• The ResetEra Games of the Year Awards 2018 results are now live! Congratulations to all the winners!
  • Sidebar and Width settings will now no longer reset after 4 hours of inactivity! We have implemented a new system that will remember these preferences on each browser, for both members and guests. This allows you to choose different settings on different devices if you so desire.

Quantic Dream is suing two French media outlets over articles on toxic work conditions [Kotaku]

Nov 3, 2017
4,727
More than 3 reputed & knowledgeable news outlets in some country we shall not name, all reporting about who's going to be president bla bla bla.
They didn't lie about the polls, that the polls were right or wrong have no incidence on journalistic integrity.
Some news outlets reported that Trump said his inauguration was in a sunny day despite water pissing on him more than russian hookers.
That doesn't mean the outlets were spreading fake news either.
 
Oct 27, 2017
758
What's your point? You think it's weird if people want to see proof? That's a strange principle?
But what kind of proofs do you want? We have several testimonies from current and former QD employees, images of the degrading photoshops. Coming from three outlets.

You can find them on the english version of Canard PC's paper (VERY GRAPHIC AND NSFW): https://www.canardpc.com/373/strange-atmosphere-quantic-dream

If you want names of said sources, well you won't have them for obvious reasons.
 
Nov 3, 2017
4,727
What's your point? You think it's weird if people want to see proof? That's a strange principle?
There's million things you take for granted without requiring direct proof.
This is no different, you may want to be all "rational" about wanting to have airtight proofs before condemning some known scumbags but the reality of the matter is that if the scumbags managed to get away with it for so long it's because they had mechanism in place to instill suspicion on anything that could incriminate them.
You'll probably never get proof that Weinstein did anything he was accused off, we do have proof that he hired an ex secretservice guy to make things disappear.
Heck on a less serious note, a case of unpaid overtime or hostile work environment are actually rather complicated to untangle so don't expect any kind of proof to be shown to you.
So I guess you'll never condemn anyone who didn't murder someone on tape...and even then with stuffs like aftereffects who's to say the vids weren't doctored...
 

Bhonar

Banned
Member
Oct 31, 2017
4,014
But what kind of proofs do you want? We have several testimonies from current and former QD employees, images of the degrading photoshops. Coming from three outlets.

You can find them on the english version of Canard PC's paper (VERY GRAPHIC AND NSFW): https://www.canardpc.com/373/strange-atmosphere-quantic-dream

If you want names of said sources, well you won't have them for obvious reasons.
Ok I did click your link to skim through the pictures/article. First, the very nature of the word "photoshops" as you said means pictures that are doctored. So there's always the possibility these pics themselves were photoshopped after the fact.

But for the sake of this reply, let's just assume all those pics are real.

My next question -- are pics like that actually illegal? Or it's more that they're in bad taste for public PR? Because those are two completely different things.

There's million things you take for granted without requiring direct proof.
This is no different, you may want to be all "rational" about wanting to have airtight proofs before condemning some known scumbags but the reality of the matter is that if the scumbags managed to get away with it for so long it's because they had mechanism in place to instill suspicion on anything that could incriminate them.
You'll probably never get proof that Weinstein did anything he was accused off, we do have proof that he hired an ex secretservice guy to make things disappear.
Heck on a less serious note, a case of unpaid overtime or hostile work environment are actually rather complicated to untangle so don't expect any kind of proof to be shown to you.
So I guess you'll never condemn anyone who didn't murder someone on tape...and even then with stuffs like aftereffects who's to say the vids weren't doctored...
But there have been plenty of convictions for murder throughout history. Video is not the only type of proof required. In fact I would assume most murder convictions do not have videos.

So I didn't say video proof specifically. I mean any type of real proof.

You don't think a single accuser of Weinstein has any type of proof at all? I would find that hard to believe. Like I said, I'm sure some of the accusations are true. Just not automatically 100%
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,389
My next question -- are pics like that actually illegal?
They're absolutely 100% illegal as they're promoting sexist, racist and homophobic values inside of a public company. In any other well-managed company, you would have been instantly fired for making those pictures at your work and it'd be impossible to defend yourself in front of a judge.
 
Nov 3, 2017
4,727
But there have been plenty of convictions for murder throughout history. Video is not the only type of proof required. In fact I would assume most murder convictions do not have videos.

So I didn't say video proof specifically. I mean any type of real proof.

You don't think a single accuser of Weinstein has any type of proof at all? I would find that hard to believe. Like I said, I'm sure some of the accusations are true. Just not automatically 100%
But since you were not given proof directly you logically should assume that most murder convictions were wrongful.
If testimony is not enough proof to establish if accusations are true, it means that most cases of rapes do not have any proof to it.
The reason Weinstein was brought down wasn't because of any kind of air tight case or something but by the sheer number of testimony that made them impossible to ignore.
By requiring "proof" you're simply saying "shut up until you have something that can convince the authorities" which is hilariously (in a dark humor way) bad thing to push for.
 

Bhonar

Banned
Member
Oct 31, 2017
4,014
But since you were not given proof directly you logically should assume that most murder convictions were wrongful.
If testimony is not enough proof to establish if accusations are true, it means that most cases of rapes do not have any proof to it.
The reason Weinstein was brought down wasn't because of any kind of air tight case or something but by the sheer number of testimony that made them impossible to ignore.
By requiring "proof" you're simply saying "shut up until you have something that can convince the authorities" which is hilariously (in a dark humor way) bad thing to push for.
I think you're misunderstanding most of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that *personally* I wait for a court's judgment first (generally). Other posters don't have to do that, they can form their own opinions beforehand, and that's fine too.

So for your murder line, if there's already a conviction, then that's "proof" enough for me because the court case has already been done. So if Weinstein has already been convicted for some of the cases, then that's enough proof for me too.

I'm just saying that *before* a court's outcome, I prefer to wait and see.

As for rape cases, no I do not judge someone if the only thing that exists is 1v1 verbal accusation. No way, that's too easy to make up. Before you reply to this, read the following carefully:

In rape (and murder), there are PLENTY of other types of proof/evidence that is admissible besides video. You've heard of DNA proof in rape, right? Also there can be visual evidence of physical assault (bruises, cuts, etc) that is also admissible. Also hair, clothing, etc. Third-party testimony if someone might have heard something nearby.

All of that can be good enough proof for courts, and for me too. I did not say only videos.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,284
But since you were not given proof directly you logically should assume that most murder convictions were wrongful.
If testimony is not enough proof to establish if accusations are true, it means that most cases of rapes do not have any proof to it.
The reason Weinstein was brought down wasn't because of any kind of air tight case or something but by the sheer number of testimony that made them impossible to ignore.
By requiring "proof" you're simply saying "shut up until you have something that can convince the authorities" which is hilariously (in a dark humor way) bad thing to push for.
Well said. Bhonar implied they were just asking questions, then predictably moved to disregard the info and reporting they just asked for. Right down to looking at material evidence and presuming it must be faked. This isn't a good-faith line of questioning from them, whether it's a conscious effort or not. This sort of targeted scrutiny has such an obvious slant that it would obscure wrongdoing in any situation where wrongdoing had happened. And looking at something like the Weinstein situation through that lense is even more contemptible.

When someone demands an unreaslistically definitive conclusion before they'll entertain any accusation in the context of a discussion like this, it's an incredibly transparent tactic to stifle that discussion. Whether that's because they want something to be true or not, or because they subconsciously relate to one party over another, it doesn't matter. It's muck.
 
Nov 6, 2017
650
I think you're misunderstanding most of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that *personally* I wait for a court's judgment first (generally). Other posters don't have to do that, they can form their own opinions beforehand, and that's fine too.

So for your murder line, if there's already a conviction, then that's "proof" enough for me because the court case has already been done. So if Weinstein has already been convicted for some of the cases, then that's enough proof for me too.

I'm just saying that *before* a court's outcome, I prefer to wait and see.

As for rape cases, no I do not judge someone if the only thing that exists is 1v1 verbal accusation. No way, that's too easy to make up. Before you reply to this, read the following carefully:

In rape (and murder), there are PLENTY of other types of proof/evidence that is admissible besides video. You've heard of DNA proof in rape, right? Also there can be visual evidence of physical assault (bruises, cuts, etc) that is also admissible. Also hair, clothing, etc. Third-party testimony if someone might have heard something nearby.

All of that can be good enough proof for courts, and for me too. I did not say only videos.
Hopefully you would agree though that there are cases that can't be proved guilty within the rules of a court of law that many in the general public would believe to be at least party guilty? Obviously there are high profile cases like OJ Simpson, but also countless other cases that are thrown out due to technicalities or lack of funds to continue the case. Simply not being found guilty by a judge or jury should not preclude us from finding fault in a company or person based on their actions.
 
Nov 3, 2017
4,727
I think you're misunderstanding most of what I'm saying.

I'm saying that *personally* I wait for a court's judgment first (generally). Other posters don't have to do that, they can form their own opinions beforehand, and that's fine too.

So for your murder line, if there's already a conviction, then that's "proof" enough for me because the court case has already been done. So if Weinstein has already been convicted for some of the cases, then that's enough proof for me too.

I'm just saying that *before* a court's outcome, I prefer to wait and see.

As for rape cases, no I do not judge someone if the only thing that exists is 1v1 verbal accusation. No way, that's too easy to make up. Before you reply to this, read the following carefully:

In rape (and murder), there are PLENTY of other types of proof/evidence that is admissible besides video. You've heard of DNA proof in rape, right? Also there can be visual evidence of physical assault (bruises, cuts, etc) that is also admissible. Also hair, clothing, etc. Third-party testimony if someone might have heard something nearby.

All of that can be good enough proof for courts, and for me too. I did not say only videos.
Your definition of proof for rape cases is narrow and ignore the actual reality of the cases that happen.
False report for rape is really low and there are literally no reason to believe someone would just come up with it.

In cases of harasment in the work place, it's even worse as the consequences are largely higher for people who report cases than for the accused anyway.
You're also ignoring that the court is also far from perfect and in the case of France specifically incredibly callous to victims as well.
Heck the guy who raped an 11yo for you would a case of an innocent encounter as the guy wasn't convicted due to how badly the law was written.
 

Bhonar

Banned
Member
Oct 31, 2017
4,014
Hopefully you would agree though that there are cases that can't be proved guilty within the rules of a court of law that many in the general public would believe to be at least party guilty? Obviously there are high profile cases like OJ Simpson, but also countless other cases that are thrown out due to technicalities or lack of funds to continue the case. Simply not being found guilty by a judge or jury should not preclude us from finding fault in a company or person based on their actions.
Sure, this is certainly true for some people & cases.

In OJ's case though, it's a bit different because OJ *himself* talked about the murders after the initial court case acquittal. Up until that point though, my thought was suspicion that he did it, but I wasn't "convicting" him.

I mean, I definitely saw a lot of black Americans who didn't think he did it during the initial court case. I'm not black, but I was waiting to see the outcome first.

You're also ignoring that the court is also far from perfect and in the case of France specifically incredibly callous to victims as well.
I don't know anything about France's court/judicial system, so others will have to comment on that angle. I just assumed it was better than America's system, lol

I'm not familiar with the 11-yo rape case you mentioned, so I don't know anything about that.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,974
They're absolutely 100% illegal as they're promoting sexist, racist and homophobic values inside of a public company. In any other well-managed company, you would have been instantly fired for making those pictures at your work and it'd be impossible to defend yourself in front of a judge.
Sigh.

- QD is not a public company, or publicly traded.
It is 100% owned privately.
-The person who allegedly created the pictures left the company a while ago apparently
- to be condemened in court in this situation it would have to be proven that you are inciting racial hatred, or discrimination, instead of a really stupid joke anchored in bigotry (which it probably was)
- the owners were themselves featured heavily in said shopped pictures (which they thought was funny), hence it would be easy for them to prove that not one person in particular was targeted

Why do you make things up instead of waiting on facts?
There is a lawsuit now.
Chance is we'll know more about what really happened, and whether it was a hit job by 3 fired employees who painted a distorted picture to 3 media outlets who then coordinated and might have jumped the gun while making a mountain of a frat-type atmosphere (and crunch which is an industry wide problem), or a real case of harrassment mixed with a hostile and toxic culture.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,389
Sigh.

- QD is not a public company, or publicly traded.
It is 100% owned privately.
-The person who allegedly created the pictures left the company a while ago apparently
- to be condemened in court in this situation it would have to be proven that you are inciting racial hatred, or discrimination, instead of a really stupid joke anchored in bigotry (which it probably was)
- the owners were themselves featured heavily in said shopped pictures (which they thought was funny), hence it would be easy for them to prove that not one person in particular was targeted

Why do you make things up instead of waiting on facts?
There is a lawsuit now.
Chance is we'll know more about what really happened, and whether it was a hit job by 3 fired employees who painted a distorted picture to 3 media outlets who then coordinated and might have jumped the gun while making a mountain of a frat-type atmosphere (and crunch which is an industry wide problem), or a real case of harrassment mixed with a hostile and toxic culture.
Why are you giving so much words to my mouth, where once did I said that it would be easy to condemn them in court, or that QD itself is to blame for those pictures ? I answered to someone who asked if those pictures were illegal, and surely not even you will argue that they aren't.
 
Nov 6, 2017
650
Sure, this is certainly true for some people & cases.

In OJ's case though, it's a bit different because OJ *himself* talked about the murders after the initial court case acquittal. Up until that point though, my thought was suspicion that he did it, but I wasn't "convicting" him.

I mean, I definitely saw a lot of black Americans who didn't think he did it during the initial court case. I'm not black, but I was waiting to see the outcome first.
The point I'm trying to make, is that the burden or required proof in a court of law is (or should be) much higher than that of personal opinion. Not to mention cases that are settled without going to trial, they really don't imply guilt or innocence.
 

Bhonar

Banned
Member
Oct 31, 2017
4,014
The point I'm trying to make, is that the burden or required proof in a court of law is (or should be) much higher than that of personal opinion.
Yes, I definitely realize that some people choose to believe in this philosophy. And there's nothing wrong with that, because in the end a random person's public opinion doesn't mean anything to the actual legal case.

I'm just stating my stance in this thread, that my own personal philosophy on this subject is actually very similar to a real court's method. There's nothing wrong with my stance either.
 
Nov 6, 2017
650
I'm just stating my stance in this thread, that my own personal philosophy on this subject is actually very similar to a real court's method. There's nothing wrong with my stance either.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with that philosophy as there have been enough incorrect accusations to warrant that position. In this case, it doesn't seem like the case of the studio behaviours is going to trial at all, so I doubt we would ever have any sort of judicial proof either way; and if there were charges I'm sure it would be settled before trial anyways.
 
Nov 3, 2017
4,727
I don't know anything about France's court/judicial system, so others will have to comment on that angle. I just assumed it was better than America's system, lol

I'm not familiar with the 11-yo rape case you mentioned, so I don't know anything about that.
I swear we had a topic about that here...anyway here's the info

Judicial systems all over the world aren't meant to defend the poor or downtrodden, they're here to make society liveable and ensure that the population has a sense of fairness is applied.
That doesn't mean any of them succeed in doing so or that there are no blind spots.
As far as harassment goes, there is a massive blind spot in the French's judicial system so you will most likely never get any proof of anything but the most overt cases of harassment.
That means that you cannot apply your standard without being massively unfair to a huge number of cases that were thrown out for various reasons.
 
Oct 26, 2017
5,284
Of course, there is nothing wrong with that philosophy as there have been enough incorrect accusations to warrant that position. In this case, it doesn't seem like the case of the studio behaviours is going to trial at all, so I doubt we would ever have any sort of judicial proof either way; and if there were charges I'm sure it would be settled before trial anyways.
Expecting to be personally presented with the burden of proof while also arbitrarily dismissing what evidence there is makes that philosophy fall apart. Without the access to (or sincere motivation to follow-up on) evidence as someone outside the legal process, you create an insulating effect (delusion?) that always works against those who are mistreated. Discussionm process reporting, and opinion rightly have a lesser burden of proof. Courts do have the ability to record, parse, and examine evidence and accounts, but an individual going through the motions of that demand without those same capabilities becomes self-justifying, to the benefit of those who do harm.

And to clarify, there's a difference between refraining from making an assertion and interjecting into discussion "I do not accept these accusations without personally being presented with the proof and final statement that it is so." And if someone asks "where's the proof" then says "oh that proof is probably fake" in a setting where doing so would have been perjury for the accusor, the eyebrows go straight up at whether it's a good-faith line of reasoning.
 
Last edited:
Nov 6, 2017
650
Expecting to be personally presented with the burden of proof while also arbitrarily dismissing what evidence there is makes that philosophy fall apart. Without the access (or sincere motivation to follow-up on) evidence as an outsider, the result is self delusion and a worldview that always works against those who are mistreated. Courts do have the ability to record, parse, and examine that information, but an individual going through the motions of that demand without those same capabilities becomes self-justifying, to the benefit of those who do harm. And to clarify, there's a difference between refraining from making an assertion and interjecting into discussion "I do not accept these accusations without personally being presented with proof." And if someone asks "where's the proof" then says "oh that proof is probably fake" in a setting where doing so would have been perjury for the parties involved, the eyebrows go straight up.
I agree, expecting to have all proof presented outside of court (or even inside of it) is an unrealistic stance to take. I'm only giving the benefit of the doubt to the individual that they are only referring to cases where there are charges and a trial to follow.
 
Oct 27, 2017
758
Small bump (and slightly off topic) but GameIndustry.biz published a really interesting paper about the red flag of passion in game dev' and this part caught my attention:

If it seems like these excuses are pulled right from a games industry PR crisis management playbook, it's not that far from the truth. When three different outlets collaborated on reports about Quantic Dream's toxic studio culture, the studio released a statement strenuously objecting to the accusation:

"Inappropriate conduct or practices have no place at Quantic Dream. We have taken and always will take such grievances very seriously. We value every single person who works at Quantic Dream. It is of utmost importance to us that we maintain a safe environment that allows us all to channel our shared passion for making video games."​

On its face, that's a pretty solid denial. It speaks to the values and priorities that people upset about the allegations would care about. The focus is not on the accusations, but on Quantic Dream and its positive qualities, its collective passion for creating games. From a PR standpoint, it's a pretty shrewd and effective move. Or at least, it would have been if it weren't basically stolen.

Let's contrast Quantic Dream's remarks with the statement Naughty Dog released just three months earlier, when it offered its own strenuous objection to a former employee's story about being sexually harassed by a lead and reporting it to HR, who promptly fired him.

"Harassment and inappropriate conduct have no place at Naughty Dog and Sony Interactive Entertainment. We have taken and always will take reports of sexual harassment and other workplace grievances very seriously. We value every single person who works at Naughty Dog and Sony interactive Entertainment. It is of utmost importance to us that we maintain a safe, productive workplace environment that allows us all to channel our shared passion for making games."​
 
Dec 4, 2017
430
Tbh the fact that QD are suing and trying to shed some light on the case indicates to me that theyre not really trying to hide anything. I hope QD wins this case, as I don't ever want a bad working place environment.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,432
Tbh the fact that QD are suing and trying to shed some light on the case indicates to me that theyre not really trying to hide anything. I hope QD wins this case, as I don't ever want a bad working place environment.
They aren't even contesting the content of accusations but if they were done in a manner that follows good journalistic practices (give everyone in the story a chance to speak up and get their voices heard, do your due diligence to confirm stories to the best of your abilities and from more than just one source, try to maintain objectivity etc.). In other words, QD is trying to imply these outlets did a shitty job with tmheir reporting and didn't give them a fair chance of responding (even though their response is in at least one of the articles that I read), not even really saying what they reported was untrue. This is clearly just a PR move to make gullible people like you and many in this thread who haven't followed this case at all doubt the accusations. And right when Detroid is about to be released, how about dat. Not coincidental timing at all, I'm sure.
 
Dec 4, 2017
430
They aren't even contesting the content of accusations but if they were done in a manner that follows good journalistic practices (give everyone in the story a chance to speak up and get their voices heard, do your due diligence to confirm stories to the best of your abilities and from more than just one source, try to maintain objectivity etc.). In other words, QD is trying to imply these outlets did a shitty job with tmheir reporting and didn't give them a fair chance of responding (even though their response is in at least one of the articles that I read), not even really saying what they reported was untrue. This is clearly just a PR move to make gullible people like you and many in this thread who haven't followed this case at all doubt the accusations. And right when Detroid is about to be released, how about dat. Not coincidental timing at all, I'm sure.
Fair enough, i'll be following this then. At least the public will know a bit more to do with the case whatever happens.
 
Oct 26, 2017
13,360
There's no doubt that they had some really ugly stuff in their games but it's also pretty clear that this has consistently gotten better from game to game.
Beyond Two Souls had mystical natives, and in that same sequence managed to completely misportray the living conditions of the navajo, on top of that, the game has multiple instances of the white savior trope. QD has not at all gotten better when it comes to the portrayal of PoC & the portrayal of women.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,030
Beyond Two Souls had mystical natives, and in that same sequence managed to completely misportray the living conditions of the navajo, on top of that, the game has multiple instances of the white savior trope. QD has not at all gotten better when it comes to the portrayal of PoC & the portrayal of women.
You don't see a difference between "Mad dog" and relying on the mystical native trope which at least used actual native actors? The whole sequence in Africa also actually ends up being
critical of that white savior trope as Ellen Page ends up fucking over the whole country
 
Oct 26, 2017
13,360
You don't see a difference between "Mad dog" and relying on the mystical native trope which at least used actual native actors? The whole sequence in Africa also actually ends up being
critical of that white savior trope as Ellen Page ends up fucking over the whole country
In that same sequence they would have the audience believe that if you very slowly speak in English to PoC that they'll understand you. And the way the Navajo are portrayed in Beyond Two Souls is just as stereotypical as the Mad Dog sequence right down to the assumption that all Native Americans must've lived in tipis surrounded by totem poles.
 
Oct 27, 2017
758
Kotaku (who broke the story earlier this week) talk about it in their podcast (20:20). Worth a listen IMO. They share an assumption / fear also brought by Waypoint in their last podcast: By suing journalists, what Quantic Dream might be doing is sending a message to other journalists and outlets to discourage them to cover more of the story. Even if the allegations and the way they are handled handled are good (jschreier seems confident about the quality of the work made by journalists based on his talk with Le Monde journalist and the english version of Canard PC paper), many journalists could think twice and ask themselves if talking about Quantic Dream's management is worth putting you or your company into a lawsuit.

QD threatened French website Gamekult of suing them just for relaying the allegations.

Having read it now, I think this excellent article deserves its own thread, because it speaks of a broader and more important issue. Will you post it?
I'm on it :)
 
Feb 27, 2018
229
User Warned: Trolling with false equivalencies
It still baffles me how people here excuse/don't care that QD violated Ellen Page's no nudity clause.

All of the allegations against the company feel pretty in line with their past behavior.
haha seriously? So modding now is a true evidence for determine if they are evil?

Why Witcher developers are not considered misogynist when they have several nude girls on their games and show it on cutscenes?
 
Oct 26, 2017
13,360
haha seriously? So modding now is a true evidence for determine if they are evil?

Why Witcher developers are not considered misogynist when they have several nude girls on their games and show it on cutscenes?
-Something tells me that the series that debuted with a minigame that allowed you to get nude illustrations of women in the game didn't have a no nudity clause included in the contract, must be something to do with the fact that literally no one in the Witcher is based on a real life person let alone a celebrity.

-Your post isn't even a good try at a whataboutism because it clearly shows blatant ignorance about the witcher series portrayal of women and how that was received at the time of each respective release.
THE SEX CARDS WERE LITERALLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST CRITICISMS OF THE GAME, THE SEXUALIZATION IN EACH RELEASE WAS CRITICIZED
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,720
Limerick, Ireland
I say it to myself everytime gaming or not this happens.

When you sue someone for bad publicity or a bad comment it HIGHLIGHTS the issue and gets people talking about the issue even more so.

I was aware about these reports because I'm not from France and don't speak French. Now congrats the whole gaming community is aware of this.
 

Kufkah

Permanently banned for usage of an alt-account.
Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,253
It gets better. Here's his voice actor.

The one black guy in Heavy Rain, voiced by a white guy in the most stereotypical way possible.
Is that a unique VA they brought to do that charcater or one of the VAs that do tones of side minor characters?!
 

abrasivemurk

Banned
Member
Nov 2, 2017
1,411
Kotaku (who broke the story earlier this week) talk about it in their podcast (20:20). Worth a listen IMO. They share an assumption / fear also brought by Waypoint in their last podcast: By suing journalists, what Quantic Dream might be doing is sending a message to other journalists and outlets to discourage them to cover more of the story. Even if the allegations and the way they are handled handled are good (jschreier seems confident about the quality of the work made by journalists based on his talk with Le Monde journalist and the english version of Canard PC paper), many journalists could think twice and ask themselves if talking about Quantic Dream's management is worth putting you or your company into a lawsuit.

QD threatened French website Gamekult of suing them just for relaying the allegations.



I'm on it :)
Don’t worry, gaming community is known for killing studios with bad publicity. No matter how much they try to silence journalists I know Detroit will bomb because of this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,429
Is that a unique VA they brought to do that charcater or one of the VAs that do tones of side minor characters?!
He voices a few different characters in Heavy Rain, another being the Middle-Eastern shopkeeper.

He also voiced the black cop from Fahrenheit ( a character who was followed around by funk music whenever you took control of him).
 

Quakeguy

Banned
Member
Feb 3, 2018
938
David Cage can go fuck himself indefinitely
You guys are hilarious with your passion to hate on Cage, a successful and rich man, stop over analyzing things lol, that guy is voice acting all kind of people of all kind of races in almost every single QD release.

Pathetic.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,170
México
You guys are hilarious with your passion to hate on Cage, a successful and rich man, stop over analyzing things lol, the guy is voice acting all kind of people of all kind of races in almost every single QD release.

Pathetic.
Pathetic is having the only black man in the game voiced by a white dude and talking in a horrendously stereotypical way.

Pathetic is defending indefensibly racist writing and framing.
 

Quakeguy

Banned
Member
Feb 3, 2018
938
User Banned (Permanent): Trolling. Attempting to shut down discussion by misrepresenting arguments. Long history of similar behavior.
Pathetic is having the only black man in the game voiced by a white dude and talking in a horrendously stereotypical way.

Pathetic is defending indefensibly racist writing and framing.
He is voicing white guys as well, talking in stereotypical ways. That guy can be found in every single QD release, probably a friend of the team and he got to do a bunch of characters for HR.
All of you who seriously seem to hate Cage so much, would you want to personally murder him or what? Why are you so passionate about it?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,170
México
He is voicing white guys as well, talking in stereotypical ways. That guy can be found in every single QD release, probably a friend of the team.
All of you who seriously seem to hate Cage so much, would you want to persoanlly murder him or what? Why are you so passionate about it?
wat

That he voices other characters doessn't justify the instance of racism.

And what the heck is that strawman. Murder him? What the heck are you on about?
 
Nov 7, 2017
10,191
He is voicing white guys as well, talking in stereotypical ways. That guy can be found in every single QD release, probably a friend of the team and he got to do a bunch of characters for HR.
All of you who seriously seem to hate Cage so much, would you want to personally murder him or what? Why are you so passionate about it?
Yeah you nailed it, we want to murder him.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,618
Canada
He is voicing white guys as well, talking in stereotypical ways. That guy can be found in every single QD release, probably a friend of the team.
All of you who seriously seem to hate Cage so much, would you want to persoanlly murder him or what? Why are you so passionate about it?
He has a history producing games that are often littered with misogyny and racism. Why does an averse reaction to this upset you so much.