sky is blue. I never claimed to speak for anyone else other than myself. And yes I think 99% of people agree with the concept of fairness. Some developers have become activists; it is a known fact. If you can't see that as a problem then I don't know what to tell you. You are a very literal person I think. I have the tendency to speak figuratively about things.

Again, here, can’t you see how you’re making a huge presumption about your own position– that it represents “fairness”, and therefore 99% of people would agree with it? Don’t you think maybe rather more than 1% of people might have a rather different concept of what constitutes fairness?

And, who defines who’s an “activist”? Is Vavra an activist because he supported the gamergate movement, and has taken a number of political stances?

Silver said:
So you think everyone is fine with everyone else making assumptions about them and treating them unfairly? Okay if thats your position thats your position. My opinion of the 'extreme left' is my opinion. News at 11. Thats what we are doing here Ripper, trading opinions.

Um, no – why on Earth would I think that, and what does it have to do with anything I’ve said? Yes, we’re sharing opinions, but also obviously evidence, claims, and argument. When you say, “The extreme left is considered the extreme left precisely because they don't value rationality over emotion”, you’re making a general claim about how the left is considered. You’re opinions are your own of course, but claims like that can be contradicted with facts, and I don’t think that’s part of any general definition of the “extreme left”.

Silver said:
Sure we could. If you consider the 'extreme left' as members of a 'resistance' or some such nonsense. Do you consider yourself a russia-gater?

No, here you’re conflating different parts of the argument. I just cited the well-known example of “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” as it pertains to my point about defining propaganda being inherently political – and not something separate from the political discussion. I’m not suggesting the people writing Bloodlines 2 are part of the Glorious Resistance.

Silver · March 24, 2019

Ripper said:
Again, here, can’t you see how you’re making a huge presumption about your own position– that it represents “fairness”, and therefore 99% of people would agree with it? Don’t you think maybe rather more than 1% of people might have a rather different concept of what constitutes fairness?

And, who defines who’s an “activist”? Is Vavra an activist because he supported the gamergate movement, and has taken a number of political stances?

Again being a literal person. I'm not saying that 99% of people agree with my position. I'm saying that 99% of people wish to be treated fairly. :wall:

As to how you regard fairness then obviously that is subjective. However most people agree with general principles of justice.

Vavra has been forced to be outspoken by activists hounding him and his company. Him pushing back is to be expected. I'd say it depends on your point of view what you regard him as.

For me: If you are pushing a political issue that has nothing to do with your business as an employee of that business then you are an activist. Vavra is the head of his business so different rules apply to a degree.

Ripper said:
Um, no – why on Earth would I think that, and what does it have to do with anything I’ve said? Yes, we’re sharing opinions, but also obviously evidence, claims, and argument. When you say, “The extreme left is considered the extreme left precisely because they don't value rationality over emotion”, you’re making a general claim about how the left is considered. You’re opinions are your own of course, but claims like that can be contradicted with facts, and I don’t think that’s part of any general definition of the “extreme left”.

You said

It’s not reaching for anything – if you have decided that virtually everyone agrees with your definition of what’s bullshit

So I restated my position of whats bullshit. You seemed to indicate you disagreed with that.

On the definition of the extreme left:
And who would supply the official definition: the left itself? Given the left is most media organizations should I consider that credible? I don't recall being asked my position on the PC language terms that have come in from the left. They just arrive and we are all expected to accord with them.

You want proof of that claim? Have you seen twitter in the last 10 years? Guess who most of the userbase is composed of. Hint: Most right wingers are not on twitter.

Ripper said:
No, here you’re conflating different parts of the argument. I just cited the well-known example of “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist” as it pertains to my point about defining propaganda being inherently political – and not something separate from the political discussion. I’m not suggesting the people writing Bloodlines 2 are part of the Glorious Resistance.

Oh thats good because I'm not suggesting that either. Or am I according to you?

Ripper · March 24, 2019

Silver said:
Again being a literal person. I'm not saying that 99% of people agree with my position. I'm saying that 99% of people wish to be treated fairly.

As to how you regard fairness then obviously that is subjective. However most people agree with general principles of justice.

Well, you can bang you head, but I think the problem is that you’ve lost track of your own argument. If you look at how that strand of the conversation went, you said:

When gameplay choices are limited for bullshit reasons I'm thinking its okay to call it out if I find the motivations suspect. I don't want to get into the other games with SJW bullshit because otherwise I'll be here all day and I don't have the time for it.

I challenged that, suggesting that your definition of bullshit is in itself political, and you said:

The things I find bullshit 99% of other humans would find bullshit too. Treat people fairly and don't assume things, which some people can't seem to do anymore.

Do you see there how you’re connecting up what you define as “bullshit reasons” for gameplay choices, with what 99% of people would agree with, and treating people “fairly”? To which you’ve added:

I never claimed to speak for anyone else other than myself. And yes I think 99% of people agree with the concept of fairness.

You might claim I’m taking things out of context, but go back and look at it in context – I think it’s pretty clear.

Silver said:
On the definition of the extreme left: And who would supply the official definition: the left itself? Given the left is most media organizations should I consider that credible? I don't recall being asked my position on the PC language terms that have come in from the left. They just arrive and we are all expected to accord with them.

I’m not suggesting that there is an official definition – of course there isn’t. I’m suggesting that when you make the claim about emotional irrationality being considered a defining feature of the “extreme left”, you wouldn’t find much support for that in the general literature on the matter, or among experts on political history. But then, that’s probably all part of the Marxist conspiracy too, I expect…

Silver said:
Vavra has been forced to be outspoken by activists hounding him and his company. Him pushing back is to be expected. I'd say it depends on your point of view what you regard him as.

For me: If you are pushing a political issue that has nothing to do with your business as an employee of that business then you are an activist. Vavra is the head of his business so different rules apply to a degree.

So, different rules apply for Vavra, naturally, and when he does it, it’s quite understandable, because he’s just “pushing back”. Come on now… really? Do you not think the "activists" you're opposing also see themselves as pushing back on something?

Silver · March 24, 2019

Ripper said:
Stuff about what I meant according to Ripper

I think the problem is Ripper that you don't treat each post as its own entity but rather as a connected entity. I certainly wasn't posting with that in mind. I have a conversational style where I address each point as it comes. If you wanted to clarify what I meant you could of asked much earlier. But instead you rattled on about what I said and I'm like ??? But hey, its not like you are addressing the questions I ask you so how am I to have any clarity on your positions likewise?

Ripper said:
I’m not suggesting that there is an official definition – of course there isn’t. I’m suggesting that when you make the claim about emotional irrationality being considered a defining feature of the “extreme left”, you wouldn’t find much support for that in the general literature on the matter, or among experts on political history. But then, that’s probably all part of the Marxist conspiracy too, I expect…

Given the executive order to push universities to allow free speech on campus are you maintaining that there is no problem? Of what political philosophy are the majority of experts composed of? Its certainly not right wingers. You would hardly expect the experts, as you call them, to point a gun at their own heads. Makes me think of the consensus in the literature about the EU.

Ripper said:
So, different rules apply for Vavra, naturally, and when he does it, it’s quite understandable, because he’s just “pushing back”. Come on now… really? Do you not think the "activists" you're opposing also see themselves as pushing back on something?

I said that its slightly different for Vavra. Of course he pushes for his point of view. I agreed with you to a degree. Can you not see that?

The activists I'm opposing are dangerous idiots. They think that the message matters more than the medium itself. They believe quotas and censorship will fix the issues with gamer culture. They have impossibly naive views on things and I find it hard to sympathise with their positions. To top it off they think they are doing good things.

Ripper · March 24, 2019

Silver said:
I think the problem is Ripper that you don't treat each post as its own entity but rather as a connected entity. I certainly wasn't posting with that in mind. I have a conversational style where I address each point as it comes. If you wanted to clarify what I meant you could of asked much earlier. But instead you rattled on about what I said and I'm like ??? But hey, its not like you are addressing the questions I ask you so how am I to have any clarity on your positions likewise?

Yes, generally I take each statement in a conversation as being a “connected entity”, not a series of unrelated discrete comments. I think that’s what most people do when they have a conversation, and I believe many would read the progression of what you said the way I did. And, if I must read “each post as its own entity”, which parts exactly am I supposed to take as arguments in defence of your original claims about propaganda? Or were those claims supposed to be forgotten as the next post materialised?

I might not have answered questions when I thought you were trying to divert from the point of (what I imagined) was the continuing strand of the argument. Which particular questions would you like me to answer – I’m not trying to evade them.

Silver said:
Given the executive order to push universities to allow free speech on campus are you maintaining that there is no problem? Of what political philosophy are the majority of experts composed of? Its certainly not right wingers. You would hardly expect the experts, as you call them, to point a gun at their own heads. Makes me think of the consensus in the literature about the EU.

LOL, yeah – and where did that executive order come from? :biggrin:

But, yes, it is true that universities do tend to be dominated by the left, though not the “extreme left” as you imagine. For some strange reason, people that train themselves to think critically and develop a real understanding of facts do seem to drift in that direction. Very odd…

Silver said:
I said that its slightly different for Vavra. Of course he pushes for his point of view. I agreed with you to a degree. Can you not see that?

The activists I'm opposing are dangerous idiots. They think that the message matters more than the medium itself. They believe quotas and censorship will fix the issues with gamer culture. They have impossibly naive views on things and I find it hard to sympathise with their positions. To top it off they think they are doing good things.

Yes, I can see that you were slightly agreeing about Vavra – before immediately justifying his activist tendencies as a necessary response to the other side, and stating that he is to be considered differently because he’s the boss. Not quite sure how that follows, though.

And, of course, the bad activists you’re opposing are the dangerous idiots, because <assertions>.

Silver · March 24, 2019

Ripper said:
Yes, generally I take each statement in a conversation as being a “connected entity”, not a series of unrelated discrete comments. I think that’s what most people do when they have a conversation, and I believe many would read the progression of what you said the way I did. And, if I must read “each post as its own entity”, which parts exactly am I supposed to take as arguments in defence of your original claims about propaganda? Or were those claims supposed to be forgotten as the next post materialised?

lol I'm not attempting to write a political essay Ripper. No-one's got time for that. Each post is its own topic unto itself. If you are looking for some great theory from me you won't find it. Conversational style as I said. Ask questions if you are not sure what I mean and try to answer mine rather than seeing them as unconnected.

Ripper said:
LOL, yeah – and where did that executive order come from? But, yes, it is true that universities do tend to be dominated by the left, though not the “extreme left” as you imagine. For some strange reason, people that train themselves to think critically and develop a real understanding of facts do seem to drift in that direction. Very odd…

I don't imagine extreme left funnily enough - but neither did I say that. FYI People tend to get more conservative as they get older and wiser. Almost like they've matured past it or something

Ripper said:
Yes, I can see that you were slightly agreeing about Vavra – before immediately justifying his activist tendencies as a necessary response to the other side, and stating that he is to be considered differently because he’s the boss. Not quite sure how that follows, though.

And, of course, the bad activists you’re opposing are the dangerous idiots, because <assertions>.

Vavra has to defend his business and his employees. Of course its different. If the business goes under because of politics then everyone loses their jobs. Vavra has to make sure that he can continue doing what he is doing.

Yeah sure. Dismiss my assertions because those activists are all wonderful people. Some of them might very well be. Maybe even most of them. But they are still idiots. Considering how some of them behave I thought I was being generous.

Ripper · March 24, 2019

Silver said:
lol I'm not attempting to write a political essay Ripper. No-one's got time for that. Each post is its own topic unto itself. If you are looking for some great theory from me you won't find it. Conversational style as I said. Ask questions if you are not sure what I mean and try to answer mine rather than seeing them as unconnected.

No, not looking for great theories or political essays – just a regular progression of conversation where both parties try to make some kind of point and justify it, by responding to each other over a number of exchanges. This new zen of each post being its own topic is a new one on me. It definitely seems to have the advantage of removing the need for consistency, and any previous claims or arguments that become inconvenient can be safely discarded or redefined.

Silver said:
I don't imagine extreme left funnily enough - but neither did I say that. FYI People tend to get more conservative as they get older and wiser. Almost like they've matured past it or something

Yes, at a certain age, some people do seem to be vulnerable to settling into a reactionary worldview. Many do resist it, though, much to their credit. You’d be amazed by how many of the leftist fiends on University campuses are grown ups – some with grey beards and tweed jackets, and everything.

Silver said:
Vavra has to defend his business and his employees. Of course its different. If the business goes under because of politics then everyone loses their jobs. Vavra has to make sure that he can continue doing what he is doing.

Again though – don’t you think the people on the other side of the fence are fighting for something, also? And Vavra was part of the gamergate movement (surely a form activism) and taking political stances, outside the context of defending his company.

Silver · March 24, 2019

Ripper said:
No, not looking for great theories or political essays – just a regular progression of conversation where both parties try to make some kind of point and justify it, by responding to each other over a number of exchanges. This new zen of each post being its own topic is a new one on me. It definitely seems to have the advantage of removing the need for consistency, and any previous claims or arguments that become inconvenient can be safely discarded or redefined.

Refining the conversation is the point. I don't expect to get where I'm headed straight away. I treat it like a journey and see where the conversation goes. Maybe thats just me.

Ripper said:
Yes, at a certain age, some people do seem to be vulnerable to settling into a reactionary worldview. Many do resist it, though, much to their credit. You’d be amazed by how many of the leftist fiends on University campuses are grown ups – some with grey beards and tweed jackets, and everything.

I'm not surprised they would choose to live in secluded environments surrounded by their peers. It would certainly be more comfortable.

Ripper said:
Again though – don’t you think the people on the other side of the fence are fighting for something, also? And Vavra was part of the gamergate movement (surely a form activism) and taking political stances, outside the context of defending his company.

Gamergate for some developers was about creative freedom. We don't know how many supported it because some feared to voice an opinion. I can understand Vavra supporting that because he has always had an interest in historical sims and would not be intimidated by anyone ie developer of Mafia. Remember that Vavra is also trying to court an audience for his games. He ran a Kickstarter during that time I believe. What stances outside of defending his company are you referring to?

As to the other side of the aisle they believe they are standing up for diversity. But the methods they employ - intimidating people, it seems to me. People are scared of them. Let people do what they will. You can have all the variety you want representation wise. I don't care just as long as it fits the game you are making. Social justice is all well and good but that doesn't seem to be what SJWs are about. I'm far from alone in thinking that so either they are terribly mis-represented or people have a point.

Cacheperl · March 24, 2019

Silver said:
What do you feel should be called out in general? I agree with you in that I hate censorship.

I don't think calling this out in general is necessary. Calling out the specific cases where they occur is perfectly fine with me.

But if people cry out about censorship when Warhorse gets attacked for Kingdom Come not being diverse enough, yet think it is perfectly fine for themselves to attack the VtM devs based on minimal snippets of text, then I can't see that as making a good case against censorship.

(Not to mention the fact that "censorship" is clearly a misnomer in most of these cases, but I guess the meaning of the word is becoming a bit fluid...)

Farflame said:
That means that many liberal/SJW/LGBT people are not credible in what they claim? Did you ever see liberal/SJW/LGBT/whatever fanatic that would be worried about censorship and especially censorship against anti-SJW etc?

Are you calling LGBT people fanatics? How does sexual orientation even figure into this?

Anyways, to answer your question: What I think is that hypocrites do not make a credible case for themselves. Regardless of their political background.

Ripper · March 24, 2019

@Silver;

Well, we seem to have got into rather unreadable fragmented text walls, so I’ll try to break out of that, and just restate my core points.

I think your idea that each of your posts are not “connected entities” and should be treated as separate topics is a bit unreasonable, and doesn’t really make sense. I don’t really see how it could be called a conversation at all on that basis, and it doesn’t seem coherent to say that you are “refining” the conversation if one thing is not connected to the next. But, hey ho.

With regard to Vavra, in addition to gamergate, I’ve also seen him weighing in on various topics, in ways which didn’t seem related to defending his business interests from direct attack, but, if anything, attracting controversy where he didn’t need to. I’m just going from memory, and I haven’t combed through his twitter and interviews for specific examples, but I don’t think I’m being unfair – I think anyone familiar with him knows he is like that.

The key point where he is concerned, is that he clearly has a political position, and a dog in the fight of the culture wars. What I’m driving at, is that it’s a very partial view of the situation to portray that side of things as not having a political agenda, and only acting in justifiable response to the other side, whereas the people on that other side are activists trading in propaganda. The part I’m calling bogus is the claim that politics are not the issue, but that propaganda is; where those things with which you are comfortable are “political themes”, but other perspectives are categorically different; that they are propaganda, and therefore obviously a problem. That does seem to me very arbitrary and partial.

In terms of the methods of the “leftists” being to intimidate people, have you not seen the harassment campaigns, doxing, death and rape threats, and so on, from the rightwing side? Could you also elaborate a bit more on the sort of intimidation you refer to on the left?

joxer · March 24, 2019

Ripper said:
BTW, could you list some of these RPGs that have been ruined by the "SJWs"?

The only game I know of that was ruined by SJWs is Raven's Cry.
SJWs were competing who'll be the fastest to slap 1/10 on it.

While RC is by no means some awsome game, it's fun and worth playing. But, SJWs thought differently, were very fast and mainstream followers without own opinion decided to trust all those SJWs never checking the game for real.

Farflame said:
Did you ever see liberal/SJW/LGBT/whatever fanatic

I've seen all kinds of fanatics so far in my life, sometimes I'm the one myself (antimushrooms).
Liberal fanatics, yes, every now and then some new emerge. SJW and antiSJW fanatics, of course, both became pop culture recently. Whatever fanatics, trust me I've seen all sorts of weirdos like purple color pushers.
But LGBT fanatics? No. In fact I have no idea what type of fanatic would that be. AntiLGBT fanatics, sure, daily I'm seeing new ones in news (recently Brazil's president), but LGBT fanatics, sorry, can't say I've seen any so far.

And still I have no idea how's any of it ontopic in what's supposed to be a videogame about vampires.

Ripper · March 24, 2019

joxer said:
The only game I know of that was ruined by SJWs is Raven's Cry.
SJWs were competing who'll be the fastest to slap 1/10 on it.

While RC is by no means some awsome game, it's fun and worth playing. But, SJWs thought differently, were very fast and mainstream followers without own opinion decided to trust all those SJWs never checking the game for real.

Was that really what killed it, though? I think a lot of the reviews were genuinely about the very poor state of the game, rather than anxieties about the naughty songs. If it had actually been a strong game, I think it would have had a perfectly good chance - all the fuss would probably have attracted more people than it put off. If you have a strong product, I think just ignoring the fringe twitter hysterics is a perfectly good strategy.

Farflame · March 24, 2019

Cacheperl said:
Are you calling LGBT people fanatics? How does sexual orientation even figure into this?

I was talking about fanatics. Not all fanatics but obviously those related to gaming, attacking gamers, demanging changes in games, quoted in media etc. And these ppl are mainly from these socio "groups" imho. Yes, there are other groups too, but these are not important in this case.

Cacheperl said:
Anyways, to answer your question: What I think is that hypocrites do not make a credible case for themselves. Regardless of their political background.

So we could agree they are hypocrites. Yes. Well, I call them usually fanatics because it suits them better imho.

Cacheperl said:
But if people cry out about censorship when Warhorse gets attacked for Kingdom Come not being diverse enough, yet think it is perfectly fine for themselves to attack the VtM devs based on minimal snippets of text

That is false argument. Attack on Warhorse was to harm developers in the eyes of the public so they were falsely called rasists or xenophobes ignoring any arguments about their decisions or history etc. Because they didnt bow down before one ideology. It was also about the demand to change the game otherwise there will be smear campaign against them. And the campaign happened in media. The game was censored on some sites in order to harm devs medially and financially. They also tried to censor Vavra's lectures on different GDC shows etc. So he was invited somewhere but later influence of his haters make the organiser to take the invitation back.
Where do you see such attack on VtM2 devs? I saw critics on different sites and forums based on what they said. Yes, we may not agree with this critics. Its probably too hysterical, but its because there were examples of only sjw-like themes or only elements or restrictions based on one ideology were put into some games in the past.

So players generally dont believe devs in such cases and reacts hysterically. But its still critics. Its far from level of attack on Warhorse. So what you say is typical false claim - trying to paint both sides or both reactions as equal. That is clearly not truth. Maybe they are equal in rage. Or hate sometimes. Yes. But not in real actions or consequences or real influence over media/devs/publishers.

BTW I think that one of the few games that tried to put different RL ideologies in one game was Legends of Eisenwald sequel. There were caricatures of both Trump-like faction and Clinton-US democrats-like faction. Some ppl find it funny but if I remember correctly players were generally pretty cold or critical about it. So it seems that there is a lot of players that generally dont like ANY RL politics.
It would be interesting to ask someone like vurt if he is happy with this kind of "political game" where at least 2 ideologies or 2 sides of conflict are represented in a game.

TheRealFluent · March 24, 2019

So now Warhorse "didn't bow to an ideology" ? What ideology is that, the truth? The truth that there were black people in Bohemia during that time period but since Daniel Vavra "lived there" he "knew that wasn't true"? It's funny how alt-righters turn truth into an ideology now. You guys clearly don't bow to the truth, that much is certain.

Ripper · March 24, 2019

This idea that all the political force with RL consequences comes from one side seem to me evidently untrue. As if the other side doesn't conduct hysterical online campaigns, review-bombings, burning their belongings, and so forth, when something political presses their buttons. As they are so fond of claiming, "get woke, go broke". How does that work if their side doesn't also have the power to exert pressure, and help to determine the success and failure of a product based on politics? You think the right doesn't attempt boycotts, smearing, blacklisting, etc?

joxer · March 24, 2019

TheRealFluent said:
The truth that there were black people in Bohemia during that time period but since Daniel Vavra "lived there" he "knew that wasn't true"?

The truth is that you don't live there. He does.
And he didn't tell you how to make your game, yet for some reason, you're telling him.

Paradox Interactive - New Images for Vampire Game

Зичу Вам успіхів

SasqWatch

Spaceman

SasqWatch

Зичу Вам успіхів

Spaceman

Зичу Вам успіхів

Spaceman

Зичу Вам успіхів

Spaceman

Зичу Вам успіхів

Spaceman

SasqWatch

Зичу Вам успіхів

The Smoker

Зичу Вам успіхів

SasqWatch

H.O.O. Inquisitor

Зичу Вам успіхів

The Smoker