-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Polygon: CDPR responds to sexualized trans advertisement in CyberPunk 2077 (Read Staff Post Before Posting)
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
One of the most common kneejerk responses to any sort of critical discussion with video games isI don't know how people can say that Cyberpunk 2077 has no messages or that they are not making a statement about particular themes, i mean
Cyberpunk 2077 quest designer says it's 'inherently political'
Also discusses why they've made their new RPG first-person.www.pcgamer.com
"Wait, I LIKE THIS THING, by criticizing they're criticing ME for liking it. How dare they."
Which inevitably leads to incredibly ridiculous sentiments like, actually, there are no statements being made in a piece of media because there are no bills being passed.
Uh, how has it been sanitized of sexuality? Did you miss the gameplay demo? And while not shown to the public, the demo the showed the press at gamescom showed the male character having a one night stand with another man.
It is a cyberpunk dystopian future right?...quite possibly one we are headed into.
I was expecting stuff like this because it's been part of the corporate hypersexualization that cyberpunk dystopian fiction has always been known to portray.
The question is should a work of fiction portray stuff like this as social commentary/criticism and when does the portrayal drift past that line and become just brazenly offensive?
The author's intent probably has a lot to do with answering that question.
I was expecting stuff like this because it's been part of the corporate hypersexualization that cyberpunk dystopian fiction has always been known to portray.
The question is should a work of fiction portray stuff like this as social commentary/criticism and when does the portrayal drift past that line and become just brazenly offensive?
The author's intent probably has a lot to do with answering that question.
It's an advertisement that sexualises the model. The model is trans.
I just see it as, even in 2077 sex is used to sell products.
I just see it as, even in 2077 sex is used to sell products.
I think it's quite arrogant of you to assume all trans people would feel the same about this image.
I don't think you need input from the creators, you just need to understand the piece of media as a whole, which is something none of us can do at present
It's fair to discuss what has been shown, and to question it, and as the company have had some issues with this kind of thing in the past it's probably wise to be cautious.
Until you understand the context it's still too early to completely praise or condemn the developer for how they deal with these themes. I like their response but the final game might still be pretty awful when it comes to these themes
The explanation seems fair enough to me. Also I like they are taking that stance on the corporations in the world. I think it will allow for some interesting lore and missions if done correctly. Sort of reminds of how Corporations took over the planet after WW3 in the ED lore.
I don't think the rationale addresses people's underlying issues, and certainly not the concerns from within the trans community; It's incredibly easy to see this as being used as an icon of something "troubling" for the game's audience.
When the artist says the intent is to show an exaggerated, "aggressive" ad, the highlighted factor is basically this group's existence. Yes, the criticism of corps for using sexuality comes across, but the intent described reads to a reasonable interpretation as showing a "scary," exaggerated future that could end up in a dystopia by showing a trans person in an ad like that. As stated, we're supposed to resent these companies for what they're doing, and the artist suggests a current audience should be riled up to those ends by this imagery.
I don't particularly care or think it's pertinent if the artist also thinks the image is attractive. That leads right back into the real-world (not in-game) fetishism of a specific class of people.
When the artist says the intent is to show an exaggerated, "aggressive" ad, the highlighted factor is basically this group's existence. Yes, the criticism of corps for using sexuality comes across, but the intent described reads to a reasonable interpretation as showing a "scary," exaggerated future that could end up in a dystopia by showing a trans person in an ad like that. As stated, we're supposed to resent these companies for what they're doing, and the artist suggests a current audience should be riled up to those ends by this imagery.
I don't particularly care or think it's pertinent if the artist also thinks the image is attractive. That leads right back into the real-world (not in-game) fetishism of a specific class of people.
Last edited:
I actually (mostly) like her answer and I'm glad that CDPR has an open minded woman doing this kind of work on the game.
That doesn't change how I feel about CDPR as a company or the wider context of these things in the game. I still fully expect this game to be sexist and racist as fuck and for people in the studio to hide behind the setting and themes when that gets called into question.
That doesn't change how I feel about CDPR as a company or the wider context of these things in the game. I still fully expect this game to be sexist and racist as fuck and for people in the studio to hide behind the setting and themes when that gets called into question.
I went and read your other posts. I agree with you. The emphasis on the ridiculously sized penis does seem far beyond what would be considered extreme, even in a futuristic dystopia. It would absolutely be possible to have an ad depicting a character with a combination of physical traits considered sexy that communicated the same idea in a way that, let's be honest, sexualized ads depicting cis men and women will in the game.
Can you sniff the panties of an underage girl in MGSV?
I didn't think so.
I mean the director of WD:Legion openly admitted that his game is political and makes statements meant to make us reflect on the real world.
Ah, yeah that's a bummer.
And that's really awesome. I do think it's difficult for a company to make a game in a dystopian setting without stepping on some landmines though - because you're trying to portray something as bad - and that's incredibly difficult when you're wanting to include things that are relevant in today's society, but that many people are also still wrestling with in terms of how they approach certain situations.
Like, let's say they showed blatant racism in a trailer. How could they possibly use a focus group to make sure it was done correctly? It's a game that's meant to be dystopian, but to include racism would be just that - including racism. They could easily just sidestep it and say "we don't want to be political" - but then there would be people who are angry about the fact that they didn't tackle the issue. It's a tough thing, I think. They're not making a game about transgender people, they're making a game set in a nightmarish future and probably feel the need to include something regarding gender, because how could they not? It's who we are - but how do you depict it in a negative way without offending people, even though the game is trying to depict things in a negative way? Do they simply include trans characters without even mentioning it? Would that be the way to go?
I'm talking in circles, but yeah.
Here's some more about what they've said about getting political
And
I'm not sure if that's the way to increase empathy for LGBTQ+ people, because, like, sure, with that background info I can see the intent but that's clearly not obvious from the info given in-game.
So much fucking hate at the people mocking others for being concerned about this and getting on their high horse about it.
The response is decent but I feel like you people would have accepted any old shit they said, just like how you all creamed your pants over the shitty non-apology they gave for making transphobic tweets and acting like it completely absolved them.
And yeah I'm angry about this because I've seen all of the CDPR threads so far and seen all the bans and shitty opinions while I try and defend the most vulnerable members of my community and to be mocked for actually giving a shit is just peak non-interested gamer bullshit
The response is decent but I feel like you people would have accepted any old shit they said, just like how you all creamed your pants over the shitty non-apology they gave for making transphobic tweets and acting like it completely absolved them.
And yeah I'm angry about this because I've seen all of the CDPR threads so far and seen all the bans and shitty opinions while I try and defend the most vulnerable members of my community and to be mocked for actually giving a shit is just peak non-interested gamer bullshit
As I said in the other thread, I really feel like this is not a satisfying response. It can be, for the folks that are only interested in the game, but the past CDPR actions are still echoing in the back of my head.
It seems like we have two distinct "contexts" here: the context that the designer wants the public to accept, that is, the context that the game is a progressive take on the cyberpunk genre, treating social issues as actual issues and portraying problematic concepts as negative.
Then we have the real world context, which is the fact that CDPR has not positioned themselves as particularly pro-LGBTQ, going so far as having transphobic jokes in their social media more than once. According to RPS, Cyperpunk 2077 is also not very sensitive towards people of color. Maybe that is also part of their discourse that everything in the game is supposed to be portrayed as bad, but it is interesting to note that the trailers have always featured white male protagonism. There's also the fact that their past games have always had more immature portrayals of sexuality, such as in the cards in Witcher 1.
But even if the context proposed by the artist is the one we should consider, there's still the fact that they have not tried to make this a dominant theme at all. This game is colorful, pretty, full of action, violence and Keanu Reeves, but nothing in their portrayal of their own game have made me think that it will tackle social issues, even in a cynical way. It works in GTA, for example, because of the tone. In GTA: San Andreas, you have black voice actors, black writers, black protagonism, etc. This is why, even when it shows racism, the game itself is not characterized as racist.
Or maybe the actual context is a hybrid between their narration of what we should expect and what we've come to expect according to this company's past: an alienated take on social issues that has to put those commentaries aside to show things that they have been trying to sell (cool future, cool guns, hot cyborgs).
It seems like we have two distinct "contexts" here: the context that the designer wants the public to accept, that is, the context that the game is a progressive take on the cyberpunk genre, treating social issues as actual issues and portraying problematic concepts as negative.
Then we have the real world context, which is the fact that CDPR has not positioned themselves as particularly pro-LGBTQ, going so far as having transphobic jokes in their social media more than once. According to RPS, Cyperpunk 2077 is also not very sensitive towards people of color. Maybe that is also part of their discourse that everything in the game is supposed to be portrayed as bad, but it is interesting to note that the trailers have always featured white male protagonism. There's also the fact that their past games have always had more immature portrayals of sexuality, such as in the cards in Witcher 1.
But even if the context proposed by the artist is the one we should consider, there's still the fact that they have not tried to make this a dominant theme at all. This game is colorful, pretty, full of action, violence and Keanu Reeves, but nothing in their portrayal of their own game have made me think that it will tackle social issues, even in a cynical way. It works in GTA, for example, because of the tone. In GTA: San Andreas, you have black voice actors, black writers, black protagonism, etc. This is why, even when it shows racism, the game itself is not characterized as racist.
Or maybe the actual context is a hybrid between their narration of what we should expect and what we've come to expect according to this company's past: an alienated take on social issues that has to put those commentaries aside to show things that they have been trying to sell (cool future, cool guns, hot cyborgs).
And hey shouldn't we give people chance to change and learn? Not saying it will happen, but maybe they are actually trying now.
Frankly they would've accepted any answer. Now then, it'd be cool if some journalist could address the racist gang stereotypes as I can't see any statement being made about that aside from window dressing in downtrodden areas.
I'm in a holding pattern with this game. The initial pitch of a Witcher 3 quality RPG applied to Cyberpunk is super my shit. But my problem is that I'm not 100% sold on their ability to handle it properly. And tbh that's from the perspective of the themes and it has to tackle... and the gameplay side. So we'll see.
Talk is cheap and he should talk to his bosses who are constantly going, "no no, we don't do politics. In fact, we don't even know what politics are."
This is a great post! Seriously. It's nice to see reasoned thought on ResetEra.
Yeah it's a pretty good explanation. Then again I wonder nowadays when we'll as a society get to those levels of advertisements.
This is a problem don't you think?
You can't make an argument that it's "We'll you don't know the mentality of a trans person, so you don't have a right to an opinion!" and then in the same breath say "Well, even though you know a trans person who approves, they don't all feel the same way!"
This is a thought process I see regularly in sensitive topics like this. There's always the "Well you don't know so why are you commenting argument" followed by a "well actually I do know" followed by a "Well, that's not how everyone feels!" What's the point of a discussion when your opinion is lose lose no matter what?
Satisfying response and I really appreciate they are taking the conversations and critiques around this game seriously.
Ehhh...
CDPR's history with trans issues notwisthstanding, the reason I am iffy with it is that negative media portrayals of trans people as sexual deviants, as opposed to people trying to cope with body dysphoria, has remained steadfast in popular culture.
Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, for example, was never even intended to be a transgender person. Could one honestly say that was how the audience of the film interpreted it? Could one honestly say that the film has had no negative consequences for the trans community?
So while I can in good faith believe that the artist is honest with her intent, I could not offer that sort of faith in the audience would read anything other than "of course this sort of trans degeneracy would be common in a cyberpunk dystopia".
CDPR's history with trans issues notwisthstanding, the reason I am iffy with it is that negative media portrayals of trans people as sexual deviants, as opposed to people trying to cope with body dysphoria, has remained steadfast in popular culture.
Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs, for example, was never even intended to be a transgender person. Could one honestly say that was how the audience of the film interpreted it? Could one honestly say that the film has had no negative consequences for the trans community?
So while I can in good faith believe that the artist is honest with her intent, I could not offer that sort of faith in the audience would read anything other than "of course this sort of trans degeneracy would be common in a cyberpunk dystopia".
I don't agree honesty. The artist that created the picture said:
"Personally, for me, this person is sexy," "I like how this person looks", "their beautiful body"
So the actual model was intended to be "sexy" and "beautiful", but as will ALL adverts in the game, they're intended to be used in a "aggressive" and "jarring" way. See
"Redesiuk said that it was designed to feel jarring and overly aggressive, like all the other ads in the game, but not because of the femme-presenting trans model."
So the content was not supposed to be "offensive". Totally the opposite. It was the way the content was used that was supposed to be "offensive".
Oh cool, show me this footage or coverage I have never seen so far.
I'll be genuinely fascinated to see it.
You're still allowed to be mad and everyone else is still allowed to wait and see. The problem is when people shit up every thread related to a game based on old drama that is tangentially related.
It really does look like a well-thought out answer, but that doesn't make it thoughtful. I'm imagining replacing trans fetishism with race fetishism and how that would play to help clarify the issue in my own cis mind. Same arguments all around, I think.
You know a path for advocacy, trans perspective, and cyberpunk authority could all be squared through the Keanu Reeves --> Wachowskis path. I'd like to hear what they think and whether Keanu, knowing them, is ok with this type of representation.
I'm on the fence. I don't want our friends being hurt, but I do like being challenged and I do think creating hateful entities/characters to make a point within the art is an interesting thing to do, even if the audience doesn't get it or even if the audience learns the wrong thing. That's why I'm deferring to advocates I respect for now.
You know a path for advocacy, trans perspective, and cyberpunk authority could all be squared through the Keanu Reeves --> Wachowskis path. I'd like to hear what they think and whether Keanu, knowing them, is ok with this type of representation.
I'm on the fence. I don't want our friends being hurt, but I do like being challenged and I do think creating hateful entities/characters to make a point within the art is an interesting thing to do, even if the audience doesn't get it or even if the audience learns the wrong thing. That's why I'm deferring to advocates I respect for now.
More nuanced and interesting reply than some would have liked, and good on Polygon for asking this question.
Doesn't fit 280 characters well to have a nuanced opinion.
But hey, now it's "this reply doesn't count because X happened 1 year ago" (like the twitter thing that people always forget to say the community manager responsible for it was fired over).
edit: and again, I'm surprised some people are expecting/wanting Cyberpunk to be some kind of perfect future. There'll be bad things happening, racism, sexism, and fetichism included. That doesn't mean that developers can't also include stuff (missions, lore, environmental storytelling, etc) that also recognize and defend those issues.
This, but hey, can't criticize it as easily if you have to post positive previews as seen with other threads and on twitter.
Doesn't fit 280 characters well to have a nuanced opinion.
But hey, now it's "this reply doesn't count because X happened 1 year ago" (like the twitter thing that people always forget to say the community manager responsible for it was fired over).
edit: and again, I'm surprised some people are expecting/wanting Cyberpunk to be some kind of perfect future. There'll be bad things happening, racism, sexism, and fetichism included. That doesn't mean that developers can't also include stuff (missions, lore, environmental storytelling, etc) that also recognize and defend those issues.
Last edited:
You're kinda splitting hairs here. "The content" in my post refers to the ad in the game, not the woman's body.
according to waypoint the ad is plastered everywhere and there's even a vending machine that has the receptacle slot right where the penis would be
Seems like the answer some people in the other thread were leaning toward and it does make sense we'd see that side of the issue given the world they're making. Just have to hope they also show the better side with positive inclusion. Their track record may not be good but I do think there's hope for them to do right.
Despite the disclaimer in the OP, I see it fits within the context and reading the explanation from the studio rep.
I also think we can have a clear judgement once the game is out and we play it.
I also think we can have a clear judgement once the game is out and we play it.
