This fetishized in-game ad from Cyberpunk 2077 raises some questions about how the game may depict LGBT (NSFW) [See Staff Post Before Posting]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Yata

Member
Feb 1, 2019
408
Spain
Genuine question, what does CDPR need to do to redeem themselves after their transphobic actions and be able to use these themes again in their games?

Asking the trans folk here.
 

Spoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,371
"I hate this thing so let's do it some more" - what?
A lot of times, in fiction, authors will create a representation of the thing they dislike so they can point out how, or why, it's bad. As an example, Bioshock and Objectivism (even if reasonable people disagree on how effective BioShock was at it).
 

adam prime

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,770
ATX
Damn.

I've read almost every reply in this thread. I think anyone who objects to "video games as art" need to read this entire thing. We have a creative vision in a game leading to this type of discussion.

If that isn't Art, I don't know what is.
 

i20bot

Banned
Nov 1, 2017
291
User banned (2 weeks): homophobic concern trolling, account in junior phase
I dunno. I see people wear this at pride parades with little kids watching. But it seems ok there.
 

SugarNoodles

Member
Nov 3, 2017
6,553
Portland, OR
This should surprise exactly no one. The developer is notoriously transphobic and The Witcher 3 was disgustingly sexist. The game industry and gamers need to do better.
 

Kyuuji

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,965
UK
A lot of times, in fiction, authors will create a representation of the thing they dislike so they can point out how, or why, it's bad. As an example, Bioshock and Objectivism (even if reasonable people disagree on how effective BioShock was at it).
I mean, obviously. I should have been longer in my post, but I'm speaking specifically to this case lol.

I get that it can make sense, of course, but with the relationship they have with the community, if they're making a nuanced point do some outreach and dives into it to reassure that which you've directly mocked and insulted before.

I don't think "but now we mean to do it" is really the best tact, considering the actual advert in discussion.

Over you know, something like promoting a fleshed out and nuanced trans or non binary character to explore those themes.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,973
As someone said earlier, their defense lives or dies on them offering non-gender locked character customization.

Not holding my breath tho. I'm in the "simply lip-service" camp.
 

Mazinger

Member
Nov 15, 2017
71
You “don’t see the issue” with this particular sexualization coming from this particular company and their poor handling of trans issues before? That sounds ignorant to just give them the benefit of the doubt and say it makes sense.

No. It could make sense, but CDPR haven’t shown that we can assume they’ve handled this representation well for it to be acceptable. You don’t just put out sexualized minorities after nothing but poor interactions with those communities.

You’ve latched way too hard onto why it could make sense, to the point you’re ignorant of all the reasons this content may be as abhorrent as CDPR’s mishandling of trans issues always tends to be.
Hey, at this point it's all speculation. Though if the developer explanation that was just posted in this thread is any indication, it's likely intended to be a long-reaching jab at companies pretending to be woke for brownie points.
 

Suicide King

Member
Oct 27, 2017
523
A lot of times, in fiction, authors will create a representation of the thing they dislike so they can point out how, or why, it's bad. As an example, Bioshock and Objectivism (even if reasonable people disagree on how effective BioShock was at it).
However, in this case it's more trying to trust an author like Ezra Pound to create a representation of fascism and expect him to point out that it is bad.
 

Wrellie

Member
Oct 29, 2017
372
A PR person??

Its the lead designer who literally explained what it's supposed to represent

Like fucking hell
This was exactly my thought when reading that reply. It's seems they answered the context appropriately, and that it is true that we had no context for the ad at all before this thread was started. I think we can put the pitchforks away for now regarding the game.
 

Mesoian

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,219
Genuine question, what does CDPR need to do to redeem themselves after their transphobic actions and be able to use these themes again in their games?

Asking the trans folk here.
Like, actually try doing something with transfolk that doesn't treat them like shit or a punchline or a moral compass.

It's not hard, and yet no one does it.

it does, but nice try.
Mmm.
 

Harlequin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,219
"I hate this thing so let's do it some more" - what?
Come on now, this is just you being disingenuous. It's clear that what she means is that they want to explore these kinds of issues in the game in a critical manner and to explore them, they need to show them. It's like if you want to write a story about homophobia, you will naturally have to include words like "faggot", homophobic harassment and violence. That doesn't mean that you think that those things should be happening, you're merely leveraging their portrayal to tell a story about the kind of harm they can do. You're free to call into doubt whether Cyberpunk will actually succeed in delivering the kind of criticism they claim to be aiming for here (a healthy amount of scepticism is certainly justified) but your argument in the post above simply doesn't make sense.
 

AmbientRuin

Banned
Apr 18, 2019
335
This was exactly my thought when reading that reply. It's seems they answered the context appropriately, and that it is true that we had no context for the ad at all before this thread was started. I think we can put the pitchforks away for now regarding the game.
Yeah ignore the casual racism thats also been seen in the demo please
Only Consume

Cyberpunk !!! Woooo
 

tsampikos

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
1,517
This genre is all about body modification and transhumanism.

Unfortunately what I get the sense of now is a bunch of cishet people pearl clutching at things we should be seeing more of not less and then I see a bunch of white people crying foul at representation tryna claim its fetishization - people who for damn sure havent been fighting long enough as those of us who are glad to have our existences acknowledged only to see what little we have threatened.

Man... Im tired of gatekeeping.

Tired of the notion that things need a specific reason to be represented by people who have no sense of how culture works.
 

Marvelous

Member
Nov 3, 2017
142
If the designer has to go out of her way to say what her work is supposed to represent... I mean, come the fuck on. Death of the author. Justifying something as "it is supposed to be shocking" doesn't excuse it from being criticized.
I think you’re being a bit unfair to the artist here. The reason why the artist has to go out of her way to explain her art is because the art is being taken out of context, and is being misinterpreted as a result. I’d blame the PR department for leaking this particular screenshot.

I also don’t think in any way is the art just “supposed to be shocking,” but rather there is merit to the idea that our gender/sexual/social/cultural identities are taken advantage of in marketing today, so it would be tomorrow. Hell, we’ve just had a month of criticizing capitalist America hopping on the pride bandwagon, I don’t think it’s far removed from someone trying to cash in on trans people.
 

CobaltBlu

Member
Nov 29, 2017
70
I'm a strong believer that trying to sanitize media of offensive content stifles the ability to have meaningful conversations about topics that are affecting people today. Right now we know that the game has some transphobic advertisements as part of its setting. I think whether or not the game is transphobic because of it depends on how we are expected to respond to these advertisements; am I expected to be disgusted by a decadent and consumerist society that doesn't care about the people people who get hurt along the way, or is content like this included as a joke. Cyberpunk is the right setting to discuss something like this because it deals so heavily with body modification, trans-humanism, hyper sexuality etc. I think games can be mature and be an avenue for discussions about bigotry and other social problems so I'd like to see how this is handled in game.
 

Kyuuji

Member
Nov 8, 2017
4,965
UK
Come on now, this is just you being disingenuous. It's clear that what she means is that they want to explore these kinds of issues in the game in a critical manner and to explore them, they need to show them. It's like if you want to write a story about homophobia, you will naturally have to include words like "faggot", homophobic harassment and violence. That doesn't mean that you think that those things should be happening, you're merely leveraging their portrayal to tell a story about the kind of harm they can do. You're free to call into doubt whether Cyberpunk will actually succeed in delivering the kind of criticism they claim to be aiming for here (a healthy amount of scepticism is certainly justified) but your argument in the post above simply doesn't make sense.
I'm obviously speaking in relation to this specific case. I clarified in the next post:

I get that it can make sense, of course, but with the relationship they have with the community, if they're making a nuanced point do some outreach and dives into it to reassure that which you've directly mocked and insulted before.

I don't think "but now we mean to do it" is really the best tact, considering the actual advert in discussion.

Over you know, something like promoting a fleshed out and nuanced trans or non binary character to explore those themes.
 

Kinsei

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,108
Genuine question, what does CDPR need to do to redeem themselves after their transphobic actions and be able to use these themes again in their games?

Asking the trans folk here.
They would always get skepticism due to their past until they do them right. As such what they're doing is really all they can do.
 

Uthred

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,888
Anyone that represents the company in regards to the public (and, in this case, public opinion) is engaging in public relations.
Ha, nice dodge and also bollocks, they are engaging in public relations certainly but that doesnt make them a "PR person" as the clear implication and connotation of the phrase "PR person" is that its someones job, not a process they are currently engaging in. Why not just own up to the fact that you made a stupid mistake? It would have to be less embarrassing than linguistic gymnastics.
 

dan2026

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,176
The problem here is a matter of intention I feel.

Either they put it there to intentially dig at trans people (unlikely) or through lack of thought about whether it would offend (maybe more likely)

Or they put it there because they know it is offensive but thats the feeling they wanted to illicit in the player who is immersed in the world they have created. (probably most likely)

I don't think we can really know for sure until the game is fully out and it can be taken in context with the rest of the world.
 

DeaDPooL_jlp

Member
Oct 31, 2017
1,944
The material this game is based on deals with these issues and much more in graphic manner. I know this might be the first time some are being exposed to this but it's technically true to source.
 

Latpri

Member
Apr 19, 2018
623
Ok, a common thought in this thread is "CDProjecktRed has lost all goodwill when it comes to trans issues" and I was wondering when they lost it? I dont follow game companies that closely so my only frame of reference is Witcher 3 which I dont remember having any sort of demeaning representation of trans people.
 

johncelery

Member
Apr 19, 2018
25
If the designer has to go out of her way to say what her work is supposed to represent... I mean, come the fuck on. Death of the author. Justifying something as "it is supposed to be shocking" doesn't excuse it from being criticized.
To use your anology, the "book" isn't out yet and we're all doing a close read of a paragraph. Hopefully the finished text works like she claims to have intended, we'll have to wait and see. For now at least, the designers explanation gives a plausible context for the ad and how it fits into the themes of the work. I hope the finished game turns out to be the nuanced interrogation of corporate greed that she claims -- I don't think we've seen enough at this point to really know either way yet. People certainly have cause to be a little suspicious.
 

teague

Member
Dec 17, 2018
529
A lot of times, in fiction, authors will create a representation of the thing they dislike so they can point out how, or why, it's bad. As an example, Bioshock and Objectivism (even if reasonable people disagree on how effective BioShock was at it).

Semi-OT: The Bioshock comparison is probably good, because even in the unlikely scenario that CDPR does everything right in terms of fairly representing marginalized characters/groups and depicts the horrible megacorp dystopia as well, a dystopia I'm 100% sure there will be people who think it's supposed to be an endorsement of the bad stuff

Cf. American Psycho, Starship Troopers, more I'm forgetting. (Again, not saying these are perfect satires but my point is just that a lot of people seem to be satire-blind.)

There's an important question to be asked about whether it's better (politically, morally, etc.) to do satire (i.e. depict problematic stuff in order to condemn it), given that some people will be incapable of reading it as satire, or to depict a fictional world in which problematic stuff doesn't exist, but I'm sure CDPR aren't the people we should be looking to for an answer
 
Oct 25, 2017
18
I'm really bothered personally by some of the assumptions I've seen made in this thread. I should preface this by saying that A: I'm a white cis male, so I lack any personal experience of what other people have experienced and B: I'm personally emotionally close to this issue because my SO is feminine according to traditional gender appearance norms but was AMAB, identifies as male, and is happiest looking traditionally feminine and having male genitalia.
I'm not posting to defend CDProjekt or their use of this image in the game (who I'm not a super big fan of) and I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm posting because someone of the assumptions made and attitudes displayed personally bother me and could affect my SO who is very dear to me. I've tried to make the tone of this post calm and civil, but it WAS written from an emotionally charged place and I feel that it is important to get not just my thoughts but my feelings across on some of this. Also, I wrote this before the thread was locked, so this is written from the context of the things that were said in the first 200 or so posts.

I'm bothered by the assumption that simply because someone looks feminine according to traditional gender norms and has a penis they must be transgender. There are a number of other reasons I can think of for someone to appear traditionally feminine and have a penis, regardless of how they identify. Other gender identities, subcultures, aesthetics. I'm not going to enumerate them; I would probably miss some and I really shouldn't need to for my point to get across. This particular assumption is also complicated by the fact that this is a cyberpunk game based on a cyberpunk game based on another cyberpunk game based on cyberpunk fiction from the 80s. Cyberpunk isn't synonymous with transhumanism, but it definitely overlaps and transhuman themes have been leaking into cyberpunk ever since it got out of the 80s. One of these is the blurring of gender, sex, or at least of traditional gender norms. Another is an increasing normalization of sex in all its forms.

I'm particularly bothered by this assumption because actions and words coming from beliefs built on this assumption caused my SO to struggle with their identity for years. Simply being more accepting of those who don't fit the accepted boxes could have made their life a lot better, sooner.

I'm bothered by the assumption that depicting a person who IS trans with a penis in a sexual manner must be fetishism of trans people and the claim that we should always assume that it is. There are many people who are trans but have no desire or intention to undergo bottom surgery. Rare though they seem, there are people who might undergo bottom surgery in the future but are at least comfortable with the genitalia they have. Is it really fetishism to allow them the same treatment in media that cis men and women get? Sex has been used in advertising for a long time, sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly. Sexual advertisements are particularly non-surprising in a cyberpunk work where corporations and their ad material rule the world. The genitalia of the subject of the in-universe ad are definitely the focus, but is this any different than how a sexually charged ad might focus on someone else's genitalia or secondary sexual characteristics? Are non-op, pre-op trans people or others not allowed to participate in advertisements or other works in the same way as someone else because someone might fetishize them?

I am personally bothered by this because to decry a fictional representation of something is not far away from trying to deny real representations, and that affects my SO and others like them. More importantly in the general and the short term, non-op trans people have gotten a lot of hate, even from other trans people. I've seen it in certain trans-focused online communities and my SO experienced it in real life. It has improved recently but the bigotry and mistreatment is not gone. Treating any sexualized depiction of a traditionally feminine person with a penis as a fetishized depiction of a trans person is unquestionably marginalizing non-op trans people and the other groups I mentioned earlier even if the marginalization is unintended. Decrying that depiction could result in disenfranchising those people. To me it seems awfully similar to the attitude that only 'passing' traditionally attractive trans people should be public representations of the trans community, a position that is harmful and in my opinion unneccesarily and sometimes intentionally cruel to those who might not pass or be traditionally attractive.

That all said, I wouldn't really be surprised if it turns out that many people who work at CD Projekt have less than respectful ideas of and on trans people and this image was made by them. But CD Projekt's intentions don't change the reactions some people have already had and how their attitudes can affect people, including one close to me.
 

Podge293

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,466
If the designer has to go out of her way to say what her work is supposed to represent... I mean, come the fuck on. Death of the author. Justifying something as "it is supposed to be shocking" doesn't excuse it from being criticized.
Go out of her way?

People took the image out of context. Or actually without any context

Polygon then had to specifically go out and ask about it to get some context

Artist provides context.

It's almost like people were jumping the gun
 

adam prime

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,770
ATX
So now they've clarified and people still won't accept the artist's answer?
I don't think their response is going to satisfy anyone.

It's basically saying: "I made an offensive piece of art to convey a message", and everyone else saying, "Well you shouldn't have. You didn't NEED to do that."

... So the question burns: is artist free speech protected here? I mean, I think everyone agrees: you SHOULDN'T create offensive art against real life humans, but should you be allowed to?
 

Readler

Banned
Oct 6, 2018
218
I mean, that's the thing. "War is bad but war is COOL" is still sort of an endorsement right?

It's why those games tonally don't work.
I honestly have never played a CoD or BF game, but is it really an endorsement in general?

Schindler's List made me pretty damn uncomfortable because of how it depicted the holocaust for instance, and I sure Spielberg wasn't endorsing it.

Yes, depiction isn't endorsement, depending on how they handle things.
That's why I'm kind of on the fence with this.

I get that it can make sense, of course, but with the relationship they have with the community, if they're making a nuanced point do some outreach and dives into it to reassure that which you've directly mocked and insulted before.

I don't think "but now we mean to do it" is really the best tact, considering the actual advert in discussion.

Over you know, something like promoting a fleshed out and nuanced trans or non binary character to explore those themes.
Honestly, while I get the sentiment, the whole thing is pretty overblown. Like, let's just wait an see how the game fares before crucifying them. The artist gave his response, and I feel it's not fair to project the opinion of their former Twitter guy onto the whole staff.
 

Suicide King

Member
Oct 27, 2017
523
I think you’re being a bit unfair to the artist here. The reason why the artist has to go out of her way to explain her art is because the art is being taken out of context, and is being misinterpreted as a result. I’d blame the PR department for leaking this particular screenshot.

I also don’t think in any way is the art just “supposed to be shocking,” but rather there is merit to the idea that our gender/sexual/social/cultural identities are taken advantage of in marketing today, so it would be tomorrow. Hell, we’ve just had a month of criticizing capitalist America hopping on the pride bandwagon, I don’t think it’s far removed from someone trying to cash in on trans people.
Maybe, but as I said, CDPR built an ethos for themselves. Maybe the artist is not willingly being transphobic, and maybe the marketing team should not have given access to that particular image.

However, CDPR has built a reputation of being shitty about this. And that advert was supposed to be part of a world where "everything is sexualized", yet is just a casual detail in an otherwise common environment. If the hypersexualization is something to be commented on, why the fuck isn't it part of the thematic discourse?

Am I really supposed to believe that the game will treat social issues in a good light when the protagonism goes to a white dude who mocks black people for their exaggerated accents? After all that CDPR has done? Man, I would love if that was the case, but I research literary narrative and this kind of stuff is never in a vacuum. I don't expect the PR designer's words to reflect some kind of sudden change in idelogy at CDPR.
 

Zehzin

Member
Jan 3, 2019
963
I think the litmus test will be whether they lock character customization options to one gender.

As for the ad, current day advertising is also a cesspool of blatant exploitation and sexualization. And corporations are not ethical or trustworthy entities in cyberpunk fiction.

The problem is that I'm not sure if Cyberpunk 2077 is cohesive when it comes to its theming and its world building, and I suspect the ad is a one off joke rather than world building and an example of corporate culture.
Very much this.
 

adam prime

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,770
ATX
I'm really bothered personally by some of the assumptions I've seen made in this thread. I should preface this by saying that A: I'm a white cis male, so I lack any personal experience of what other people have experienced and B: I'm personally emotionally close to this issue because my SO is feminine according to traditional gender appearance norms but was AMAB, identifies as male, and is happiest looking traditionally feminine and having male genitalia.
I'm not posting to defend CDProjekt or their use of this image in the game (who I'm not a super big fan of) and I'm not giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm posting because someone of the assumptions made and attitudes displayed personally bother me and could affect my SO who is very dear to me. I've tried to make the tone of this post calm and civil, but it WAS written from an emotionally charged place and I feel that it is important to get not just my thoughts but my feelings across on some of this. Also, I wrote this before the thread was locked, so this is written from the context of the things that were said in the first 200 or so posts.

I'm bothered by the assumption that simply because someone looks feminine according to traditional gender norms and has a penis they must be transgender. There are a number of other reasons I can think of for someone to appear traditionally feminine and have a penis, regardless of how they identify. Other gender identities, subcultures, aesthetics. I'm not going to enumerate them; I would probably miss some and I really shouldn't need to for my point to get across. This particular assumption is also complicated by the fact that this is a cyberpunk game based on a cyberpunk game based on another cyberpunk game based on cyberpunk fiction from the 80s. Cyberpunk isn't synonymous with transhumanism, but it definitely overlaps and transhuman themes have been leaking into cyberpunk ever since it got out of the 80s. One of these is the blurring of gender, sex, or at least of traditional gender norms. Another is an increasing normalization of sex in all its forms.

I'm particularly bothered by this assumption because actions and words coming from beliefs built on this assumption caused my SO to struggle with their identity for years. Simply being more accepting of those who don't fit the accepted boxes could have made their life a lot better, sooner.

I'm bothered by the assumption that depicting a person who IS trans with a penis in a sexual manner must be fetishism of trans people and the claim that we should always assume that it is. There are many people who are trans but have no desire or intention to undergo bottom surgery. Rare though they seem, there are people who might undergo bottom surgery in the future but are at least comfortable with the genitalia they have. Is it really fetishism to allow them the same treatment in media that cis men and women get? Sex has been used in advertising for a long time, sometimes subtly, sometimes blatantly. Sexual advertisements are particularly non-surprising in a cyberpunk work where corporations and their ad material rule the world. The genitalia of the subject of the in-universe ad are definitely the focus, but is this any different than how a sexually charged ad might focus on someone else's genitalia or secondary sexual characteristics? Are non-op, pre-op trans people or others not allowed to participate in advertisements or other works in the same way as someone else because someone might fetishize them?

I am personally bothered by this because to decry a fictional representation of something is not far away from trying to deny real representations, and that affects my SO and others like them. More importantly in the general and the short term, non-op trans people have gotten a lot of hate, even from other trans people. I've seen it in certain trans-focused online communities and my SO experienced it in real life. It has improved recently but the bigotry and mistreatment is not gone. Treating any sexualized depiction of a traditionally feminine person with a penis as a fetishized depiction of a trans person is unquestionably marginalizing non-op trans people and the other groups I mentioned earlier even if the marginalization is unintended. Decrying that depiction could result in disenfranchising those people. To me it seems awfully similar to the attitude that only 'passing' traditionally attractive trans people should be public representations of the trans community, a position that is harmful and in my opinion unneccesarily and sometimes intentionally cruel to those who might not pass or be traditionally attractive.

That all said, I wouldn't really be surprised if it turns out that many people who work at CD Projekt have less than respectful ideas of and on trans people and this image was made by them. But CD Projekt's intentions don't change the reactions some people have already had and how their attitudes can affect people, including one close to me.
Sincerely thanks for posting your POV here. That was a good read.
 

Spoo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,371
I mean, obviously. I should have been longer in my post, but I'm speaking specifically to this case lol.
If the question is, "To what end does this image serve", I don't know other than what the artist said, which is to reinforce the idea that corporations use sex to sell soft-drinks. If there is a broader theme of, say, destroying corporations in the game, then the image can be used in the same way a swastika might make you further resent the Nazis in Wolfenstein, but if there is no intent by the player to actually topple said organizations, then I can't see any other purpose to the picture than to offend.

And CDPR seems to think that offense is the point, even as they say they don't mean to offend, which is in and of itself a weird take. If the image is meant to be "aggressive", in its tone, then that means -- to me -- that the image is meant to be offensive to us. We're meant to hate the organizations that would use a trans person in this way. So how is it, then, that we aren't supposed to take offense?

Just a weird response, in my opinion. I accept the thesis of the artist that imagery like this is used to build a world, but the conclusion seems totally out of step with the intention of the work in the world.
 

Wrellie

Member
Oct 29, 2017
372
Yeah ignore the casual racism thats also been seen in the demo please
Only Consume

Cyberpunk !!! Woooo
1. I am gay.
2. I never said Cyberpunk Wooo or anything of the sorts.
3. This thread is about that ad.
4. Polygon sat down with the female art director who made the image and someone in this thread referred to them as "PR person", which tells me they didn't actually read the article or are ready to just blindly pick apart anything CDPR does (which is fine if they want, but others on this board may not agree with).

No one's changing your mind on this matter. But one day you may see how spouting out factual inaccuracies like "PR person" by people on our side can do more damage to LGBT issues and community than anything by someone outside our community.
 

Gestault

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,009
So now they've clarified and people still won't accept the artist's answer?

That needs to be threadmarked.
I agree that the response should be threadmarked or added to the OP, but it's a bit much to imply people are being unreasonable if they end up disagreeing with that rationale, or see issues in the final execution. And to be frank, there's been an issue with honesty/sincerity in a handful of statements out of the studio, so some scrutiny is warranted.

That said, I definitely appreciate having the explanation.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
Hey, at this point it's all speculation. Though if the developer explanation that was just posted in this thread is any indication, it's likely intended to be a long-reaching jab at companies pretending to be woke for brownie points.
I didn't get that from the response, more it's the continued evolution of advertising using what is deemed as sexually exciting or in demand of those times. If you look back at marketing to earlier eras, what was a "sexy ad" then, probably looks tame as fuck compared to what we see these days.

I mean you go back far enough and both women and men would have what resembles clothing, but nowadays you have aftershave ads where men prance about topless or there was even one in the UK with an arse on show. During daytime TV.

Or things like this


But maybe 50~60 years ago our time, and just having knees or thighs flashing for a second was the sexually stimulating ad of those times.

So you take that to the Cyberpunk world where modifications are the norm and sexuality is far more varied and less restrictive to "man/woman", and you presumably get corporations doing sexual ads that reflect that.
 

Suicide King

Member
Oct 27, 2017
523
Go out of her way?

People took the image out of context. Or actually without any context

Polygon then had to specifically go out and ask about it to get some context

Artist provides context.

It's almost like people were jumping the gun
The context is that CDPR has repeatedly been shitty about social issues. Not only transphobic, but as in the recent hands-on, racist as well.

The artist's word is not canon to its interpretation.

Ha, nice dodge and also bollocks, they are engaging in public relations certainly but that doesnt make them a "PR person" as the clear implication and connotation of the phrase "PR person" is that its someones job, not a process they are currently engaging in. Why not just own up to the fact that you made a stupid mistake? It would have to be less embarrassing than linguistic gymnastics.
It was just a joke because that person had to justify the game's marketing.

To use your anology, the "book" isn't out yet and we're all doing a close read of a paragraph. Hopefully the finished text works like she claims to have intended, we'll have to wait and see. For now at least, the designers explanation gives a plausible context for the ad and how it fits into the themes of the work. I hope the finished game turns out to be the nuanced interrogation of corporate greed that she claims -- I don't think we've seen enough at this point to really know either way yet. People certainly have cause to be a little suspicious.
Or, in a better case, doing a close read of a paragraph of a book written by a known transphobe. Maybe the full book isn't transphobic, but that doesn't change the expectation I have of what it will contain.
 

Alienous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,205
I’m trying to, but I don’t see how this one can offend someone. It’s just a sexualized ad in the in-game universe. The PR statement makes sense as well.

It’s not making fun of or degrading trans people at all.
If a game lacked any positive representation of black people, and the studio had tweeted out a joke a year before that was widely perceived to be mocking a struggle within the black community, then an in-universe advertisement showed up with the image of black character selling a product with the slogan "Unleash your inner beast" would you assume the most favourable & innucous interpretation of that last part? I wouldn't.

So I can understand the reaction to this image.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.