Rage 2 is a fun game that makes me feel like garbage - Polygon

GHG

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,648
It isn't the point they were making at all.

What is wrong with you.

The point is that apathy for things that do not affect them is commonplace. Just like how people handwave racism even now because it doesn't affect them.

Look at the Danny Baker situation for how racism is still handwaved away and how yes, civil rights movements across the world are ignored and denigrated by those who do not care about the people hurt.

Instead of trying to create a situation where you can defend this shit, how about acknowledgment that this just isn't on and people who are affected by depictions of disability and disfigurement as a negative trait in media deserve to be heard?
You know there are dozens of ways to say "guys, I think you should have more empathy for the author in this case for reasons x y and z" without saying the following... :

"the stance you took in this thread is the same stance you would have taken at the black community when they started speaking out prior to the civil rights movement"

... And conjugating apathy towards this isolated scenario with apathy towards the civil rights movement.

Just a thought.

As for the bolded, I should be surprised but unfortunately I'm not, it's par for the course at this point whenever posting in these types of threads here. I've never said or suggested any of what you're accusing me of but I hope it makes you feel better to think as such.
 

Kiekura

Member
Mar 23, 2018
1,168
The writer doesn't deserve to be mocked for his opinion. But, I think it's a stretch to suggest that fictionalized mutants in a post-apocalyptic setting were designed as a means to offend. Creature design is always nuanced and body deformities in particular are a hallmark of horror. However, that shouldn't be misconstrued as all deformities = bad/evil person.
Agree with this
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,851
The writer doesn't deserve to be mocked for his opinion. But, I think it's a stretch to suggest that fictionalized mutants in a post-apocalyptic setting were designed as a means to offend. Creature design is always nuanced and body deformities in particular are a hallmark of horror. However, that shouldn't be misconstrued as all deformities = bad/evil person.
With all my respects I think this is stupid.
As always with fiction i just seperate it from reality.
What exactly is the bias? The game has mutants in a post apocalyptic world. They have all sorts of various mutations. A cleft lip is an actual mutation that humans get. Is the game actually saying "They are bad guys specifically because of their appearance"? Because nothing I can find makes it seem that way.
Except... there is strong precedent for people with these genetic conditions to be portrayed as "the others" or the bad guys, and very little positive representation.

And you must be able to see how enforcing these negative stereotypes and tropes helps perpetuate negative social perceptions.
 

Abominuz

Member
Oct 29, 2017
622
Netherlands
Since the beginning of gaming a deformity like in Rage or Fallout is connected with post apocalyptic and radiation or experimentation and i don't think developers think that far ahead who they will offend and who not. I can understand the creative freedom will be very limited if you have to take in concern what people will think or how they will feel. I can not speak on Rage 2 i have not played it, so i do not know if only the bad guys have deformities. I don't have a deformity so i cant speak on how somebody must feel or not feel about this. I can understand it because i am a half blood, and the way we where represented in the past was also horrible stereotypical.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,099
England
I think this article makes a pretty fair point in a world where Disney has been selling the concept that heroes are the pretty ones and villians are ugly for a hundred years.
I feel like you have no concept of nuance. Bad guys are "ugly" because they're ugly on the inside and that's reflected by their disfigured appearance. Good guys are similarly "pretty" because they're good on the inside and that's reflected by their pure appearance.

It's not like they're saying all ugly people are bad, they're saying bad people are ugly.

And it's not even as if that's true for all fiction, either. Using Disney as an example since you brought them up, the Evil Queen literally obsessed over her beauty and wanted to kill a child because she was more beautiful. Similarly, Shrek is an ogre and his arch nemesis is Prince Charming, the most handsome guy in the world. The Hunchback of Notre Dame was about a poor disabled guy who was emotionally and physically abused by a man of distinguished appearance and status.

That's just three notable examples.

If we're opposed to the continued use of "good guys pretty, bad guys ugly", then why didn't you throw Mad Max under the bus years ago? Max and Furiosa are literally the only people in the entire world who aren't mutated or disfigured because of the radiation and on top of that they're both traditionally beautiful and the bad guy surrounds himself with all sorts of ugly, mutated individuals.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,885
What exactly is the bias? The game has mutants in a post apocalyptic world. They have all sorts of various mutations. A cleft lip is an actual mutation that humans get. Is the game actually saying "They are bad guys specifically because of their appearance"? Because nothing I can find makes it seem that way.
How is it substantially different if it's explicitly stated or if it's an implicit rule? Consider this. During slavery in the US, a common justification for what was plainly a cruel practice was that slavery was actually a benevolent practice by which white people taught black people to be civilized. You can find that very justification given by Robert E. Lee in a letter to his wife. After the American Civil War and the abolition of slavery, it became popular in works of fiction to show slaves being loyal to their kind masters even when offered freedom or threatened with death.

The loyal slave cliche doesn't explicitly state that slavery is beneficial. After all, maybe there's a master out there who isn't kind and who wouldn't earn that loyalty. But by presenting only that image, by bombarding society with it, Confederate sympathizers could implicitly depict that paternalistic narrative and keep it alive.

I really feel for the writer, and I understand why and how someone could internalize the negative feelings and ideas these designs might bring.

The part I have a hard time answering though is what do we do about it? This is usually my hang up with a lot of these articles. Does this mean mutants are off limits now? Should they be? Does a fictional creature mutated by nuclear holocaust really say anything about those with deformities or birth defects, or is it a side effect because of how society treats actual people with these issues?

Or is it just a matter of being more mindful of what we as the audience take from it when we see mutant designs in popular media?

I guess I’m just never quite certain if these articles are a call to action or just a call to mindfullness.
There isn't a huge reason why people have to be scared of subject matter if they try to approach it from a place of mindfulness. There are interesting things you could potentially do with deformity. Here's some food for thought:


Here's a tweet that got a lot of mileage because it heavily uses wrestling ling, making it unreadable to people who aren't familiar with it. But why does this language exist? Wrestler jargon develops out of carnie jargon, and carnie jargon evolves out of two interests. One is to keep from exposing the tricks of the trade, and the other was that carnies were their own society and often more comfortable within their own kind.

People often point to freak shows as a sign of a society that was intolerant towards deformity and saw it as something to be mocked, which is entirely true. But internally, it's a little more complicated. Freak shows are carnivals could be exploitative, but they were also places where outcasts of society could succeed, and if you were able to find a troupe that was sympathetic to its performers it might be possible to gain the respect that you could not in the outside world. "Running away to join the circus" is a real thing, and this is part of the reason for it.

It's not hard to imagine Rage 2's scenario being rebuilt to use these sort of ideas and have a more thoughtful view of deformity.

There doesn’t seem to be much discussion at all. What are the two sides here?
Not all discussions have to be one side versus the other; it can also be different people trying to collectively look for a solution. If one of the "sides" of the discussion is only seeking to kill the discussion outright, than it cannot be treated as as legitimate position if an actual discussion is to be held.
 

Messofanego

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,892
I feel like you have no concept of nuance. Bad guys are "ugly" because they're ugly on the inside and that's reflected by their disfigured appearance. Good guys are similarly "pretty" because they're good on the inside and that's reflected by their pure appearance.

It's not like they're saying all ugly people are bad, they're saying bad people are ugly.

And it's not even as if that's true for all fiction, either. Using Disney as an example since you brought them up, the Evil Queen literally obsessed over her beauty and wanted to kill a child because she was more beautiful. Similarly, Shrek is an ogre and his arch nemesis is Prince Charming, the most handsome guy in the world. The Hunchback of Notre Dame was about a poor disabled guy who was emotionally and physically abused by a man of distinguished appearance and status.

That's just three notable examples.

If we're opposed to the continued use of "good guys pretty, bad guys ugly", then why didn't you throw Mad Max under the bus years ago? Max and Furiosa are literally the only people in the entire world who aren't mutated or disfigured because of the radiation and on top of that they're both traditionally beautiful and the bad guy surrounds himself with all sorts of ugly, mutated individuals.
Mad Max can also be criticised for relegating people with deformities to be the bad guys instead of having deformed good guys.
 

Patch13

Member
Oct 27, 2017
320
New England
What exactly is the bias? The game has mutants in a post apocalyptic world. They have all sorts of various mutations. A cleft lip is an actual mutation that humans get. Is the game actually saying "They are bad guys specifically because of their appearance"? Because nothing I can find makes it seem that way.
Except... there is strong precedent for people with these genetic conditions to be portrayed as "the others" or the bad guys, and very little positive representation.

And you must be able to see how enforcing these negative stereotypes and tropes helps perpetuate negative social perceptions.
Yeah. There’s a long literary tradition of physical “ugliness” being associated with evil, and it’s always interesting to see people having a hard time grappling with it, even if they understand why other forms of representation might be important.

(A big chunk of Shakespeare’s sonnets are devoted to him wrestling over being attracted to a woman with black hair, despite the “fact” that she is obviously less good and moral than a proper blonde—this stuff goes way back.)

One frustrating thing about the article is that the author is fine with fat people with a bad skin care routine being depicted as monstrous—it’s only when they have a condition that affects the author that a line is apparently crossed. But there is a extra level of fear and stigma associated with cleft lips, so I do get it ...

Of course, criticizing a game about mutants for depicting a mutation is ... well it does kind of call the whole genre into question, doesn’t it? Like maybe there’s fundamentally something off about mowing down a bunch of people because they look different, or are aliens (evil foreigners!) or whatnot.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,099
England
Mad Max can also be criticised for relegating people with deformities to be the bad guys instead of having deformed good guys.
Then why wasn't it? If you're criticising Rage 2 for it, then so should you criticise everything else for it too regardless of how critically acclaimed they are. If we're now opposed to bad guys being ugly or disfigured, there's a lot of stuff out there that people love that we must not morally abide.
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,851
Yeah. There’s a long literary tradition of physical “ugliness” being associated with evil, and it’s always interesting to see people having a hard time grappling with it, even if they understand why other forms of representation might be important.

(A big chunk of Shakespeare’s sonnets are devoted to him wrestling over being attracted to a woman with black hair, despite the “fact” that she is obviously less good and moral than a proper blonde—this stuff goes way back.)

One frustrating thing about the article is that the author is fine with fat people with a bad skin care routine being depicted as monstrous—it’s only when they have a condition that affects the author that a line is apparently crossed. But there is a extra level of fear and stigma associated with cleft lips, so I do get it ...

Of course, criticizing a game about mutants for depicting a mutation is ... well it does kind of call the whole genre into question, doesn’t it? Like maybe there’s fundamentally something off about mowing down a bunch of people because they look different, or are aliens (evil foreigners!) or whatnot.
I'm being lazy, so I'll just quote another post of mine to respond that last part. It's the part in yellow at the bottom that I think is relevant.


None of your examples match here, they're all ridiculous.

Fact is, these conditions have been used as a template to conjure monstrous characters forever. They're almost never used in a positive light. That in itself is a problem that perpetuates people's view of actual, living people with genetic conditions.

To deny this is naive as hell.

The problem here is the frequency which these are used as a template to create monsters. That has a real world effect. Can't deny it.

So to write it off like you're doing is pretty ignorant.

Would be pretty damn cool to see a hero with a cleft lip palate at some point, and we can create monsters without using real world conditions as templates.

And while you might see this as stifling creativity somehow, removing that option of an actual condition that exists... we KNOW there is a huge imbalance with representation, so why add to it when you could easily imagine something else or even, as suggested, make a positive example with a hero character.

This isn't hard to see.

Then why wasn't it? If you're criticising Rage 2 for it, then so should you criticise everything else for it too regardless of how critically acclaimed they are. If we're now opposed to bad guys being ugly or disfigured, there's a lot of stuff out there that people love that we must not morally abide.
We're criticizing the tropes and treatment of certain conditions as evil or "the others", Rage 2 is just one example of this. There are many. While each one might not be a prominent, huge, terrible issue in itself, it all adds up. Which is the point.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,885
Then why wasn't it? If you're criticising Rage 2 for it, then so should you criticise everything else for it too regardless of how critically acclaimed they are. If we're now opposed to bad guys being ugly or disfigured, there's a lot of stuff out there that people love that we must not morally abide.
The guy who posted this article works for a gaming website, not a movie website. He posted his thoughts on a video game. Unless you're saying that we should be able to criticize Mad Max for doing this same thing, in which case, feel free to post the thread and we'll reply to that one too.

I can't help but be reminded of how in every discussion about an ethnic minority talking about their own experience, there's inevitably someone who tasks them to solve the whole of racism before they open their mouth.
 

Ellieon

Member
Oct 28, 2017
76
I will never understand how people from a place of privilege think they have the right to talk down to people without that same privilege and tell them how they should feel, without even having any experience of what it's like to live like this. It's not hard to just stop and listen and try to be a bit empathetic towards problems like these, it doesn't take anything from your life to do so.

Disabilities being played off as evil or something to be scared of is not something new, hell there's practically a whole body horror genre that dedicates itself to this stuff, and as long as it remains one-sided that the good people are the beautiful and flawless people then it will always be an issue.

Nobody out there is saying that you can't enjoy, or even love a game that has problematic elements. But that doesn't mean it's not valuable to be critical of the media you consume. Even if a piece of media is fiction, the world it's created in isn't and the creators end up framing and reflecting a lot of social issues in life often unintentionally. And this is the reason it's so important to reflect on the message that this stuff can convey, and challenge it so people can realise that actually, this can have an impact and make people feel shit and reenforce negative stereotypes.

Please just listen to what people have to say, it doesn't mean they think you're a bad person for enjoying the game and it isn't a personal attack on you, but this does have an impact on people.
 

Escafeld

Member
Jan 7, 2018
14
I feel like you have no concept of nuance. Bad guys are "ugly" because they're ugly on the inside and that's reflected by their disfigured appearance. Good guys are similarly "pretty" because they're good on the inside and that's reflected by their pure appearance.

It's not like they're saying all ugly people are bad, they're saying bad people are ugly.
This isn't "nuanced" in the slightest, it's lazy writing. Using disfigurement and disability to reflect inner corruption is precisely why this trope can be harmful when we're bombarded with it through so much popular media. As has been pointed out previously, media influences how we perceive the world. When so much of the media you consume links a marginalised group of people to a negative concept, it is going to make an impression, especially if you have never had any kind of meaningful interaction with said group. Also, those who see themselves on the surface of these depictions are made to feel like this is how the world views them as human beings. It's a negative outcome any way you slice it, and it's baffling why anyone would defend it.

And it's not even as if that's true for all fiction, either. Using Disney as an example since you brought them up, the Evil Queen literally obsessed over her beauty and wanted to kill a child because she was more beautiful. Similarly, Shrek is an ogre and his arch nemesis is Prince Charming, the most handsome guy in the world. The Hunchback of Notre Dame was about a poor disabled guy who was emotionally and physically abused by a man of distinguished appearance and status.

That's just three notable examples.
Those are three bad examples.

Evil queen = #notallprettypeople
Shrek isn't Disney, but rather a parody of the Disney tropes that teague is criticising.
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is an example of the tragic monster trope - a different portrayal of disfigurement and disability, yes, but also a shitty one. Pity isn't positive. No disabled person wants to be thought of as a "poor disabled guy".

If we're opposed to the continued use of "good guys pretty, bad guys ugly", then why didn't you throw Mad Max under the bus years ago? Max and Furiosa are literally the only people in the entire world who aren't mutated or disfigured because of the radiation and on top of that they're both traditionally beautiful and the bad guy surrounds himself with all sorts of ugly, mutated individuals.
There is no rule stating that to make a point about one piece of media, you must first have made the same point about all similar examples that came before it. Pointing out a problem in representation which the developer sounded willing to address but then failed to follow follow up on isn't throwing Rage 2 under the bus. It's perfectly OK to acknowledge these issues and still enjoy the game/movie/etc. in question.


Also, to those saying that avoiding depictions of real world disfigurement would mean the death of the post-apocalypse genre: is your imagination really that limited? If only more developers and writers viewed political correctness as a creative challenge rather than a minefield to tiptoe through or an inconvenience to be ignored, we might get some truly inventive examples of this genre, and many others.
 

AaronD

Member
Dec 1, 2017
382
Blackface in movies and minstrel shows is make believe too. Doesn’t mean it’s not really offensive.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,022
United Kingdom
The writer doesn't deserve to be mocked for his opinion. But, I think it's a stretch to suggest that fictionalized mutants in a post-apocalyptic setting were designed as a means to offend. Creature design is always nuanced and body deformities in particular are a hallmark of horror. However, that shouldn't be misconstrued as all deformities = bad/evil person.
I think this misses the point.

By the artists being so consistent in using a visual feature on their fictional monsters that is shared with real human people who suffer from a medical condition, they are inadvertently propagating but more importantly unknowingly conditioning in their players what amounts to a subconscious mental association between the cleft lip feature and horrible monsters.

It's more than a fair point. The devs should have picked up on this and reigned it in.

The issue isn't that some monster designs use a cleft lip sparringly. Its that it is used so frequently and consistently throughout the game almost as a signifier itself of the creatures the artists absolutely intend their audiences to be revulsed by.
 

teague

Member
Dec 17, 2018
367
I feel like you have no concept of nuance. Bad guys are "ugly" because they're ugly on the inside and that's reflected by their disfigured appearance. Good guys are similarly "pretty" because they're good on the inside and that's reflected by their pure appearance.
I don't really feel like a couple of examples of doing a little bit better lets Disney off the hook. Personally I don't see why Snow White isn't a classic example of the evil/less attractive queen being jealous of the more attractive main character and therefore not at all "nuanced", and also Shrek is Dreamworks yes? I agree that Shrek is a good example where the hero literally says "I'm ok the way I am" but it isn't a Disney property.
Re: Hunchback, Disney actually prettied up Quasimodo a huge amount from both his character and appearance in the book, in which he is far more of a classic "monster" character, so I think that kind of undermines Disney's supposed attempt at subverting the "pretty good" and "ugly bad" thing they've pretty much made their shtick. Here's how Quasimodo is described in the book: (trans. Hapgood)

"We shall not try to give the reader an idea of that tetrahedral nose, that horseshoe mouth; that little left eye obstructed with a red, bushy, bristling eyebrow, while the right eye disappeared entirely beneath an enormous wart; of those teeth in disarray, broken here and there, like the embattled parapet of a fortress; of that callous lip, upon which one of these teeth encroached, like the tusk of an elephant; of that forked chin; and above all, of the expression spread over the whole; of that mixture of malice, amazement, and sadness. Let the reader dream of this whole, if he can."

And I would further add that, in the book, Quasimodo is rejected romantically by Esmerelda, who prefers the traditionally handsome Phoebus. At the end,
Esmerelda is killed due to the jealousy of Frollo, and Quasimodo lies down in her grave and starves to death.
Disney took a book that demonstrates graphically the real-life consequences of being born either too or not enough pretty and turned it into a generic "love conquers all, including physical appearance" story.

Furthermore, why does advancing a "not all x" argument have any place here? And why does a reprehensible position's being "nuanced" make it therefore ok? "I think x group of people are mostly lesser, but I suppose there are some good ones" is more nuanced but no less reprehensible for being so.
 

teague

Member
Dec 17, 2018
367
This isn't "nuanced" in the slightest, it's lazy writing. Using disfigurement and disability to reflect inner corruption is precisely why this trope can be harmful when we're bombarded with it through so much popular media. As has been pointed out previously, media influences how we perceive the world. When so much of the media you consume links a marginalised group of people to a negative concept, it is going to make an impression, especially if you have never had any kind of meaningful interaction with said group. Also, those who see themselves on the surface of these depictions are made to feel like this is how the world views them as human beings. It's a negative outcome any way you slice it, and it's baffling why anyone would defend it. […] There is no rule stating that to make a point about one piece of media, you must first have made the same point about all similar examples that came before it.
Preach, this is classic whataboutism
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,100
You know there are dozens of ways to say "guys, I think you should have more empathy for the author in this case for reasons x y and z" without saying the following... :
folks were sayin that, yet it was and still is being dismissed

funny how that works

... And conjugating apathy towards this isolated scenario with apathy towards the civil rights movement.

Just a thought.
Isolated? did you get a consensus from the whole class before you made that statement?
 

Myrrhodd

Member
Jan 15, 2018
50
User Banned (3 Days): Drive-by trolling in a sensitive topic
Some people are way too good at being easily offended. Or too good about caring about things that do not matter. I love it.
 

Stop It

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,517
You know there are dozens of ways to say "guys, I think you should have more empathy for the author in this case for reasons x y and z" without saying the following... :

"the stance you took in this thread is the same stance you would have taken at the black community when they started speaking out prior to the civil rights movement"

... And conjugating apathy towards this isolated scenario with apathy towards the civil rights movement.

Just a thought.

As for the bolded, I should be surprised but unfortunately I'm not, it's par for the course at this point whenever posting in these types of threads here. I've never said or suggested any of what you're accusing me of but I hope it makes you feel better to think as such.
Isolated scenario?

People with disability and disfigurements face lifelong persecution, ridicule and banishment to the underclass through no fault of their own.

There are people who treat those with deformities as being "possessed by the devil" https://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-doctors-restoring-faces-of-children-adults-accused-of-having-demonic-spirits-in-south-sudan.html

There are people killed for being disabled or disfigured, it happens all of the time and is very much comparable to racism because at the centre if it is ignorance and hatred.

Even in Western society to be disabled or disfigured is a constant source of ridicule and judgement. You think this is isolated? Try living a day in the life of the author and tell them that.

Why do you think games, films and media portray disfigurement as a negative trait that leads to evil? Because society demands, nay requires it. Those who do not understand these people quickly turn to hate. Sound familiar?
 

Stimpack

Member
Oct 27, 2017
153
I never thought about it, but yeah it's pretty messed up. Seeing yourself typecast as some devilish monstrosity seems like it would be pretty shitty.
 
Feb 15, 2018
23
Have you even bothered to read the thread?

A poster was banned, their actions were shitty and they got called on it. They were called a swine because that's what they were being.

There are examples of gamers being shitty ITT.

If you can't work it out yourself I'm not going to spell it out for you.

You're being a very shitty person right now, to be honest.

All I did was ask a question.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,221
I respect the guy's opinion here. But there's something I'm not quite clear on. If most people here would agree that playing violent games and shooting people, stabbing them, setting them on fire, etc does not in anyway condition or bias a person towards violence. Then, I have to ask why would a physical characteristic of characters in a video game condition or bias a person against real life people of the same condition?
 

astro

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,851
Someone obviously neglected to teach you how to not be a shitty person.

Also, if there's one thing I will never be, it's a victim.
Sorry, but again, nothing I wrote was shitty.

It's exhausting to have to constantly teach people like yourself what the difference is here.

The people who were banned were not banend for "calling people names" for a start.
 

Lord of Ostia

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,348
Not gonna lie, the doctor riding on the mutant made me uncomfortable. It suggests that the mutants aren't inherently evil monsters and are also sapient to at least some degree, in which case...enslaving them seems wrong. On top of that, I can see the author's point about the use of clefts. That's a real condition/birth defect that people live with and it's not exactly a fair treatment of the condition given the context you see it in.

Most of the human NPCs are pretty gnarly looking though, tbh. The main story characters are an exception to that (Marshall, the mayor of Wellspring and Lily especially standing out as way more conventionally attractive than the average NPC) but overall most of the people in Rage 2 look rough. That's entirely separate from the disfigurement/birth defect conversation though. The writer makes a good point.
 

Kthulhu

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,597
I respect the guy's opinion here. But there's something I'm not quite clear on. If most people here would agree that playing violent games and shooting people, stabbing them, setting them on fire, etc does not in anyway condition or bias a person towards violence. Then, I have to ask why would a physical characteristic of characters in a video game condition or bias a person against real life people of the same condition?
Ads work on people and propaganda works on people. I'll link you to something a bit more professional, but we've know for awhile that media does have an effect on how people see the world.
 
Oct 30, 2017
657
They are fictional mutants in a game about blowing people into meat bits. I don’t feel bad. If you wanna find something wrong with that you do you
 

plngsplsh

Member
Oct 28, 2017
381
I respect the guy's opinion here. But there's something I'm not quite clear on. If most people here would agree that playing violent games and shooting people, stabbing them, setting them on fire, etc does not in anyway condition or bias a person towards violence. Then, I have to ask why would a physical characteristic of characters in a video game condition or bias a person against real life people of the same condition?
My guess would be that it's way easier and more socially acceptable (or at least not as socially prohibited) to develop a bias against certain people (looking down on them, excluding them, calling them names ("Look at that mutant over there.")) than to go out and kill people. But if you are really interested in those questions, then you should probably go out and google up some studies. Here's something that you may find interesting: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274528792_Prejudice_The_Role_of_the_Media_in_the_Development_of_Social_Bias
 

Dusk Golem

Local Horror Enthusiast
Moderator
Oct 25, 2017
3,062
I respect the guy's opinion here. But there's something I'm not quite clear on. If most people here would agree that playing violent games and shooting people, stabbing them, setting them on fire, etc does not in anyway condition or bias a person towards violence. Then, I have to ask why would a physical characteristic of characters in a video game condition or bias a person against real life people of the same condition?
I can answer this. Firstly, this is not exclusive to video games, but extends to all other forms of media. In the real world, being violent or not has real world weight everyone feels and is learn/taught about because it is an element that we all deal with in this world. No matter who you are or who you spend time with, you'll encounter, learn, and form values on violence outside of video games.

If you grow up in a neighborhood surrounded by a specific type of person and not many examples of other types of people, your views on these people will stem from something else. For most it's media. Media propaganda exists because people are creatures who seek knowledge, and if not first-hand experience they can consume media to construct their views. In South Korea, they close out and super limit who's inside South Korea to form their opinions on people outside of Korea. They're taught that Americans, North Koreans and the like are the bad guys, and they're the superior race, and close out or super limit their exposure to anything that may contest these views.

In a more common non-South Korean example, media helps construct our image of things we lack exposure to. If you have spent a lot of time with a broad range of people who have disfigurations or disabilities, then the media involving this won't really influence your views because you have a lot of real world experience and exposure. But most don't have common interactions with a larger group of people with disfigurations or publicly perceived disabilities, and if you don't, how society and media treat a group of people will influence your behavoir towards that group of people and how your mind registers them.

So if media is almost always constructing bad tropes around these people, and they are very often depicted as the bad guys, then that does set a subconscious mental thing. It also establishes and instills an idea that people who have disfigurations are naturally less trustworthy because in media have physical deformities usually is a sign that your evil, or stupid, or crazy, though it's literally just a physical thing in most cases. This creates a stigma, and as this is something that's seen physically as it's only skin deep, it makes people treat you in the way they've been subconsciously taught by media.

The thing is, this trope is so common and prevalent that it 100% has real world affects. A casual example is someone might not let their child walk close to someone with a disfiguration compared to a "normal" person because media has instilled in them that this person could be a potential threat. They're not any more of a threat than anyone else, but the stigma is there due to media's portrayal of them.

On a further element how violence and this differ, violence is a physical act that you make a conscious decision on. It's something you have to enact and isn't something you keep in your head for the act of doing (you may think about doing something violently to someone, but if you don't act on it, then whatever). Meanwhile, having a stigma on a group of people is internalized, and the way you act on it is much easier to do since it's mostly being avoidant or having biases, which don't take as much precise action to act upon.
 

Heid

Member
Jan 7, 2018
1,293
Hmm kinda stems into the much larger thing in all other media; main characters always needing to be attractive. Easy on the eye.

eg people in the Aerith fan design thread saying the fan design is "fucking ugly" or "stupid" when theres loads of people with slightly rounder faces than others.

I always wanted to see more representation for disabilities. Personally thought ND could have done something incredible if they gave Ellie in TLOU2 some facial deformities. Benign non mind control fungus having different growth behaviour or something.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,221
My guess would be that it's way easier and more socially acceptable (or at least not as socially prohibited) to develop a bias against certain people (looking down on them, excluding them, calling them names ("Look at that mutant over there.")) than to go out and kill people. But if you are really interested in those questions, then you should probably go out and google up some studies. Here's something that you may find interesting: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274528792_Prejudice_The_Role_of_the_Media_in_the_Development_of_Social_Bias
Thanks, I’ll take a look.
I can answer this. Firstly, this is not exclusive to video games, but extends to all other forms of media. In the real world, being violent or not has real world weight everyone feels and is learn/taught about because it is an element that we all deal with in this world. No matter who you are or who you spend time with, you'll encounter, learn, and form values on violence outside of video games.

If you grow up in a neighborhood surrounded by a specific type of person and not many examples of other types of people, your views on these people will stem from something else. For most it's media. Media propaganda exists because people are creatures who seek knowledge, and if not first-hand experience they can consume media to construct their views. In South Korea, they close out and super limit who's inside South Korea to form their opinions on people outside of Korea. They're taught that Americans, North Koreans and the like are the bad guys, and they're the superior race, and close out or super limit their exposure to anything that may contest these views.

In a more common non-South Korean example, media helps construct our image of things we lack exposure to. If you have spent a lot of time with a broad range of people who have disfigurations or disabilities, then the media involving this won't really influence your views because you have a lot of real world experience and exposure. But most don't have common interactions with a larger group of people with disfigurations or publicly perceived disabilities, and if you don't, how society and media treat a group of people will influence your behavoir towards that group of people and how your mind registers them.

So if media is almost always constructing bad tropes around these people, and they are very often depicted as the bad guys, then that does set a subconscious mental thing. It also establishes and instills an idea that people who have disfigurations are naturally less trustworthy because in media have physical deformities usually is a sign that your evil, or stupid, or crazy, though it's literally just a physical thing in most cases. This creates a stigma, and as this is something that's seen physically as it's only skin deep, it makes people treat you in the way they've been subconsciously taught by media.

The thing is, this trope is so common and prevalent that it 100% has real world affects. A casual example is someone might not let their child walk close to someone with a disfiguration compared to a "normal" person because media has instilled in them that this person could be a potential threat. They're not any more of a threat than anyone else, but the stigma is there due to media's portrayal of them.

On a further element how violence and this differ, violence is a physical act that you make a conscious decision on. It's something you have to enact and isn't something you keep in your head for the act of doing (you may think about doing something violently to someone, but if you don't act on it, then whatever). Meanwhile, having a stigma on a group of people is internalized, and the way you act on it is much easier to do since it's mostly being avoidant or having biases, which don't take as much precise action to act upon.
I get what you’re saying. Thanks for taking the time to respond.