Again, or maybe the same old same old. Either way I thought I would put up the link, I didnt even know OSC was doing any game work after Empire didnt happen.
It's not much of a controversy. A couple game journalists/bloggers have raised the question, only to have a virtually unanimous response that a) Card's involvement is minimal, b) A lot of other people who have no relationship to Card were involved in creating the game, and c) In the last six months at one time or another you probably ate chocolate containing cocoa that was farmed by child slave labor in Africa - have some perspective.
I loathe Card's politics, both their form and substance, but I have no qualms with purchasing this great game. I want to encourage good game development more than I want to send a teeny-tiny message of disaproval toward OSC.
EDIT: According to "insider sources" of mine, it's unlikely that Card got anything beyond a modest up-front consulting fee and me may have received no compensation at all for the game. The chance that he's getting a portion of sales revenue is pretty much zero.
[ August 24, 2009, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I want to slap these attention whoring idiots, an author has an opinion, you disagree with it, fine. What does boycotting a game that may only remotely connected to him through 5 degrees of separation have any relevance whatsoever?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Eh. I tell people what Shadow Complex was based on, and that the Restoration is the "Progressive Restoration," a group of insurrectionist liberals who assassinate the country's leadership because they're cheesed off about George W. Bush and they're funded by a shallow foil version of George Soros, so essentially all through shadow complex you are fighting the ebil liberals who kidnapped your girlfriend, probably to give her free healthcare or something.
we all have a good laugh.
Then I tell them to buy the game because it's fun and they've wisely scrubbed off every exposed inch of Empire's ideological taint (since the book abjectly failed as an even-handed approach to the redstate/bluestate war scenario). Why not just play the game? it doesn't appear to actively work on those themes, instead having drawn a curtain over the Restoration's roots as a liberal villain group, recasting them instead as a non-offensively generic mob of buffoons with a seekrit base with all sorts of pathetically easy-to-steal superscience just littering the place. Heck, they even took the 'progressive' out of their own names. How charitable!
But if someone wants to boycott it for deeper, less funny reasons, such as Card's overt anti-homosexuality crusade, I guess I have to respect that, and I'm surprised (much like Kotaku) that anyone even cares in the gaming world. But then, I guess it's like how people refuse to drink Rockstar energy drinks. A boycott even on an individual level is as much an expression of personal freedom, a message. It's essentially "If you want to make money off of games, go ahead, just don't involve this guy."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But then, I guess it's like how people refuse to drink Rockstar energy drinks.
You mean Shadow Complex tastes like battery acid?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you've ever tried battery acid, you wouldn't knock it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I want to slap these attention whoring idiots, an author has an opinion, you disagree with it, fine. What does boycotting a game that may only remotely connected to him through 5 degrees of separation have any relevance whatsoever?
The fact that it gets you riled up is an indication that it can be an effective statement. Heads they win, tails you lose.
Edit: Oh god Samp, they used the Mr. Burns/Colonel Sanders photo of Card with his hands steepled in front of him, wearing a Regis Philbin silver tie, and evil small glasses. They mean business.
Did find this interesting: from VP of Epic Games
quote: "Card's political beliefs sure didn't come up during the game's development,"
Well that almost has to be a lie right? Or the game is not based one iota on Card's book, and none of the developers read it (not so surprising actually) and the book really had nothing to do with the novel except for an abortive attempt at cross-promotion... right? Because how do his political beliefs not come up?
Of course, this is the VP talking, and who knows what he knew or was involved with in the first place. I'd bet dollars to donuts the developers *were* talking about it.
quote: "If anyone wants to boycott the game and thus damage me or Chair while doing nothing to change Orson's opinions, that's naturally their right. Or...They can display the sort of tolerance for someone who is different from them that they feel is lacking in Orson and thus prove they're better. Your choice
Does that not read like a line dictated by the big man himself? That late in the game high handed closer: "be tolerant as tolerant as you would wish me to be."
[ August 24, 2009, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
Sounds like a clear example of the genetic fallacy.
This also makes me less likely to pay any attention to any other articles on the blog, thus having the exact opposite outcome of what the author was originally gunning for.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But then, I guess it's like how people refuse to drink Rockstar energy drinks.
You mean Shadow Complex tastes like battery acid?
I imagine that if you did, in fact, try to eat the game, it would taste quite bad.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (since the book abjectly failed as an even-handed approach to the redstate/bluestate war scenario).
I'd like to know what you mean by this.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well that almost has to be a lie right? Or the game is not based one iota on Card's book, and none of the developers read it (not so surprising actually) and the book really had nothing to do with the novel except for an abortive attempt at cross-promotion... right? Because how do his political beliefs not come up?
Actually, my understanding is that Card licensed the IP to write the book. The game isn't based on the book; rather they are both the spawn of a common IP that was either not developed by Card or was developed as a collaboration between card and the studio.
Also, the studio that produced the game (Chair Entertainment) is located in Provo, UT where Card's politics aren't considered all that out there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or...They can display the sort of tolerance for someone who is different from them that they feel is lacking in Orson and thus prove they're better.
The weirdest argument I've seen along those lines has been from Peter David, the actual writer of the game (and a number of comic books I enjoy). He asserted that the more noble thing to do, instead of a boycott, was to buy the product specifically because you disapproved of the creator's message, just to prove that you're capable of turning the other cheek and letting him have his moment of free speech -- and then donating an equivalent sum to an opposing cause.
Me, I'm no huge fan of boycotts -- I don't think that sort of financial intimidation can be fairly and responsibly wielded in most cases -- but I found that logic absolutely incomprehensible.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... A boycott even on an individual level is as much an expression of personal freedom, a message. It's essentially "If you want to make money off of games, go ahead, just don't involve this guy."
Technically, it could also be "If you want to make money off of games, go ahead, just don't involve this universe."
Given the studio's plans to license additional novels and maybe a movie from the same universe, I could understand if someone didn't want to encourage that.
(And yes, it is certainly possible that all non-OSC implementations of the Empire universe could totally remove the politics, but who knows for sure. (I do find myself wondering what OSC's reaction would be if an evil liberal movie studio re-imagined the concept, switching from evil liberals to evil conservatives))
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Was there a call for boycotting the new Monkey Island remake, too?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: but I found that logic absolutely incomprehensible.
I'm betting Mr. David has some suggestions of charitable organizations. It's called getting 'em coming and going.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MEC: Sounds like a clear example of the genetic fallacy.
This also makes me less likely to pay any attention to any other articles on the blog, thus having the exact opposite outcome of what the author was originally gunning for.
Sorry, the quote was not from the blog, but someone being quoted *on* the blog. Should have been clearer- my bad. It's Peter David talking there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Well that almost has to be a lie right? Or the game is not based one iota on Card's book, and none of the developers read it (not so surprising actually) and the book really had nothing to do with the novel except for an abortive attempt at cross-promotion... right? Because how do his political beliefs not come up?
Actually, my understanding is that Card licensed the IP to write the book. The game isn't based on the book; rather they are both the spawn of a common IP that was either not developed by Card or was developed as a collaboration between card and the studio.
Also, the studio that produced the game (Chair Entertainment) is located in Provo, UT where Card's politics aren't considered all that out there.
Eh. I don't buy it. He says that it "didn't come up." Now, in the sense that it didn't come up *as a problem for them* I might buy, but the idea that his politics were never discussed while creating a game tied to a novel in which his politics burst forth in torrents? Yeah, you can say that the game and book are only related to the same property, but it's not like the developers didn't know it existed right? Wouldn't you, if you were a game developer, have looked at this book that your game was supposed to be tied to?
Maybe that isn't what he means. Maybe he means that Card's politics were never considered as a problem for the developers to deal with. I still don't buy it. Why ship the game with no advertised relationship to Empire, when Empire was, according to kacard, a successful novel? I buy that as a marketing strategy, meant not to scare off the casual gamers who don't want to get in halfway on some tie-in game (and let's face it, we all assumed that because it was a tie-in, it would suck). However I don't buy the idea that Card's politics just never came up. Why say that? Why not say that "Card's politics didn't bother us," or "had no effect on the development of the game," or anything really. I mean, either way someone screwed the pooch in marketing because the issue got publicity anyway. But then, I think someone screwed the pooch 4 years ago when they made the deal to produce that particular piece of speculative fiction.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: (And yes, it is certainly possible that all non-OSC implementations of the Empire universe could totally remove the politics, but who knows for sure. (I do find myself wondering what OSC's reaction would be if an evil liberal movie studio re-imagined the concept, switching from evil liberals to evil conservatives))
And in the end it wouldn't matter anyway because OSC would still get paid, and would still write about and promote politics that many people disagree with. That's why a boycott is the way to go, and why it remains a tradition of free societies. That the receiving end of a boycott is usually livid at the impertinence of the act kind of demonstrates the effectiveness of it- it's not much different from children shunning you in the playground. Blunt, simple, and highly effective.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why ship the game with no advertised relationship to Empire, when Empire was, according to kacard, a successful novel?
It's in their press releases:
quote:Collect power-ups, discover new abilities and evolve your character into a force of destruction as you explore an original story set in the world of Hugo and Nebula award winning novelist Orson Scott Card’s bestselling novel, “Empire.” Renowned comic book author Peter David, whose previous works include Incredible Hulk, Spiderman, Star Trek, and X-Factor, developed the game's original new story, which runs parallel to Card's “Empire” novel and sets up the events in the literary sequel “Hidden Empire.”
quote:The original single-player adventure is set in a compelling universe based upon the best-selling novel, Empire, by Orson Scott Card.
I'm not aware of any official discussion of the game that *doesn't* mention OSC and Empire.
Edit: The Xbox.com site also links to a video interview with OSC.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Was there a call for boycotting the new Monkey Island remake, too?
Not that I recall, but the circumstances and timing, as well as the nature of the product are likely important factors here. Emire is a political novel, so it's a natural segue into Card's actual politics, which has a number of burning signs all pointing at: "homosexuals should not be treated as equal citizens," or an array of choice phrases. Plus, this game seems to be a popular or at least notable download at the moment, and that moment happens to be in the midst of a serious tide of court and litigation battles across the states to legalize gay marriage, whereas even a couple of years ago, the battle seemed to be smaller than it is now.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The original single-player adventure is set in a compelling universe based upon the best-selling novel, Empire, by Orson Scott Card.
I'm not aware of any official discussion of the game that *doesn't* mention OSC and Empire.
I was misled. The blog entry claims that the OSC connection is downplayed or unstated. Or was it Samp who said that he had told friends about it being related to OSC, and they didn't know? My misinterpretation- I don't own an X-box so it's not something I would find out first hand.
The question stands then in an altered form: Why would they market and release the novel and game without the politics involved ever coming up? Does that make a lot of sense?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Plus, this game seems to be a popular or at least notable download at the moment, and that moment happens to be in the midst of a serious tide of court and litigation battles across the states to legalize gay marriage, whereas even a couple of years ago, the battle seemed to be smaller than it is now.
The Monkey Island remake just came out a few weeks ago. The real reason no one has noted OSC's contribution to that game or demanded a boycott is that his contribution is exceedingly minimal to it and he's certainly not making any money from it and his name isn't featured in any promotional material so most people, including my games industry friends, were not aware that he had contributed anything to the game.
Posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged (Member # 7476) on :
Peter David wrote a comic book where two male characters kissed. What if people who are against gay marriage decide to protest against the game?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: Peter David wrote a comic book where two male characters kissed. What if people who are against gay marriage decide to protest against the game?
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: (since the book abjectly failed as an even-handed approach to the redstate/bluestate war scenario).
I'd like to know what you mean by this.
Empire the novel was predicated on the notion of depicting a red state vs. blue state civil war scenario in a way which is supposed to be ideologically impartial and ultimately points fingers instead at the failure of dialogue and acceptable disagreement/both sides working against extremism, etc, but it fails because the author is not impartial as evidenced by his gross contempt for liberals, and the story in the book is, likewise, greatly skewed under the pretense of being a fair take.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I certainly wouldn't have any problem with buying a hypothetical game based on Card's works (Treason, for example, might make a very interesting game), but I don't know if I could in good conscience buy a game based on Empire. I wouldn't necessarily discourage others from doing as much, but that's their right.
Fortunately I don't think it's coming to the PC (or the Wii or DS, which I'm hoping to purchase some time this year), so the point is moot as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: Peter David wrote a comic book where two male characters kissed. What if people who are against gay marriage decide to protest against the game?
You think this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time?
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by ricree101:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But then, I guess it's like how people refuse to drink Rockstar energy drinks.
You mean Shadow Complex tastes like battery acid?
I imagine that if you did, in fact, try to eat the game, it would taste quite bad.
Ive eaten compact disc, they taste alot more like blood than anything else, I wonder why?
As to the idea that his personal views should not be considered in the context with his works, he has made them public therefore they are not private. He represents his life and works at all times, what he chooses to convey to the public is his choice even if it bites him on the ass, to say that his work should be held seperate from his views... well ask Don Imus what happens when you vent prejudices publicly.
On a tangeant, I wonder if any North Carolina University students have felt uneasy in his writing classes or even hesitent to sign up, due to his open opinion of homosexuals. I do believe and hope that he is a proffesional who can leave his personal and faith opinions at the door, but how does an obviously gay student enroll confidently knowing that he may look down on all thier work because of something in thier personal life. And would it permissable in his classes to write two male main characters with a special relationship, or does he have the ability as a professor to dissallow non-hetero relationships in any graded works? (I simply dont know the overt boundarys allowed to university staff.)
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: Peter David wrote a comic book where two male characters kissed. What if people who are against gay marriage decide to protest against the game?
You think this kind of thing doesn't happen all the time?
Rockstar Games (same company as Grand Theft Auto series) put a game out some years ago called Bully, and the big shocker in that one was two adolescent male characters sharing a quick peck, was never interested in the game before that and after I just thought it was funny... and that I would never play it ever. And there was a Gaiman comic back in the ninetys about his Death character, featuring a sweet natured pregnant woman wearing a shirt saying dyke with an arrow pointing up and baby with a down arrow. Completely innocent homosexuality has been in alot artistic expressions, even red necks listen to Queen.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
I suppose if ultra-conservatives can stop taking their kids to Disney land because Disney decided to cover "gay partners" on their insurance plans, then liberals can decide to boycott this game. I'm guessing it'll have just about the same effect...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I wonder if any North Carolina University students have felt uneasy in his writing classes or even hesitent to sign up
You mean Southern Virginia University, the East Coast equivalent of BYU?
:shrug:
I don't know. You could go ask, though.
quote:how does an obviously gay student enroll confidently knowing that he may look down on all thier work because of something in thier personal life.
I don't think it's a given that OSC looks down on a work merely because a homosexual created it. He certainly seems to like Janice Ian's music, after all.
I would expect OSC to be professional.
quote:And would it permissable in his classes to write two male main characters with a special relationship, or does he have the ability as a professor to dissallow non-hetero relationships in any graded works?
A special relationship? Like...Turner and Hooch? Tubs and Crockett? Cheech and Chong? Pumba and Timon? Kate and Allie?
I honestly don't know. I *expect* that he doesn't push his ideology on students in this way.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
When I took a writing course in college, there were numerous subjects that were forbidden, under the argument that such topics added additional difficulties. Since it was a beginning class, adding in difficulties was a bad idea. One of our rules was that the stories should have no political message. I can see how a teacher might include ss relationships in that area, depending on how the story treated it. I think it would depend a lot on the story and the student. But I would not necessarily attribute a prohibition on writing ss relationships in a writing class as an example of homophobia.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah, not necessarily. Now, if the teacher were an outspoken anti-SSM advocate, I'd take pause.
But that's a hypothetical stacked on a hypothetical, wrapped in an enigma, and locked inside a puzzle. Writing workshop teachers regularly forbid various topics simply because they are overused. I myself have warned AP test takers to avoid using Hamlet as a subject text simply because it is used so very often, and is therefore less likely to catch the attention of a test grader. "The Historical Person I Would Like to Meet" essay question is virtually subtitled: "Except Abraham Lincoln." In a writing class, it's often best to try and sublimate one's own will partially to the person teaching the course, in order to learn what one can from that person before moving on. I learned that in music composition classes, and it was an important part of growing as a practitioner of music theory- which was the point of the classes. You can't teach being an artist, so try and learn what you can actually be taught, and stick it to the man on your own time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can't imagine wanting to meet Abraham Lincoln more than anyone else in history. What sort of person would?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Young people.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I can't imagine wanting to meet Abraham Lincoln more than anyone else in history. What sort of person would?
Someone who doesn't actually give a damn about Lincoln or any other person out of history, but has seen a lot of example essays about Lincoln and can rattle off pseudo-enthusiastic reasons in his sleep.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Usually I saw a "invite three historical people to lunch," and the default response seemed to be "Gandhi, Jesus and Hilter."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That would be the most awkward lunch ever.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That would be the most awkward lunch ever.
No.
Adding Moses would definitely make it more awkward.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That would be the most awkward lunch ever.
No.
Adding Moses would definitely make it more awkward.
It's true, because Moses would do all the talking for Jesus.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: That would be the most awkward lunch ever.
No.
Adding Moses would definitely make it more awkward.
It's true, because Moses would do all the talking for Jesus.
Wouldn't Aaron need to be there to do all the talking for Moses?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Arel s'fasayim doesn't mean "can't speak without an interpreter".
As for Moses speaking for Jesus, this must be a Mormon thing.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Yeah, that would beat the "dinner with Lando, Vader and Boba Fett" from Empire Strikes Back... which previously topped my list of most awkward meals.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
rivka: It was a subtle reference to our (LDS) beliefs that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament.
*warning obscene gesture for those who are sensitive.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That's brilliant.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I was pretty surprised while watching "The Electric Playground" today. They had a segment where they talked to the creators of Shadow Complex, and it was the usual stuff showing some gameplay and talking about how the game is going to be awesome and whatnot. Anyway, when they cut back to the host Victor Lucas to wrap up the segment he says something like, "Although only loosely connected, 'Shadow Complex' takes place in the same world as Orson Scott Card's novel 'Empire'. Card a has been taking a lot of heat lately for apparently advocating against certain social liberties." Then it was just on to the next segment. It just seemed really out of place.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: rivka: It was a subtle reference to our (LDS) beliefs
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)