this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2024
47 points (73.3% liked)
Games
32707 readers
1656 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A curation page is made to inform users if Sweet Baby worked a game or not. Sweet Baby employees started to harass (mass flag campaign) the curation page and it's maker.
They have been gaining a reputation for poor writing, 'wheadonesque' if you know the term. Some lowlights on the game Forspoken that they worked on being a recent funny example. I don't like them because I do find the writing bad, but some people don't like them for their politics.
They are contractor writers, if a company is using such services for their games instead of hiring their own staff writers, then they are not that interested in quality.
I thought Joss Wheadon was known for good writing and snappy dialogue?
Snappy, witty, but ultimately shallow. Good lines, not necessarily great stories.
Are we pretending that Buffy, Firefly, and Doll House weren't great stories?
Cabin in the Woods remains one of my favorite comedy horror movies to this day.
IMO that one works because of how little character each actual character has by design. Dumb jock is dumb and jocky, stoner is stoned, virgin is timid. It's a play on the lack of real character that mid to low budget horror movies often have.
It's a great movie but I do find when Wheadon tries to do anything else, it just simmers down to kitchy one-liners that elicit a mild chuckle and nothing else, and that gets old very quickly.
There’s no pretending, they’re all middling trash.
Firefly gets by solely on the setting.
So Space shows are popular just because they are in space? Andromeda would like a word...
Speaking as a huge fan of firefly, I'm not even gonna pretend that the writing doesn't have a very specific set of issues, and that cancellation might have saved it from becoming aggressively mid and boring.
If Serenity was more or less the intended ending to the season (specifically revealing the alliance actually created the reapers and are unequivocally villainous) I'm actually happy they didn't get to put that in the show.
Same for the Shepherd Book backstory comic where he was actually a brown coat double agent in the alliance, because god forbid we have to accept that your enemy isn't ontologically evil.
But the best criticism I've seen of Whedon is that all his dialogue has over time exceedingly forgone character voice in favour of funny quips.
So much of his later production's quotable lines are almost impossible to attribute correctly just from the lines themselves.
Agents of Shield was also quite enjoyable
Apparently they don't like Sweet Baby's focus on "promoting inclusivity", so just some bigot getting their panties on a twist that the "out-group" is being treated with a basic level of human dignity. They then spent a bunch of time and effort to let the world know they think inclusivity is bad.
people should be free to know who worked on the game they buy. If they don't like sweetbaby's products, then they are free to not pay money for them. Transparency is good.
And is this information hidden in some way?
not anymore, thanks to that plugin
It's not a plugin, and as far as I know it uses publicly available information.
I just don't understand the use case. So people look for a game they'd like to try, then go and check that list, then go back and purchase the game if it's not on the list? Why? If they make games bad the reviews will tell you the game is bad.
It's perfectly reasonable for people to say "I don't want to buy a game that Sweetbaby worked on". It's their choice.
And it's perfectly reasonable for people to ask "why don't you want to buy a game sweetbaby worked on?"
For example: I won't purchase a game produced by Blizzard. If someone asked me why I wouldn't evade the question by saying "I am free to do so, that is my choice." I will happily tell them it's because of how poorly they treat their employees, and how they actively make games worse to try to squeeze more money out of people. The entire point of a boycott is to inform people why this company should be boycotted.
All this dancing around answering the very simple question of "why do you actively want to avoid purchasing a game SBI worked on" speaks volumes as to how generally unacceptable that reason must be. Makes it look like people are afraid to "say the quiet part of loud." Why else would they not just answer the question?
People don't need your approval on how they spend their money. Nor do they need to justify their choices.
True. Just be aware that when someone says "this looks like bigotry," if the only response they get is "I don't have to explain myself to you!" That doesn't make it look less like bigotry.
Any reason at all would have looked better. Or just not replying.
You can't accuse someone of bigotry because they don't want to buy something.
Sure you can when their reason for not buying something is clearly bigotry.
people don't have to buy what you are selling. It's their decision, not yours.