Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott Card's Involvement

August 25, 2009 -

Shadow Complex, an adventure game in the vein of Castlevania or Super Metroid, became available for sale last week on Xbox Live Arcade. While the game has garnered impressive reviews, some are upset by the fact that its plot has been derived from the fiction of Orson Scott Card, a known campaigner against gay rights.  Gamers upset by this news are suggesting a boycott to ensure their dollars don’t end up funding Card's political agenda.

In an opinion piece for Gamasutra, Christian Nutt sees the idea of boycotting a game based on the political views of one of the creative influences as a sign that video games are growing up:

When Shadow Complex was announced, I personally was torn. I'd already long since made the conscious decision to not support Orson Scott Card directly with my money...

 

What bothers me is people who suggest that it's a non-issue because the topic of discussion is a game... "Remember back when we were kids and we just enjoyed games?" asks Wizman23.

Yes, I do. But we are not kids anymore... I was 32 on the day [Shadow Complex] became available for download on Xbox Live... I can't approach things the way I did as a child. That's not me being self-righteous; I mean that I literally cannot do this...

 

And that's why it's acceptable to talk about this... If we can have meaningful political discussion in other media, we can have it in games.

From all accounts, Shadow Complex looks like a very fun game.  For those who are put off by Card’s involvement, Nutt points to a suggestion offered up at GayGamer: buy the game and make a donation to a gay-positive charity to offset any profit Card may see from the sale.
 
-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Senior Correspondent Andrew Eisen...


Comments

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

First off, I previously wasn't aware that the man was anti-gay, as a number of his books have either overtones or actualy gay scenes.

Secondly, this is his religious view. His religion teaches that being gay is wrong. It is in his bible. Changing the bible to take it out is one solution others have taken. As a person with a voice, he has stated his religious beliefs. You propose to shout him down for that, and to punish him for stating his religious beliefs. As far as I can see, he hasn't done anything worse then writing. Has he gone around beating gay people?

Thirdly, this is the work of many people. Guess what, some of them are likely pro-gay rights. Your boycott is punishing them as well. In fact, there are likely more of the latter. Your action has a net-negative effect. Does this GAME have an anti-gay theme? No? So leave the freakin' game out of it.

This boycott, to me, smells like PETA. Trying to get a groundswell of support against something for the smallest and stupidest reasons. Watch the lemmings...

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

I played the game from start to finish and got all of the achievements.  It was fantastic.  I'm glad that Microsoft, Chair, and Epic got my money, and I wish them well with it.  The game deserves to be a success.  Hopefully they'll create some DLC or a sequel - I want more.

I know this issue is about Card, but I thought I'd mention that first, since its relevant as you'll see later in my post...

Without having all the information, it's hard to even know what impact BUYING or NOT BUYING Shadow Complex actually has on the man.  It's entirely possible that whatever he was going to be paid - he has already been paid - if he was even paid at all - and has no interest in further revenues, in which case a boycot has no practical affect other than to cripple some great game developers without making the slightest bit of difference to your target.

Of course, there's always the symbolic value of a boycott, but as others have already said... Card isn't involved in much of any way with this game, and unless you plan on being inconsistent about this type of protesting you might as well never watch a movie again or turn off your internet.  In other words, if you think fornication is a sin, say goodbye to your KISS collection...

If it were me, the headline on this article would be...

"Gamers Propose Questionably Effective Boycott of Critically Acclaimed Shadow Complex Game Over Tangentially Connected Author Orson Scott Card, Despite Clear Danger to Small Developer Chair"

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Orson Scott Card is out of his mind, anyway. I once read a piece by him about how homework and studying is a completely useless and archiac form of education, which is a completely preposterous claim. Many of his views are in direct opposition to mine. Still, I'm of the opinion that any personal disagreements with a person ends when I make business transactions with said person, which is what my buying Shadow Complex is.

I mean, for all I know the woman managing the store I'm buying my groceries from could be an extremist feminazi for all I know, that doesn't mean I'm gonna stop buying groceries there. I mean, if I avoided everything that went against my values I'd probably be huddled in a corner of an empty room, starving.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Wow.  Really?  So none of you would ever read Ender's Game because the dude as issues with the gay community?  I am a pretty liberal guy, but that isn't going to stop me from recognizing a talented writer. This is really silly. Ugh.  I wasn't going to buy this game, but I think I will now.  Metroid/Castlevania styled gameplay?  Sounds super sweet. 

--- XboxLive Tag: JuiceLayerJihad

--- XboxLive Tag: JuiceLayerJihad

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Normally it wouldn't matter to most people. The problem is that he is actively anti-gay. If it was just a belief he had and he didn't lobby for it this would be a whole different story.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Like others have said, a very likely scenario is that almost all of the products that you buy will likely end up going to a person that is actively pro- or anti-abortion or some other cause that you strongly disagree with. Some product you buy will fund a Democrat or Republican or Communist or Anarchist cause, so why worry about it so much?

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

I agree and same here, I wasn't planning on buying that game but now it's suddenly a whole lot more interesting. The fact that the author of Ender's Game was involved in the writing involved certainly does grabs my attention

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

This entire discussion borders on pointless. 

Games are made by teams.

The likelihood that the entire team holds a homogenous social or political  position is unlikely.

If one chooses to boycott a game because a single contributor holds a social or political view contrary to one's own beliefs, then they might as well just give up gaming altogether. The money one pays for any particular game may be going into the tithe plate of a church, or supporting one side or the other of an abortion debate, or funding PETA, or simply paying the bills of someone who voted differently than you in the last election, etc.

If this issue matters to you, then you damn well better be checking the ideology of every contributor to every game you buy.

--Verbinator

--Verbinator

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

"If one chooses to boycott a game because a single contributor holds a social or political view contrary to one's own beliefs, then they might as well just give up gaming altogether. The money one pays for any particular game may be going into the tithe plate of a church, or supporting one side or the other of an abortion debate, or funding PETA, or simply paying the bills of someone who voted differently than you in the last election, etc."

 

Hell, in most cases it might even go to all of those. Seriously, how many people does it take to make games games? Hundreds usually. Like the Tom Clancy example, if a game director (like say Shigeru Miyamoto or something) were discovered to have a particular belief, would we have reason to boycott? Some people might, and it is entirely their right to do so. However, that would not make it any less ridiculous.

I think if we turn the situation around, we see just how ridiculous it is. Should people have boycotted Clive Barker's Jericho when it came out? (For those who don't know, he's written many books and gay) I don't believe they did (I could be wrong), but if they had it would have been just as ridiculous. If he'd started preaching about it it'd be one thing, but he didn't and OSC certainly isn't in this case.

Or how about this, an even better example. Ian Mckellan. Ian Mckellan is not only gay but also a gay rights activist. Should people boycott all three Lord of the Rings movies AND the 3 X-Men movies? The fact that I don't agree/support his views doesn't stop me from enjoying the movies he's in or even being a fan of him. Also, he made much, much more money with just one of those movies than OSC is likely to make through Shadow Complex and probably poured in much more money into lobbying (or whatever). As far as I'm concerned, videogames and movies are meant to entertain. If they do that, then to me it doesn't matter in the least who made it, directly or indirectly. Now, if it's directly exposing it's view in said media form then that's another issue.

Put it this way, if you'd never heard of the "offending" person before (whoever it is), would it still affect your buying decision? I think in most cases the answer would have to be only if their views are actually in what you're buying...I think a lot of people forget the fact that these types of issues are two-way streets; if it applies to one side it applies to the opposite side also...I mean free speech and all that...You can boycott of course, and if a group of people really want to then fine. Doesn't necessarily mean they should, nor does it keep it from being any less ridiculous...

 

Edit: Ender's Game is (IMO) one of the greatest books of all time :D I don't think someone shouldn't read it just because of his personal opinions...

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Or it could be because he is SO vocal about it. I don't mind people who don't like gay people. Or are uncomfortable. I mind it when they use the power, money and influence they have to reduce gay people to lesser citizens in our society.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

 I (Along many other readers who have brains) would like to point out that there is no boycott. A boycott would be an outright ban on the game itself. But what is going on here is a question people should ask themselves, as a warning of some sort. "Should I buy a game that might fund Orson Scott Card in the slightest?" is a question even I asked myself, and dammit I felt like shit hours after buying the game. It's a good game, but should I put entertainment above values? No, we shouldn't.

And by the way people, Orson Scott Card gets money, spends it on some anti-gay lobbying. It has nothing to do with the game, or Chair (Although they share a bit of blame because they hide and mask the issue by ignoring it entirely), but rather where the money goes. So when you pull out the argument "Whatever, his views aren't in the game", I want to slap you across the face really hard.

Also the title is absolutely sensationalist and unrelated to the story (Even completely misleading).

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Where the hell did you get this idea that boycott=ban?  

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

 Wrong choice of words, that's where.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Because you know, his views aren't in the game. Litteraly wheres the anti-gay laws and marriage in the game?

---- Rumblerumblerumber

---- Rumblerumblerumber

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

 That's not the point. Orson Scott Card does get money for the game (Still don't know if he gets creative royalties) and his views are important because he sits on as a chairperson of NOM (An anti-gay lobbying group) and the money he will get either goes in this group of goes into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which might go on to give money to NOM (To avoid the whole tax thing). There can be as little of it as possible, but when it comes to a man who pretty much makes money for espousing his own stupid bigoted opinion (Rather than writing skills being the priority) pointing out his positions is important.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

See?  This is exactly what's irritating me about this whole mess.  Another person refusing to read the information presented to them and continuing to operate under the false assumption that Card had any kind of involvement in the game.

I'm starting think the mainstream media is right and gamers really are a stupid lot. 

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

 *Facepalm*

HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A PART OF THE GAME. The simple fact that he is connected to is means he got paid, listen carefully. Read carefully. People are not happy that Card might get their money, regardless of how miniscule it is. The fact that he gets the money, not about the game, but it is about the money. How thick can you possibly be? Do you even have any bloody idea why people are angry?

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

See what you realize is that we understand your point of view, we just don't care.  It comes down to the fact that if the person in question's personal beliefs don't directly effect the game then so fucking what. 

I would play a game made by Jedidethfreak if the game was good enough and didn't actually include any of his loathesome beliefs.

And if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll discover that any game that you've ever played was worked on by someone who you find vile.  So if you want to enjoy any media ever, you just need to stop caring.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

 This isn't about the game though, nobody is saying that the views are in the game, in fact we all know that there are none in the game. I bought the game, I should know. But at the same time, OSC still wrote Empire, he must have gotten creative royalties or something like that. His money will go to anti-gay groups, and we know this because he is a chairperson on one.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

"His money will go to anti-gay groups, and we know this because he is a chairperson on one."

And again I repeat: So fucking what?  Every game/movie/book/play/song that you have ever enjoyed quite likely at some point had some bastard involved in it that you disagree with.  The secret is to stop caring.  As I said in response to someone earlier, Would I still play Splinter Cell games if it turns out that Clancey was secretly Himmler in disguise?  Yes, yes I would.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Not as thick as you apparently.  The fact that he wasn't involved in the game means he didn't recieve money from it.  He was a licensee of the Empire Universe when he wrote Empire.  One can't be paid for something they didn't do.

People are angry because, frankly, they're dumb.  They want to be outraged and they refuse to acknowledge the facts that get in the way of their "outrage".

What confuses me here is the fact that your post in the other thread suggests that you understand this, which leads me to believe you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

 He gets creative royalties or fees, just because Chair let's out a twitter message that is about as ambiguous as you can get, doesn't say anything about what is going on.

The general rules with this is that any time a company uses or gets rights to use fiction is that they pay the author one of two ways. One being creative royalties, the most popular if it is a smaller company, and the other being a straight up fee that they pay to the author for use of the fiction. The fact is that you are trying to trivialize this issue with made up "facts", there is no boycott and OSC gets payed in some way for the use of his work. The fact is that you are more outraged than the not outraged people who are deciding to not purchase the game, and you don't have any facts to support it.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

I don't know what Twitter message you're refencing, so I can't address that.  I'm quite aware that no real boycott happened, nor was I under the impression that it would happen.  Even if it did the game is performing too well for it to make a difference anyway.  My main problem is people trying to stir up trouble while willingly ignoring the truth just so they can rail against the game for supporting someone who's anti-gay.

I'm not sure what facts you think I'm making up here.  So why don't we go through those I've presented in my posts.

Chair owns the Empire IP: Fact

OSC was not involved with the game: Fact

Empire/Shadow Complex doesn't contain an anti-gay message: Fact, as near as I can tell based off plot summaries and impressions from people that have read/played through the respective works

OSC was/is a licensee of the Empire IP: Fact (I actually learned this bit during 1vs100 Live Saturday night, Donald Mustard was the guest and said this)

OSC does not recieve money directly related to the game: Ok, I'll give you that this is an assumption, but one I believe a fair one to make.  After all, it isn't his IP and he didn't do anything for the game, so it's reasonable to assume that he recieves no royalties/fees from the game.  Now he did write Empire, which he was undoutedly paid for.  On the books Empire, Shadow Complex and the next book may all be part of the same budget at Chair, but at that point you're really splitting hairs on where the money comes from and for what its used.  Of course, this is a point that no one can say for certain on either way without being privy to the licensing agreement Chair gave Card anyway. 

 

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Well, it's not like there isn't evidence to support the media's theory.

---

Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone's feelings.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Does this mean the Boycott of Scottish goods won't be going ahead after all? ;)

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

I'm just going to stop buying any products entirely because there is probably someone who in some way profits from them that may or may not share my views.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Your response was entertaining in its arrogance and ignorance.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

As are the many people that won't buy this game simply because of one guy's opinion.

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Does this mean I have to buy it if I agree with him?

http://www.eliteownage.com/nice

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Well obviously. Otherwise you'd have to boycott. There is no grey in this world, only black and white.

...</sarcasm>I read about People saying Gaming as medium is maturing, then I come here and laugh

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

So boycott of secret of monkey island as well then? yawn.

I can't keep up with all the boycottin' so i'm just going over here to not give a shit.

 

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Kinda funny how people think it's just fine to boycott L4D2 because the game is coming out way too soon, but when people want to boycott a game over ideological differences with someone involved in its creation that is considered totally inappropriate.  

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Yeah imagine that.  People have a problem with the products themselves that a company is putting out and it's a valid boycott.  People have a problem with one of the game's creator's beliefs that have NOTHING to do with the game suddenly the boycott is inappropriate.  Wow!  Imagine that.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

I think both groups of people are perfectly entitled to boycott the games. I may argue whether or not the reasons are good ones, but I will never tell someone they are stupid for boycotting. Infact, I would say it's great, just that I hope they do it for the right reasons and hold their ground.

I have to admit, what happened with L4D (the SDK coming out 6 months later than promised, and broken at that) pissed me off. I was further unimpressed to find out Valve was working on the second game. But, the team actually does get to choose the next project, and all I really want is either a lower price for owners of the first game or the content from the first game being available in the second.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Am I the only one who finds the name "Christian Nutt" hilarious?  Too bad he isn't one.  (A Christian nut, that is.)

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

*Goes to play Shadow Complex*

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Oh, good! Another backlash of retardation from the GP comments section.

Seriously, folks.  Why is every news site on the planet able to have anonymous commenters talking fairly and rationally about this except GamePolitics?!  The commenters here like to quote the one political book they've read in their sigs and then spout whatever thoughtless BS before it.

And, much as I hate to say it, this time I have to lay the blame on GamePolitics themselves.  Sorry, Andrew Eisen, but the titling here is sensationalist cock-up.  There are some very thoughtful articles on GayGamer, and Destructoid (Destructoid, of all places!) that specifically say these very things:

"Still, money spent on the game is money in a homophobe's pocket, and no doubt some of it will be spent on efforts to end legal gay marriage or perhaps research ways to eliminate our "reproductive disorder." We're faced with fighting a potentially stellar game because some grumpy old man says mean things about us, or indirectly supporting attacks on our rights.  I still don't have an answer for myself. I think if you're obviously too disgusted to enjoy the game, avoid it, and speak out. However, if you want to play the game, play it."

and

"However, before we ask the question, "Should we boycott Shadow Complex?", we have to ask ourselves this, "Should we boycott anything involving someone whose political opinions we disagree with? . . . My answer to the burning question, as you may have gathered, is no. No, we should not boycott Shadow Complex. But that's with emphasis on the weWe as an organized unit should not boycott Shadow Complex. Getting up in arms and vilifying the game would put us on the same bigoted level as Card, really. He's entitled to his opinion, and Chair was entitled to collaborate with him and use his talent as a writer. But that's not to say you shouldn't refuse to buy the game if you feel strongly about it.  I don't blame anybody for having reservations about buying this game if it indirectly benefits a man like Card."

How, exactly, does this qualify as 'gamers proposing a boycott?'  This is one of the most cool-headed reactions to the idea of opposing a product for the political views that its sales will support that I've ever seen.  It's not like anyone's proposing a marching on Card's estate, rousting him from bed, dragging him behind a truck, and leaving him to die. Orson Scott Card, much as I love his early writings, is the loud political force opposing simple human rights by his own choice, by his hateful words in columns, and by his huge donations supporting Proposition 8 and other rights-stripping legislation.  Gay people do not hurt Card.  Card does, in very real ways, hurt gays and gay rights.

Is it really that hard for some fools here to understand?!  A sale of Shadow Complex literally puts money in Card's pocket.  Card is an outspoken bigot and will use some portion of the money he makes to lobby against gay rights and support publications which make gay people out to be monsters and deviants.

Buying Shadow Complex while claiming to support gay rights is a sign of either ignorance or hypocrisy. 

That's just how I see it - that's not me getting in anybody's face demanding they believe the same things I do.  And yet some entitled boys on this normally-intelligent site are trying to shout down as "bigots" those gays and gay-supporters who don't want to contribute to a man who is working, with the fervor of a wealthy activist, to hinder and oppose rights they see as natural and affordable under the Constitution.

It's called the "free market," dears, and it has a lot of power to sway opinion.  Look it up sometime.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Oh, good! Another backlash of retardation from the GP comments section.

Did you actually read any of the posts or did you skim the first few reactionary ones and decide to call everyone here retarded? I believe that would make you the retard, sir.

Read ALL THE DAMN POSTS this time. You'll see, for the most part, people are quite reasonable and many even try to point out a fact missed by most (that fact being Card won't get to see any of the money).

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

You're aware that time passes...?  You wrote this a full eight hours after I wrote my original diatribe, and there were much more focused, bashing opinions up when I wrote what I did.

Here - by way of example, this is within the first five top-level comments:

"Fine, be a bigot, see if that stops sales of the game."

"Just shut up and play the game."

"This whole debacle is astounding and has become ridiculously petty/hypocritical"

"They just want to punish the guy for this beleifs. Idiots."

I'm not even going to go into the bizarre pseudo-science post whereby a noble ex-gay psychiatrist (hi folks, psychiatrists use drugs, not therapy) was banned from the community for his very valid practices, because it's the kind of bullshit that gets spread in church newsletters, not in scientific journals with actual theory and method behind them.  There are enough rich homophobes in the U.S. that, if it were possible at all to "train" somebody out of being gay, there would already be a foolproof method for it.  I mean one that doesn't involve electric shocks when the patient gets aroused by same-sex imagery, since that's been quite popular in the recent past until it got public.

So, even though there are a few balanced opinions on the site here, I'm still quite ashamed of the outspoken posters who want to stifle others' views using dimestore science and piss-poor logic.  I'm even more ashamed that a site about gaming & politics can't mesh the very important issue of gay rights and games well enough to attract commenters who are the least bit educated on the topic.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Just shut up and play the game.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Yeah, I read that Destructoid article; Jim Sterling did a damn fine job of explaining his point. There's even a retort from a different person that made front page that was also well-worded, thoughtout, and persuasive. Check it out: http://www.destructoid.com/shadow-complex-defending-a-boycott-145729.phtml#ext.

P.S.: Whaddya mean, "Destructoid, of all places!"?! I think they're a damn fine gaming news site, just as I think Kotaku and GamePolitics are of the same caliber as Destructoid. Yes, people are losing their shit, but they have every right to do so. Some will choose to boycott the game, some won't, and some may choose to boycott everything OS Card does, including his Ender's Game novels; it's their right to do so.

However, the name-calling is another thing entirely. That we could probably do without.

P.S.S. My opinion doesn't really matter on the subject of Shadow Complex: I don't own an XBox 360 because I don't believe it to be a worthwhile endeavor, especially if half of all the systems fail in some way (http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/08/17/report-xbox-360-failure-rate-pegged-54#comments) and due to Microsoft's continued ignorance pertaining to the 360's abysmal failure rate. However, I've really shown no interest in reading Card's novels, including Ender's Game, and after reading a bit more about him, I doubt I ever will...That's just my two cents.

P.S.S.S. Sorry for all of the P.S.'s. I probably should've just done this all in one go instead of splitting my rant up into different sections. Oops! :-\

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Game on, brothers and sisters.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." -- Ben Franklin Game on, brothers and sisters.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

I simply mean that Destructoid, from a semi-anonymous comments perspective, is one of the worse places I can think to support gay rights.  So I was really quite suprised to see a lot of the comments there actually taking the issue seriously - it's probably because the linked article was well-written.  I did extend that skepticism to the community articles as well, since I was just as suprised to see such a balanced viewpoint on a site that has costume and cake contests featuring its mascot  :o

And if you can find a copy from a friend, Ender's Game is actually quite worth a read.  It was written well before Card got his legs under him and a bully pulpit under those, and is a pretty classic and interesting sci-fi tale of a misunderstood boy breaking out of his own boundaries to inadvertantly save everyone.

 

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

You do realize that the story being linked to, though not suggesting a boycott on it's own, was written in response to people on yet another site who ARE pondering a boycott.  So despite what you think, yes some gamers ARE suggesting a boycott.  Is that so hard for YOU to understand?

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Wow. You state one thing with your quotes but then change your mind later on.

Buying Shadow Complex does not in any way mean that you support Card's opinion or share his view. A very tiny fraction (if any at all) of the money in a sale of the game goes to him, most of the money goes to Microsoft or others.

Your opinion would be the same as me saying that anyone that purchases Mission Impossible 3 actually supports Scientology. Of course that isn't the case, and although some of our money might possibly go to Tom Cruise (and through him, the Church), most of the money goes to the product that you're paying for, which is a good movie.

If the game is good, then buy it. If the game sucks, then don't. Don't let the views of ONE person that had ONE role with the game's creation affect that view, or else you risk seeming like a blind and overly-sensitive biggot yourself. If the whole company took the stance, then that would be a different story, but as it stands, I only see a bunch of whiny kids boycotting the equivalent of the state of Texas because of the views of one town in that state.

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

"Wow. You state one thing with your quotes but then change your mind later on."

Yes, hon.  That's called 'saying two things in a post.'  I vilified GP for posting an article about gamers boycotting when most of the gamers who've written at length on this topic are specifically saying that it's an individual choice.  Then, in a later paragraph, I listed my individual choice and the reasons for it.

Got it yet?  Some of us can actually entertain the idea of people making their own choices for their own reasons without giving up the right to share our own.

"Don't let the views of ONE person that had ONE role with the game's creation affect that view, or else you risk seeming like a blind and overly-sensitive biggot yourself."

Being as it's my money in my wallet, I'll do what I like with it, thanks.  And being that the populace of gamers is woefully underinformed of politics and how they affect the human beings around them, I'm going to keep encouraging people to learn about the causes and effects of spending their money in certain ways.  Gamers are smarter than the average bear in many regards, but the younger ones are also pretty prone to a hedonistic mindset of supporting whatever has awesome graphics and plays good, regardless of other factors.  Which is why most of them won't be affected by anything said on the internet and will just buy the game regardless.

And yes--to speak to your comparison to Mission Impossible and Scientology--I do know a number of people who refuse to pay money to see anything Tom Cruise is involved with.  It's not just the factor of having a fraction of the funds seeing the inside of Mr. Cruise's Xenu-loving pockets.  It's also the public knowledge of a stigma in Hollywood: if producers know they can choose Tom Cruise to fill a role, or a comparable non-Scientologist actor for about the same price, then, at least in some cases, they'll choose the latter.  If enough people individually choose to avoid anything to do with Tom Cruise, then Hollywood will acknowledge, just through natural selection, that the risk of being associated with a "sci-fi religion" that financially exploits and arguably tortures its victims/recruits is not worth the cachet of having the name Tom Cruise on the posters for its movies.

Being famous has the unique advantage of giving your opinion a voice heads-and-shoulders above millions of others.  It also has the unique curse that people will take those powerful opinions as public attacks, and may threaten your livelihood by detaching themselves from anything which might lend money to your coffers, simply because you have a strong opinion with which they disagree. 

In other words, Card's bigotry on a public scale is much, much grander than any theoretical gamers' boycott could ever hope to achieve.

Or, if it helps, think of it as a value proposition.  If I'm a gamer who loves the look and feel of Shadow Complex and want to support that kind of game, then maybe that's worth at least $25 of positive karma to me.  But if I'm a gay gamer who is disgusted that wealthy homophobes who don't even live in California managed to lobby enough money to spread misinformation in that state regarding Proposition 8 such that they succeeded in nullifying the happy marriages of many gay couples there, then even the slightest amount of money going into the pocket of someone who aided that lobbying is worth upwards of $60 of negative karma.

Thus, in terms of my own desires vs. my own honor and support of fellow freedom-loving Americans, I find Shadow Complex to be a negative value not worth the money and the stress it would cause.

(For the sake of not sounding so fatalist, I'm willing to admit that I did buy and am enjoying the game, and that I simultaneously donated rather more money than the game costs to the L.A. Gay & Lesbian Center.  Not that I believe in buying indulgences for supporting vocal hatred, but my desire to support more Metroidvania style games is pretty strong, too.) 

Paychecks are just paper, but moral economic choices are complex things; don't pretend they aren't.

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

"Buying Shadow Complex while claiming to support gay rights is a sign of either ignorance or hypocrisy."

and then

"I'm willing to admit that I did buy and am enjoying the game"

Just saying.

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

"Sorry, Andrew Eisen, but the titling here is sensationalist cock-up."

No need to apologize.  While I don't agree with your assessment (after all, some gamers are proposing a boycott), I didn't write the title.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Ah, okay.  Sorry to involve your name, then!

And yes, I meant to address: some gamers are proposing a boycott.  But I see GayGamer and even Destructoid as much more likely to become a platform for a political statement than a 300+ post-per-day board like NeoGAF.

Thanks for your work on the article, all the same <3

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

How could someone who wrote so many shower scenes in Ender's Game hate gays?  Its crazy talk.

 

Also sex with worms....I mean Wyrms.  Seriously.....Wyrms has a part where the Heroine has sex with a big crazy wyrm....terrible/awesome

Re: Gamers Propose Shadow Complex Boycott Over Orson Scott ...

Whats next people boycotting the bible becuse tis misused?

This is not even directly tied to the person in quesiton so why in the world is this a issue other than for publiscity and sensationalisim....

 


Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should 'Hatred' have been removed from Steam Greenlight?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corp@Adam802 We'll break out the popcorn in June12/19/2014 - 9:23pm
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante: I'm itching to start it too but I will wait till the patch goes live. >>12/19/2014 - 7:52pm
Adam802Leland Yee and Jackson get trial date: http://sfbay.ca/2014/12/18/leland-yee-keith-jackson-get-trial-date/12/19/2014 - 5:24pm
MaskedPixelanteNevermind. Turns out when they said "the patch is now live", they meant "it's still in beta".12/19/2014 - 5:07pm
MaskedPixelanteSo I bought Dark Souls PC, and it's forcing me to log into GFWL. Did I miss something?12/19/2014 - 5:00pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/12/republicans-may-have-plan-to-save-internet-providers-from-utility-rules/ this is intreasting. congress may put net nutrality in to law to avoid title 2 classification12/19/2014 - 2:45pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.polygon.com/2014/12/19/7421953/bullshit-cards-against-humanity-donated-250k-sunlight-foundation I have to admit I like the choice o organization. congrats to CAH.12/19/2014 - 1:51pm
E. Zachary KnightIf you are downloading a copy in order to bypass the DRM, then you are legally in the wrong. Ethically, if you bought the game, it doesn't matter where you download it in the future.12/19/2014 - 12:06pm
InfophileEZK: Certainly better that way, though not foolproof. Makes me think though: does it count as piracy if you download a game you already paid for, just not from the place you paid for it at? Ethically, I'd say no, but legally, probably yes.12/19/2014 - 11:20am
ZippyDSMleeAnd I still spent 200$ in the last month on steam/GOG stuff sales get me nearly every time ><12/19/2014 - 10:55am
ZippyDSMleeMaskedPixelante:And this is why I'm a one legged bandit.12/19/2014 - 10:51am
ZippyDSMleeE. Zachary Knight: I buy what I can as long as I can get cracks for it...then again it I could have gotton Lords of the Fallen for 30 with DLC I would have ><12/19/2014 - 10:50am
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/12/19/marvel-vs-capcom-origins-leaving-online-storefronts-soon/ Speaking of "last chance to buy", Marvel vs. Capcom Origins is getting delisted from all major storefronts. Behold the wonders of the all digital future.12/19/2014 - 9:59am
MaskedPixelanteSeriously, the so-called "Last Chance" sale was up to 80% off, while this one time only return sale goes for a flat 85% off with a 90% off upgrade if you buy the whole catalogue.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
E. Zachary KnightInfophile, Tha is why I buy only DRM-free games.12/19/2014 - 9:37am
MaskedPixelanteNordic is back on GOG for one weekend only. And at 85% off no less, which is kind of a slap in the face to people who paid more during the "NORDIC IS LEAVING FOREVER BUY NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE" sale, but whatever...12/19/2014 - 9:28am
InfophileRe PHX's link: This is one of the reasons the digital revolution isn't all it's cracked up to be. There's also the flip side where Sony can block access to games you've bought if they ban your account for unrelated reasons. All power is theirs.12/19/2014 - 8:52am
MaskedPixelantehttp://uplay.ubi.com/#!/en-US/events/uplay-15-days You can win FREE GAMES FOR A YEAR! Unfortunately, they're Ubisoft games.12/18/2014 - 6:29pm
Papa MidnightAh, so it was downtime. I've been seeing post appear in my RSS feed, but I was unable to access GamePolitics today across several ISPs.12/18/2014 - 6:06pm
james_fudgeSorry for the downtime today, folks.12/18/2014 - 5:54pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician