surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I'm pretty sure with every product I buy, there's someone involved in the creation of said product that believes something I don't believe in, stands for something I don't stand for, and may or may not kill kittens for sport.
Welcome to the world, you live in it. That's why there are crazy mountain men - they walk the boycott talk to the EXTREEEEME!
Welcome to the world, you live in it. That's why there are crazy mountain men - they walk the boycott talk to the EXTREEEEME!
I don't necessarily have a response directly for the article, but I do have one for the people commenting that people should “STFUAJPG,” that this whole dialogue is pretentious, and that it's “just a game.” I'm not going to go off for paragraphs with some pseudo-intellectual nonsense, I just find it baffling that people who visit a site like Destructoid, who obviously have interest in the happenings of the gaming world, would so easily disregard this type of dialogue.
Regardless of whatever side you are on in this discussion, or if you think it's a non-issue, the conversation taking place in the posts about Shadow Complex are obviously relevant. The argument concerning Card's politics would have died out quickly if people didn't care about it. You're not contributing to the discussion at all, you're being a douche. It's like the minute someone uses a big word or sounds smart, people automatically assume their doing it just to look smart and not to explain something. Discussion and critical thinking are good things, and if at the end of the discussion you realize it was all irrelevant, that's fantastic. The thing is, you need to actually have the discussion to realize that.
As for the article, I understand where you're coming from and I had similar thoughts before buying Shadow Complex. My problem is, I've become somewhat accustomed to separating the artist from the art because of some of my favorite authors. I love H.P. Lovecraft's work, and he was pretty damn racist at times. The same goes for others. It can be argued that Hemingway was an anti-semite, but I've still read a lot of his books too. I guess there is a difference when the artist is still living, and that's why I and others had doubts.
Also, I think a lot of the detractors of the boycott are assuming that those boycotting think their efforts will have a profound effect. I think it's clear from the article that, at least in this case, it's understood that it probably won't. The author is simply in favor of using the rights we have a consumers. And now I've written far too much and done exactly what I said I wouldn't do. Fantastic.
Regardless of whatever side you are on in this discussion, or if you think it's a non-issue, the conversation taking place in the posts about Shadow Complex are obviously relevant. The argument concerning Card's politics would have died out quickly if people didn't care about it. You're not contributing to the discussion at all, you're being a douche. It's like the minute someone uses a big word or sounds smart, people automatically assume their doing it just to look smart and not to explain something. Discussion and critical thinking are good things, and if at the end of the discussion you realize it was all irrelevant, that's fantastic. The thing is, you need to actually have the discussion to realize that.
As for the article, I understand where you're coming from and I had similar thoughts before buying Shadow Complex. My problem is, I've become somewhat accustomed to separating the artist from the art because of some of my favorite authors. I love H.P. Lovecraft's work, and he was pretty damn racist at times. The same goes for others. It can be argued that Hemingway was an anti-semite, but I've still read a lot of his books too. I guess there is a difference when the artist is still living, and that's why I and others had doubts.
Also, I think a lot of the detractors of the boycott are assuming that those boycotting think their efforts will have a profound effect. I think it's clear from the article that, at least in this case, it's understood that it probably won't. The author is simply in favor of using the rights we have a consumers. And now I've written far too much and done exactly what I said I wouldn't do. Fantastic.
This is an incredibly complicated issue, well done for tackling it with such eloquence.
I can completely understand the viewpoint of those wishing to boycott this title, the very idea of lining the pockets, however minimal the amount, of this repugnant creature does turn the stomach indeed.
However what also disturbs me is in punishing the work of dozens of games designers and programmers who work at ChAIR and Epic, because of this vile human. They have created possibly the best single player XBLA game, and I would feel remiss to penalize them due to him.
Whether we boycott or not, I believe it is vital that we all try to ensure that the industry is clear on the bad feeling his involvement has left clouding over this otherwise stellar release. That Orson Card has no further place in the games industry, that the negative press far outweighs any positive input his writing can provide.
I can completely understand the viewpoint of those wishing to boycott this title, the very idea of lining the pockets, however minimal the amount, of this repugnant creature does turn the stomach indeed.
However what also disturbs me is in punishing the work of dozens of games designers and programmers who work at ChAIR and Epic, because of this vile human. They have created possibly the best single player XBLA game, and I would feel remiss to penalize them due to him.
Whether we boycott or not, I believe it is vital that we all try to ensure that the industry is clear on the bad feeling his involvement has left clouding over this otherwise stellar release. That Orson Card has no further place in the games industry, that the negative press far outweighs any positive input his writing can provide.
Why should you be able to pick your battles without being called a hypocrite? People have every right to call you a hypocrite if that's how they see it. Pick your battles and deal with consequences.Like you expect Card to. In the meantime be aware that games and games journalism are no more important than they were before this self indulgent "debate" about so called "controversey" was repeatedly shat on the heads of people looking for news about upcoming games.
If you don't like fun games, don't get Shadow Complex. If you don't like Card's books, don't buy them, but it's dumb to take a stance against a piece of entertainment media because of a difference of opinion. It really doesn't make sense to hate people because of their opinions. We have the right to disagree (in most parts of the world), and although my opinions differ greatly with Card's I don't hate him as a person for it. I have no problem knowing that a man who has opinions that differ from mine is getting a portion of my money. He is entitled to it because of his involvement in the work. I didn't watch Mission Impossible III because I agree with Scientology.
Anyways, everyone is making it sound like Card is saying that we should engage in a genocide of homosexuals. Why does everyone get so sensitive when it comes to people having other opinions about homosexuality? No one seems to find anything wrong with open bashing of people with religious beliefs. Penn and Teller recommended that everyone eats lots of bacon to spite Muslims, and they were heralded.
Let's pretend for a moment that Card had the opposite view on homosexuality. What if people boycotted the game because Card agreed with the homosexual agenda? The people participating in the boycott would be seen as demons for not having the same opinion as Card. People would proclaim, "If you don't think it's a good game, don't buy it because of that reason, but not because of your opinion on homosexuality."
I agree that homosexuals should have equal rights, but that doesn't include a right for everyone to be nice and only have opinions that you agree with.
Ramble ramble ramble
Anyways, everyone is making it sound like Card is saying that we should engage in a genocide of homosexuals. Why does everyone get so sensitive when it comes to people having other opinions about homosexuality? No one seems to find anything wrong with open bashing of people with religious beliefs. Penn and Teller recommended that everyone eats lots of bacon to spite Muslims, and they were heralded.
Let's pretend for a moment that Card had the opposite view on homosexuality. What if people boycotted the game because Card agreed with the homosexual agenda? The people participating in the boycott would be seen as demons for not having the same opinion as Card. People would proclaim, "If you don't think it's a good game, don't buy it because of that reason, but not because of your opinion on homosexuality."
I agree that homosexuals should have equal rights, but that doesn't include a right for everyone to be nice and only have opinions that you agree with.
Ramble ramble ramble
@Mulk Calathar, Last time I checked Destructoid was about news and editorials, and this my friend, is an editorial.
I don't know about the whole the enemy of my friend is my enemy approach towards Orson Scott Card that people have. Clearly if I were gay then Orson Scott Card would be my enemy; but I'm not, so I have a little emotional distance to look at his arguments. I'll say this about Orson Scott Card, his comments about homosexuality are not the first anti-gay statements I've read but they are definitely the most well thought out. I really haven't ever heard someone be so rationally skeptical about the rise in homosexual behavior in America. Again, if I were gay then Orson Scott Card would be public enemy number one.
It's interesting to see the ideological battle unfold between Card and the gay community, perhaps I'm too dispassionate about the matter but I'm nothing if not a skeptic. The gay community seemed quite upset about the passing of prop 8, which is understandable from their viewpoint. I remember for a brief time afterwards the gay community blamed the black community who turnouted in greater numbers due to the election involving a black canidate and the black community has always voted more towards the religious Democrat party side of things. Wisely the gay community stopped that and now are blaming the people responsible for the support of prop 8, and no one individual within that group is more famously visible than Orson Scott Card.
You see the problem I have is that I've read real hate speeches and Card's "this is what's wrong with homosexuality" comments just don't sound hateful, oppositional sure, skeptical yes, but hateful no. Again if I were more emotionally invested in this issue it would be far easier to bridge the gap between opposition and hate. Hate speech is bad and it's illogical, it flouders in ad hominem and it sparks irrational behavior. Now on the other hand since when was oppositional speech wrong in the democratic process?
No comment I've read by Orson Scott Card has convinced me that he hates gays. No comments I've read about Orson Scott Card have convinced me that he is anything but oppositional to the political objectives of the gay community. Nothing I've read or watched in my life has taught me that there is anything wrong with a healthy amount of rational skeptism or opposing views on issues. If that skeptical opposition opposes my views then my work is cutout for me, so be it; thank you for a country where people can have opposing views.
If there is opposition to my political objectives I can either rationally refute those points or I can undermine the legitimacy of the opposition party by rallying as many people around me and calling the opposition hatemongers. I really prefer the first option and it really lowers my opinion of groups of people who do the second option.
Which brings me back to my point, is Orson Scott Card my enemy for stating his political views about my friends. The answer is no, not because his opinion doesn't matter to me but because his skeptism is valid. There's a lot we don't know about homosexuality; we don't know the causes and the effects of it. The gay community can't even decide among themselves if it's a choice or not. We don't know and therefore a certain amount of rational caution, in my opinion, is healthy.
Once again I state that if I were more emotionally invested in this issue I might say "uncertainty be damned, let's do this whole same-sex marriage thing". But I for one am taking a wait and see approach; either we wait for more empirical evidence on homosexuality or we wait for the democratic majority of the nation to agree and we all take the plunge together. Until then Orson Scott Card is not my enemy, he's the inevitable opposition party and arises on all issues in a democracy.
Side-Note: The huge irony is that within the mormon community Orson Scott Card was always seen as liberal for his support of the Democrat party.
It's interesting to see the ideological battle unfold between Card and the gay community, perhaps I'm too dispassionate about the matter but I'm nothing if not a skeptic. The gay community seemed quite upset about the passing of prop 8, which is understandable from their viewpoint. I remember for a brief time afterwards the gay community blamed the black community who turnouted in greater numbers due to the election involving a black canidate and the black community has always voted more towards the religious Democrat party side of things. Wisely the gay community stopped that and now are blaming the people responsible for the support of prop 8, and no one individual within that group is more famously visible than Orson Scott Card.
You see the problem I have is that I've read real hate speeches and Card's "this is what's wrong with homosexuality" comments just don't sound hateful, oppositional sure, skeptical yes, but hateful no. Again if I were more emotionally invested in this issue it would be far easier to bridge the gap between opposition and hate. Hate speech is bad and it's illogical, it flouders in ad hominem and it sparks irrational behavior. Now on the other hand since when was oppositional speech wrong in the democratic process?
No comment I've read by Orson Scott Card has convinced me that he hates gays. No comments I've read about Orson Scott Card have convinced me that he is anything but oppositional to the political objectives of the gay community. Nothing I've read or watched in my life has taught me that there is anything wrong with a healthy amount of rational skeptism or opposing views on issues. If that skeptical opposition opposes my views then my work is cutout for me, so be it; thank you for a country where people can have opposing views.
If there is opposition to my political objectives I can either rationally refute those points or I can undermine the legitimacy of the opposition party by rallying as many people around me and calling the opposition hatemongers. I really prefer the first option and it really lowers my opinion of groups of people who do the second option.
Which brings me back to my point, is Orson Scott Card my enemy for stating his political views about my friends. The answer is no, not because his opinion doesn't matter to me but because his skeptism is valid. There's a lot we don't know about homosexuality; we don't know the causes and the effects of it. The gay community can't even decide among themselves if it's a choice or not. We don't know and therefore a certain amount of rational caution, in my opinion, is healthy.
Once again I state that if I were more emotionally invested in this issue I might say "uncertainty be damned, let's do this whole same-sex marriage thing". But I for one am taking a wait and see approach; either we wait for more empirical evidence on homosexuality or we wait for the democratic majority of the nation to agree and we all take the plunge together. Until then Orson Scott Card is not my enemy, he's the inevitable opposition party and arises on all issues in a democracy.
Side-Note: The huge irony is that within the mormon community Orson Scott Card was always seen as liberal for his support of the Democrat party.
@Billy Monks
But as has already been pointed out, it becomes a little bit more complicated than it just being a guy with some opinions when he's a guy that actually devotes time, money and resources into trying to make his opinions legally binding.
As for your example, incidentally, It would be perfectly fine for someone boycotting a game if they felt that strongly about letting their money go to someone who would put time, money and resources into some pro-gay cause. I would STRONGLY disagree with their ethics, but it would remain a valid reason for them to boycott.
But as has already been pointed out, it becomes a little bit more complicated than it just being a guy with some opinions when he's a guy that actually devotes time, money and resources into trying to make his opinions legally binding.
As for your example, incidentally, It would be perfectly fine for someone boycotting a game if they felt that strongly about letting their money go to someone who would put time, money and resources into some pro-gay cause. I would STRONGLY disagree with their ethics, but it would remain a valid reason for them to boycott.
I did buy the game before all of this information was brought to light and after a lot of thought, I've decided to delete it. People may say that I've already spent the money so what's the point? Personal choice and a commitment I've made to support the gay, lesbian, transgender community. OSC doesn't just have a personal opinion against gays, he helps political movements work against them. It's one of the best games I've played in a long time (the story's sucks and they didn't have to use his material, that's for damn sure)but it's the simple things we do everyday that have the biggest impact on the causes we support. Anybody who calls this a non-issue obviously has the status quo privilege to make such a callous statement.
Monkey Island too? Jesus, you ruined my day. I don't boycott shit because it doesn't work, but I would give up gaming if I knew it would get rid of Orson Scott Card forever. Even though I don't hate his work, the message needs to be sent that society doesn't accept people like him. Of course the problem is it does.
Honesty the whole thing doesn't even come to mind for me when I play. It's a non-issue to me because of how little it impacts the game. It's not like there's a challenge room where you have to kill gay people in 5 minutes or less or something. Nothing to get worked up about, and I don't think the developers of this game should suffer for something that has a tenuous link at best.
It's worth noting that Epic/Chair has been disingenuous at best in response to all the hoopla. Marc Rein said "Card's political beliefs sure didn't come up during the game's development". However, Chair has a history with Card, having worked on Card related IP's before. When Advent Rising came out, THE EXACT SAME arguments rose, although to a lesser extent. To plead ignorance of the topic as Rein has done, seems pretty dishonest. Translation: they knew *exactly* what they were getting into, and went for the quick buck anyway.
This is a non-issue, I really do not care if you say otherwise. This is being blown way out of proportion and it is getting ridiculous. I love Destructoid but I cannot stand fat ass Jim.
Thanks especially for mentioning that boycotting isn't necessarily about hurting the manufacturer. I've proudly haven't given Microsoft a sale for years, if not ever. I know it wont make a dent in the empire, I just do it on principle.
Wonderful Article! I actually learned something!
Great discussion too, even a defense of OSC that didn't amount to STFUAJPG!
Personally I think we'd all shudder if we could somehow find out what our cash had directly funded over the years (sweatshops etc..)
Whether you Buy or not be aware of this issue!!!!
As always knowledge is power
Great discussion too, even a defense of OSC that didn't amount to STFUAJPG!
Personally I think we'd all shudder if we could somehow find out what our cash had directly funded over the years (sweatshops etc..)
Whether you Buy or not be aware of this issue!!!!
As always knowledge is power
I think I'll stay out of this round of debates :)
But big ups to Destructoid for putting intellectual content like this on their website!
But big ups to Destructoid for putting intellectual content like this on their website!
Great post, and a good read overall.
Though I still disagree, through the post I guess I still believe this really isn't an issue is because I don't really care for the controversy at hand. Frankly, I don't care about homosexuality in general, thus I don't really care about some guy having a problem with it (or supporting it for that matter), so that I don't really believe of it as an issue, especially when it comes to a video game not based around the idea.
I'm sure things would change in the future, as many opinions can only be valid at the moment in time they're made. And I still believe OSC is a great writer and I enjoyed his "Ender" and "Shadow" series, so to me that's basically all I really cared for.
It's just not an issue I can really relate to, thus my opinion of it not being that big of a deal. Some would say it's short-sighted, but one can argue that we're all innately like this to a certain degree.
Once again though, I enjoyed reading your thorough post.
Though I still disagree, through the post I guess I still believe this really isn't an issue is because I don't really care for the controversy at hand. Frankly, I don't care about homosexuality in general, thus I don't really care about some guy having a problem with it (or supporting it for that matter), so that I don't really believe of it as an issue, especially when it comes to a video game not based around the idea.
I'm sure things would change in the future, as many opinions can only be valid at the moment in time they're made. And I still believe OSC is a great writer and I enjoyed his "Ender" and "Shadow" series, so to me that's basically all I really cared for.
It's just not an issue I can really relate to, thus my opinion of it not being that big of a deal. Some would say it's short-sighted, but one can argue that we're all innately like this to a certain degree.
Once again though, I enjoyed reading your thorough post.
I completly agree that his views are that of a bigot and major homophobe but to boycott a game, that aside from taking place in a universe that card created has very little to do with him or his views, is not only stupid but absurd.
Stop rubbing gayness in my face. This is silly to Boycott a game because someone disagrees with a few petty things. OSC is not going to be hurt in the least here. Stop buying his books if you want. But this game is great and your stupid for not playing it.
You personally saying "I don't believe what that person believes so I'm not giving them
my money" does not a boycott make. Actually, boycotting requires an agenda. I don't buy Lady Gaga albums because she's an idiotic slut. I'm not "boycotting" Lady Gaga. Now, if I were refusing (with several thousand friends) to refuse to buy any of her label's albums because I want them to apologize to frogs everywhere for that idiotic dress she made from Kermit-heads, THAT'S a boycott.
You wouldn't have been boycotting Shadow Complex if you refused to buy it, you'd just be refusing to
buy it.
my money" does not a boycott make. Actually, boycotting requires an agenda. I don't buy Lady Gaga albums because she's an idiotic slut. I'm not "boycotting" Lady Gaga. Now, if I were refusing (with several thousand friends) to refuse to buy any of her label's albums because I want them to apologize to frogs everywhere for that idiotic dress she made from Kermit-heads, THAT'S a boycott.
You wouldn't have been boycotting Shadow Complex if you refused to buy it, you'd just be refusing to
buy it.
Well written, but there's a fundamental flaw to your central argument; "Boycott: To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion"
In short, a boycott requires an agenda. "Making a statement" is hardly a protest, and a lone lost buyer is hardly a coercive force. People bandy about the term boycott in the videogame industry as of late, and all of them make sense on a certain level (even though most of them are ultimately laughably pointless) except this one. What does not buying this game say about the non-buyer? "I didn't buy shadow complex because I disagree with narratives that may or may not be anti-nationalistic disestablishmentarian claptrap." Or are they pursuing an agenda: "Epic and Chair need to apologize for choosing a universe that a homophobe created, and change all the references in Shadow Complex of said universe to references of My Little Ponies instead."
Obviously "boycotters" of SC that are pursuing an agenda are in fact idiots. First, you need organization to boycott a company and coerce them into anything. 90% of said product's market needs to put a finger in the air and keep their credit cards in their wallets if that voice is to be heard. And that voice had better have a clear idea of what it wants. This "boycott" isn't about coercion.
If the "point" of this "boycott" is to make your opinions heard about homophobia, you're better off actually going to a state capitol and protesting with a sign on the lawn about how you don't want those white racist bigoted fucktards in the power bloc taking unalienable rights away from human beings.
Lets be clear: those who oppose gay marriage or are otherwise homophobic are bigoted fucktards; it's impossible to cut that any other way.
At the same time, someone who thinks that not buying a product because the creative team picked a universe created for a completely different work of fiction by a person who is a bigoted fucktard is some sort of profound or even self-satisfying protest of bigoted fucktards needs to undo their cranial-rectal inversion and breathe a deep fresh one of the real world for a minute. If you care, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING. PROTEST A WORK OF ART BECAUSE IT OFFENDS, NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE NOT INVOLVED AT ALL IN THE DEVELOPMENT OR CREATION OF SAID ART DOES.
Seriously, SG, you're eloquent and well-read, but this article is a well-written turd.
In short, a boycott requires an agenda. "Making a statement" is hardly a protest, and a lone lost buyer is hardly a coercive force. People bandy about the term boycott in the videogame industry as of late, and all of them make sense on a certain level (even though most of them are ultimately laughably pointless) except this one. What does not buying this game say about the non-buyer? "I didn't buy shadow complex because I disagree with narratives that may or may not be anti-nationalistic disestablishmentarian claptrap." Or are they pursuing an agenda: "Epic and Chair need to apologize for choosing a universe that a homophobe created, and change all the references in Shadow Complex of said universe to references of My Little Ponies instead."
Obviously "boycotters" of SC that are pursuing an agenda are in fact idiots. First, you need organization to boycott a company and coerce them into anything. 90% of said product's market needs to put a finger in the air and keep their credit cards in their wallets if that voice is to be heard. And that voice had better have a clear idea of what it wants. This "boycott" isn't about coercion.
If the "point" of this "boycott" is to make your opinions heard about homophobia, you're better off actually going to a state capitol and protesting with a sign on the lawn about how you don't want those white racist bigoted fucktards in the power bloc taking unalienable rights away from human beings.
Lets be clear: those who oppose gay marriage or are otherwise homophobic are bigoted fucktards; it's impossible to cut that any other way.
At the same time, someone who thinks that not buying a product because the creative team picked a universe created for a completely different work of fiction by a person who is a bigoted fucktard is some sort of profound or even self-satisfying protest of bigoted fucktards needs to undo their cranial-rectal inversion and breathe a deep fresh one of the real world for a minute. If you care, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND DO SOMETHING. PROTEST A WORK OF ART BECAUSE IT OFFENDS, NOT BECAUSE SOMEONE NOT INVOLVED AT ALL IN THE DEVELOPMENT OR CREATION OF SAID ART DOES.
Seriously, SG, you're eloquent and well-read, but this article is a well-written turd.
im absolutly impressed with the amount of intelligent(well mostly) responses to this very intelligent article. i had almost given up on the gaming community, although ill admit i do sometimes laugh at the shear ignorance displayed while im playing call of duty. hearing it has always been sort of reminiscant of watching little boys gripe about their time with little girls because they were afraid of cooties. so misguided by their narrow understanding, and even innocence that they fail to see something that they will later be striving for.
i find it very respectfull of you to stay on the fence in this and give room for peoples opinions while trying to do nothing but shed light on the situation. after all unabashadly attacking someone or something because thier ideals that are different than yours(however misguided) is as much of a discrace to human rights as anything OSC is doing, he just has more of an impact on the big picture than most of us.
i dont own a 360 so i cant buy shadow complex, and that at first made me quite unhappy. this has somehow managed to take some of the pain from me and my sad(but not neglected) ps3. i would buy shadow complex, but id have a bad taste in my mouth. even so, this article has helped make me aware of several things i wasnt before. i had never even heard of OSC(although i have heard of his books) and that knowledge does more damage than any protest could.
i find it very respectfull of you to stay on the fence in this and give room for peoples opinions while trying to do nothing but shed light on the situation. after all unabashadly attacking someone or something because thier ideals that are different than yours(however misguided) is as much of a discrace to human rights as anything OSC is doing, he just has more of an impact on the big picture than most of us.
i dont own a 360 so i cant buy shadow complex, and that at first made me quite unhappy. this has somehow managed to take some of the pain from me and my sad(but not neglected) ps3. i would buy shadow complex, but id have a bad taste in my mouth. even so, this article has helped make me aware of several things i wasnt before. i had never even heard of OSC(although i have heard of his books) and that knowledge does more damage than any protest could.
"after all unabashadly attacking someone or something because thier ideals that are different than yours(however misguided) is as much of a discrace to human rights as anything OSC is doing,"
Patently false.
An old saying goes "your right to throw a punch ends at the end of the other guy's nose."
Those, like myself, who refuse to tolerate bigotry against gays aren't in any way, shape or form like those we attack; it isn't acceptable to treat homosexuals with disdain because of who they are, exactly as it isn't acceptable to treat blacks, asians or jews similarly. Blackness was once a societal disease, as well.
Staying on the fence in this argument means you probably shouldn't take sides, so maybe you shouldn't take sides.
Patently false.
An old saying goes "your right to throw a punch ends at the end of the other guy's nose."
Those, like myself, who refuse to tolerate bigotry against gays aren't in any way, shape or form like those we attack; it isn't acceptable to treat homosexuals with disdain because of who they are, exactly as it isn't acceptable to treat blacks, asians or jews similarly. Blackness was once a societal disease, as well.
Staying on the fence in this argument means you probably shouldn't take sides, so maybe you shouldn't take sides.
I couldn't care less. The game is an awesome game. The demo hooked me in immediately, and I gladly purchased more MS points to buy it. (Admittedly, this was before I even knew about this controversy.)
This whole attitude of "I don't agree with you, so I'm denying myself enjoyment and you the fruits of that enjoyment" are staggering. This game was not written, produced, directed, or sold by a single person. In fact, the guy in question had very little to do with the game. He wrote the books that the game was based on, but even he admitted that he contributed very little to the game!
So, 90% of the game's proceeds should be denied to the team who developed it because 10% of the proceeds might go to the original author? Are you people kidding me?
And, I'm sorry, but being against gay marriage does not make one a homophobe. Being against everything homosexual certainly would, but being against one particular aspect does not deserve the label "homophobe". So, hypothetically one can have gay friends, get along great with gay co-workers, treat them as fellow humans on day-to-day affairs; but have reservations against legal recognition of gay marriage and suddenly he's a homophobe? Does that mean that anyone who is against welfare is suddenly a racist because the stereotype of welfare is of the black, inner-city?
Punishing the people at Chair because of the original author, who contributed very little to the game, is asinine.
This whole attitude of "I don't agree with you, so I'm denying myself enjoyment and you the fruits of that enjoyment" are staggering. This game was not written, produced, directed, or sold by a single person. In fact, the guy in question had very little to do with the game. He wrote the books that the game was based on, but even he admitted that he contributed very little to the game!
So, 90% of the game's proceeds should be denied to the team who developed it because 10% of the proceeds might go to the original author? Are you people kidding me?
And, I'm sorry, but being against gay marriage does not make one a homophobe. Being against everything homosexual certainly would, but being against one particular aspect does not deserve the label "homophobe". So, hypothetically one can have gay friends, get along great with gay co-workers, treat them as fellow humans on day-to-day affairs; but have reservations against legal recognition of gay marriage and suddenly he's a homophobe? Does that mean that anyone who is against welfare is suddenly a racist because the stereotype of welfare is of the black, inner-city?
Punishing the people at Chair because of the original author, who contributed very little to the game, is asinine.
"but being against gay marriage does not make one a homophobe."
Yes, it does. Marriage carries state and federal benefits. Denying those benefits to a monogamous couple who chooses voluntarily to enter into marriage because they are both men or women, not one of each is tantamount to denying welfare to black people because they are black. Your example is ludicrous because being against welfare is against ALL welfare. Are you against ALL marriage? No, just marriage that isn't heterosexual.
Frankly, Marriage should be a matter for the church, while the government should only recognize civil unions. God can marry whomever he wants, but the state has to recognize every civil union, because all men and women are equal, no matter who they snog.
Yes, it does. Marriage carries state and federal benefits. Denying those benefits to a monogamous couple who chooses voluntarily to enter into marriage because they are both men or women, not one of each is tantamount to denying welfare to black people because they are black. Your example is ludicrous because being against welfare is against ALL welfare. Are you against ALL marriage? No, just marriage that isn't heterosexual.
Frankly, Marriage should be a matter for the church, while the government should only recognize civil unions. God can marry whomever he wants, but the state has to recognize every civil union, because all men and women are equal, no matter who they snog.
This is ridiculous. First off... he was not the only one involved in this game, and a boycott like this can hurt a small start up company. Regardless on whether they've been bought out or not.
Secondly, OSC has a right to his opinion, and you rallying a boycott to squash his opinion makes you the same as him rallying a club to squash the opinion of people who feel same-sex marriage is right. I personally support same-sex marriage and I hope that two of my best friends can finally tie the knot and seal their bond. But, if you've ever read any of OSC's books, you would find that he seems to be more hung up on the sanctity of marriage as a religious right and not on being a homophobe.
Maybe he is truly a homophobe, but his writings suggest an obsession with sealing a bond and procreating to further the human (or alien) race. Not their sexual preference. I do not know for sure, I do not know the man personally... and I'm sure neither do you.
So please feel free to find whatever way you can to silence him, but I seriously doubt this piddly game story check is anywhere close to his actual book collection income. This is why we cant have anything nice.
Secondly, OSC has a right to his opinion, and you rallying a boycott to squash his opinion makes you the same as him rallying a club to squash the opinion of people who feel same-sex marriage is right. I personally support same-sex marriage and I hope that two of my best friends can finally tie the knot and seal their bond. But, if you've ever read any of OSC's books, you would find that he seems to be more hung up on the sanctity of marriage as a religious right and not on being a homophobe.
Maybe he is truly a homophobe, but his writings suggest an obsession with sealing a bond and procreating to further the human (or alien) race. Not their sexual preference. I do not know for sure, I do not know the man personally... and I'm sure neither do you.
So please feel free to find whatever way you can to silence him, but I seriously doubt this piddly game story check is anywhere close to his actual book collection income. This is why we cant have anything nice.
The idea of boycotting this kind of thing really depends on the assumption that you can live your life without participating in immoral or amoral acts. That's an illusion. Everything you do is tainted with immoral components. International stability. Capitalism. The chain of production and delivery.
What do you think you're really accomplishing? If you want to have any impact on the world (which will be minimal to begin with), there are literally thousands of better options. I guess you can make that personal choice if you feel it is necessary to maintain cognitive continuity, but I guess I just don't understand the idea behind being preachy or institutional about this decision. Aren't there better ways to spend your time?
What do you think you're really accomplishing? If you want to have any impact on the world (which will be minimal to begin with), there are literally thousands of better options. I guess you can make that personal choice if you feel it is necessary to maintain cognitive continuity, but I guess I just don't understand the idea behind being preachy or institutional about this decision. Aren't there better ways to spend your time?
May I also invite everyone to boycott all Disney films, based on the long standing belief that its founder was an anti-semite?
Thought not...
Thought not...
Good post. Both the Destructoid post and your own are very well argued, well written, and make good points even though they are in disagreement on several points.
Game is pretty fun, so I don't really care what he thinks about gays or whatnot. I haven't finished it yet, but do you get to kill fags at the end?
In the end, the boycott hasn't changed my choice to buy the game or not. As long as assholes like Fox News can freely spread their hatred, a game about shooting people and getting power-ups that was written by a fag-hater doesn't seem like that big a deal.
We live in such a cry-baby, hyper sensitive world nowadays, that this shit even gets mentioned. Next time I boot up Shadow Complex, I'll imagine the bad guys are wearing rainbow shirts and lisping.
In the end, the boycott hasn't changed my choice to buy the game or not. As long as assholes like Fox News can freely spread their hatred, a game about shooting people and getting power-ups that was written by a fag-hater doesn't seem like that big a deal.
We live in such a cry-baby, hyper sensitive world nowadays, that this shit even gets mentioned. Next time I boot up Shadow Complex, I'll imagine the bad guys are wearing rainbow shirts and lisping.
I do have to laugh about the number of people who clearly haven't actually read my argument or the comments I and other people have made before weighing in here. Of course, if you are one of the people still saying that boycotting is 'stupid' then you're exactly the people that I'm addressing in the article; read it again because my whole point is 'no, actually it's a complex issue'. And if you're saying it's stupid to boycott because the game has nothing to do with his views, read it again and ask yourself whether the game having anything to do with his views actually changes any of my arguments or not... I think you'll find it does not.
Anyway, one of the better responses up there, TheStripe said the big flaw was that I'm not talking about a boycott, which is:
" "Boycott: To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion"
I'm a little confused. Yes, there are a small group of people acting together in abstaining from buying Shadow Complex as an expression of protest or disfavor directed towards Orson Scott Card. It's not a large boycott, so there is no question that it is being used as a means of coercion, but it's there.
Perhaps your critique is, as it seems to be, that I talk about people coming to personal decisions about whether they want to boycott or not, but one person's decision does not a boycott make. While it's true that yes, one person not buying the game is just one person not buying the game, decision to be PART of a boycott (which is possibly the better phrase to use) is of course a personal thing which can be made for all sorts of personal reasons. The fact that they are free to do what they like with their money is indeed personal and could be a private matter. But when they are coming out and saying 'this is how I am exercising my right to spend my money freely, and this is the reason why', then yes, they are acting as part of the boycott.
You might ask 'where's the organisation? Where's the 'acting together'? Who is in charge here?' And I would have to say, sure, this isn't a particularly organised boycott - but the fact remains that there are a small but distinct number of people who have decided to raise their hands and for the same or similar reasons state 'I will not be buying this game because of this issue and I would encourage any others who agree to do the same.' However personal their boycott-joining decision was, that still makes a boycott.
Anyway, one of the better responses up there, TheStripe said the big flaw was that I'm not talking about a boycott, which is:
" "Boycott: To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion"
I'm a little confused. Yes, there are a small group of people acting together in abstaining from buying Shadow Complex as an expression of protest or disfavor directed towards Orson Scott Card. It's not a large boycott, so there is no question that it is being used as a means of coercion, but it's there.
Perhaps your critique is, as it seems to be, that I talk about people coming to personal decisions about whether they want to boycott or not, but one person's decision does not a boycott make. While it's true that yes, one person not buying the game is just one person not buying the game, decision to be PART of a boycott (which is possibly the better phrase to use) is of course a personal thing which can be made for all sorts of personal reasons. The fact that they are free to do what they like with their money is indeed personal and could be a private matter. But when they are coming out and saying 'this is how I am exercising my right to spend my money freely, and this is the reason why', then yes, they are acting as part of the boycott.
You might ask 'where's the organisation? Where's the 'acting together'? Who is in charge here?' And I would have to say, sure, this isn't a particularly organised boycott - but the fact remains that there are a small but distinct number of people who have decided to raise their hands and for the same or similar reasons state 'I will not be buying this game because of this issue and I would encourage any others who agree to do the same.' However personal their boycott-joining decision was, that still makes a boycott.
My biggest issue with this particular "boycott" is that it's at least ten times as complicated as it needs to be. People who can seriously decline purchasing this game (given that they wanted to in the first place) because of a bigot profiting from it should really examine the whole of their consumer practices.
Is financial fraud wrong?
Take you money out of the bank.
Is sweatshop labor wrong?
Throw out 90% of your designer goods and buy all your clothing at consignment stores and local markets.
Do you think it's wrong for the rich to take advantage of the lesser-incomed individuals in civilized society?
Don't shop at WalMart, KMart, Target, Most grocery stores, all fast food establishments and any shopping mall.
This is just another case of people who think they have a social conscience pretending to do something of merit. The issue of Homosexual marriage is complicated, depending on how deluded you are about one's right to be a bigot, but this "Boycott" is not. If you care about gay marriage, go oppose OSC at his public talks or his book signings, or even his Amazon.com reader reviews. This site and it's followers should know that's 100X more effective that kvetching amongst ourselves. In addition, don't buy Shadow Complex.
If the only thing you're doing to protest OSC is refusing to buy a product he is making a tiny bit of profit on and had little to no hand in crafting, then why fucking bother. Do something about an issue you care about, or stop pretending to care.
Is financial fraud wrong?
Take you money out of the bank.
Is sweatshop labor wrong?
Throw out 90% of your designer goods and buy all your clothing at consignment stores and local markets.
Do you think it's wrong for the rich to take advantage of the lesser-incomed individuals in civilized society?
Don't shop at WalMart, KMart, Target, Most grocery stores, all fast food establishments and any shopping mall.
This is just another case of people who think they have a social conscience pretending to do something of merit. The issue of Homosexual marriage is complicated, depending on how deluded you are about one's right to be a bigot, but this "Boycott" is not. If you care about gay marriage, go oppose OSC at his public talks or his book signings, or even his Amazon.com reader reviews. This site and it's followers should know that's 100X more effective that kvetching amongst ourselves. In addition, don't buy Shadow Complex.
If the only thing you're doing to protest OSC is refusing to buy a product he is making a tiny bit of profit on and had little to no hand in crafting, then why fucking bother. Do something about an issue you care about, or stop pretending to care.
Oh, and I forgot to mention - a number of people say that it's unfair to harm the developers who worked hard on making this game, to bring them down with OSC in the protest. While I agree that if this were a large scale boycott it would be unfortunate that people at Chair were getting caught in the crossfire, they work with OSC, and are most likely, as someone pointed out, perfectly aware of his opinions and must know that some people consider that reason enough to not buy the game - they knew or should have known the risks of working with him going in, he is not private about his views. It was, nevertheless, their decision to work with him.
However, it's a small boycott, a drop in the ocean, whose aim is clearly to highlight the issue, not significantly impact on sales.
However, it's a small boycott, a drop in the ocean, whose aim is clearly to highlight the issue, not significantly impact on sales.
Yes, it is a complex issue. And that is precisely why I very rarely allow myself to be swayed by these kind of arguments. When you open these cans of ethical worms that question your principles, they invariably pull a thread that leads to an entangled mess of moral contradictions.
While I agree that people should be able to choose there battles, on a personal level I absolutely would not feel comfortable making a pro-active stance against something of this nature, while happily putting my Nike clad feet up to watch The Pianist. Our lives are littered on a day to day basis with these ambiguities that we allow to pass our moral radar unnoticed. So when issues like this arise, I make an informed choice that this isn't a tightrope I want to tread.
I don't think that's missing the point.
While I agree that people should be able to choose there battles, on a personal level I absolutely would not feel comfortable making a pro-active stance against something of this nature, while happily putting my Nike clad feet up to watch The Pianist. Our lives are littered on a day to day basis with these ambiguities that we allow to pass our moral radar unnoticed. So when issues like this arise, I make an informed choice that this isn't a tightrope I want to tread.
I don't think that's missing the point.
@TheStripe
"If the only thing you're doing to protest OSC is refusing to buy a product he is making a tiny bit of profit on and had little to no hand in crafting, then why fucking bother. Do something about an issue you care about, or stop pretending to care."
Oh, come now this is laughable. This whole 'pretending to care' issue. You seem like a reasonable person, so surely you are not so much into yourself that you can realise that there are people who care about this issue a whole lot, whether it seems personally important to you or not. I'm sure that people who chose to join the boycott would also boycott other products, in such cases where they also touch upon an issue that THEY, personally, feel as strongly about. Not what you think they should feel strongly about, or anyone else, but them.
@Zaradan
And that's fine. You've decided not to walk that tightrope, as you've put it. But you're quite clear about the reasons why - you believe there is just too much baggage associated with a boycott. Other people went the other way.
When I take issue is when people say things like 'this whole thing is a pointless non-debate' when the very fact that this issue is being talked about so much, and that there's clearly an intelligent discussion being had, already more than demonstrates that to be false.
"If the only thing you're doing to protest OSC is refusing to buy a product he is making a tiny bit of profit on and had little to no hand in crafting, then why fucking bother. Do something about an issue you care about, or stop pretending to care."
Oh, come now this is laughable. This whole 'pretending to care' issue. You seem like a reasonable person, so surely you are not so much into yourself that you can realise that there are people who care about this issue a whole lot, whether it seems personally important to you or not. I'm sure that people who chose to join the boycott would also boycott other products, in such cases where they also touch upon an issue that THEY, personally, feel as strongly about. Not what you think they should feel strongly about, or anyone else, but them.
@Zaradan
And that's fine. You've decided not to walk that tightrope, as you've put it. But you're quite clear about the reasons why - you believe there is just too much baggage associated with a boycott. Other people went the other way.
When I take issue is when people say things like 'this whole thing is a pointless non-debate' when the very fact that this issue is being talked about so much, and that there's clearly an intelligent discussion being had, already more than demonstrates that to be false.
I really couldn't care less about the people that boycott this game. I'm playing the game and I enjoy it.
I'm one of those gay gamers here. I didn't boycott this game because I saw no evidence of funds being given to an anti-gay agenda. I've only seen evidence of one anti-gay asshat getting some scratch. I purchased the game because it sounded amazing, and one of the guys who wrote the game (Peter David) is pretty pro-gay.
Then I found out a couple of the people at Chair are Mormon which was unsettling. Mormons by themselves are no big deal, but Mormons + Orson Scott Card = some of my money possibly going to an anti-gay organization.
Which is why I've decided to give to gay causes and make crystal clear I was doing so because I bought Shadow Complex. It made me feel better and it might make you feel better if you really want to play the game but feel weird about paying for it.
Some people think the boycott is stupid, I think its stupid when you don't think about where your money is going.
Then I found out a couple of the people at Chair are Mormon which was unsettling. Mormons by themselves are no big deal, but Mormons + Orson Scott Card = some of my money possibly going to an anti-gay organization.
Which is why I've decided to give to gay causes and make crystal clear I was doing so because I bought Shadow Complex. It made me feel better and it might make you feel better if you really want to play the game but feel weird about paying for it.
Some people think the boycott is stupid, I think its stupid when you don't think about where your money is going.
A boycott of the game hurts much more than OSC or his wallet (has anyone CONFIRMED that he gets royalties based on sales or did he just get a contract payment...this info would certainly make the whole point moot). Does it make you any better a person by supporting a movement that will harm more than your intended target, by simply saying the ends justfiy the means? Is the colateral damage worth it? As long as there are those willing to blindly sacrifice (themselves or moreso, others) for a "cause", I think concern about those behind this "cause" is warranted.
I see evil on both sides of this and frankly, this is a pretty stupid place to "draw the line".
I see evil on both sides of this and frankly, this is a pretty stupid place to "draw the line".
"surely you are not so much into yourself that you can realise that there are people who care about this issue a whole lot"
But not enough to start organizing a highly visible, coercive boycott of OSC's bread-money products and speeches? Hit up google. The hardcore niche of the gamer sect is the only one talking about this, so it's not really even about making a collective feeling known. Or if it was, it failed miserably.
It's a question of degrees. Boycotting this game is like saying "I'm going to start using a reusable grocery bag for every four plastic grocery bags I use. I'm also going to continue driving my Hummer around the corner to the store. I care about the environment." If you care that Homophobe OSC is making money to spend on anti-gay agendas, then you need to step it up. Just boycotting this game isn't doing anything at all. You need to boycott Epic Games, Chair, Easton Press, and anyone and anything that's ever done business with OSC. Boycott in the sense that you make it known that you're avoiding these products because of their relationship with an influential homophobe, and attempt to get others on the bandwagon. Targeting a single product in order to make a statement is laughable.
But not enough to start organizing a highly visible, coercive boycott of OSC's bread-money products and speeches? Hit up google. The hardcore niche of the gamer sect is the only one talking about this, so it's not really even about making a collective feeling known. Or if it was, it failed miserably.
It's a question of degrees. Boycotting this game is like saying "I'm going to start using a reusable grocery bag for every four plastic grocery bags I use. I'm also going to continue driving my Hummer around the corner to the store. I care about the environment." If you care that Homophobe OSC is making money to spend on anti-gay agendas, then you need to step it up. Just boycotting this game isn't doing anything at all. You need to boycott Epic Games, Chair, Easton Press, and anyone and anything that's ever done business with OSC. Boycott in the sense that you make it known that you're avoiding these products because of their relationship with an influential homophobe, and attempt to get others on the bandwagon. Targeting a single product in order to make a statement is laughable.
TheStripe - Now you're just being ridiculous. Let's say I've decided that I don't like Company A for whatever reason. I may decide for myself I don't want to give any of my money to Company A. I may then decide that I will tell my close friends and family about Company A and encourage them to act in a similar manner. If I feel particularly strongly about it I may find other people who feel the same way and we may make our feelings about Company A known on the internet. I may decide that this issue means so much to me that I spend a lot of time and money and effort in not only getting the message out about Company A but also anyone who has anything to do with them - this is what you might call the end of the line.
But then again, I might not. I might content myself that I am making informed decisions and I have given my close friends and family the tools to do the same, and hope that they will pass the message on. That seems like a reasonable enough, if modest goal to me. But you are implying that the only 'proper' way to do this would be to take it all the way to the end of the line.
I'm glad that I don't live in this world where only the extreme course of action with the most visible results is the one of any worth. As it is, no, this boycott some people have taken part in has not enlightened tens and thousands of people across the world, does not seek to harm OSC and anyone that comes into contact him, but what it has done is allowed the hundreds and hundreds of people that read these pages to be a little more informed than they previously were. It boggles my mind that you'd consider that a failure.
But then again, I might not. I might content myself that I am making informed decisions and I have given my close friends and family the tools to do the same, and hope that they will pass the message on. That seems like a reasonable enough, if modest goal to me. But you are implying that the only 'proper' way to do this would be to take it all the way to the end of the line.
I'm glad that I don't live in this world where only the extreme course of action with the most visible results is the one of any worth. As it is, no, this boycott some people have taken part in has not enlightened tens and thousands of people across the world, does not seek to harm OSC and anyone that comes into contact him, but what it has done is allowed the hundreds and hundreds of people that read these pages to be a little more informed than they previously were. It boggles my mind that you'd consider that a failure.
I am a little disappointed that, after all these comments that no one has seemed to fact check the assumptions of the original article.
Good journalists (or op-ed writers, w/e) know better than to use obscure connections within the facts to create the base to write an article on. Apparently no one commenting here had the idea to check and see exactly how those facts actually line up. (If someone did and I missed it, I apologize in full.)
The most important fact left out of this entire argument is that Chair Entertainment, a subsidy of Epic Games, completely and wholly owns the "Shadow Complex" IP. Odd, yes, that OSC's book "Empire" set within this universe arrived before the game, but 1) games take some time to develop in general and 2) Shadow Complex has been in development for somewhere around 2 years.
The original article makes it seem that the property is Card's and Chair licensed it from him. I cannot comment on whether OSC is receiving some kind of financial gain from "Shadow Complex" simply because there is no proof of such. However, I must say I doubt this is the case until proven otherwise.
How does this change the argument? Well, it's pretty obvious, but in case you don't see it, by boycotting "Shadow Complex" you are, in no way that anyone is certain of, hurting OSC's contributions to any organization he is a part of. I guess you could consider yourself sending a message to Chair that you will not support them because they choose to let a popular author write a story set in their IP, but the business of games is just business, and they want to make money like the rest of us. OSC's book and the royalties they would likely gain from the sell of it FAR outweigh any financial impact you could possibly have by boycotting "Shadow Complex".
In conclusion, leave politics out of games. The point made above about the other stands one could take against corporations that themselves support questionable policies would be a far better un-use of someones resources. In America, and any other democratic republic, it is of course, your prerogative to choose to spend how you want. I just think this whole argument is rather silly. Don't buy OSC's book if you want to make a statement to him.
Good journalists (or op-ed writers, w/e) know better than to use obscure connections within the facts to create the base to write an article on. Apparently no one commenting here had the idea to check and see exactly how those facts actually line up. (If someone did and I missed it, I apologize in full.)
The most important fact left out of this entire argument is that Chair Entertainment, a subsidy of Epic Games, completely and wholly owns the "Shadow Complex" IP. Odd, yes, that OSC's book "Empire" set within this universe arrived before the game, but 1) games take some time to develop in general and 2) Shadow Complex has been in development for somewhere around 2 years.
The original article makes it seem that the property is Card's and Chair licensed it from him. I cannot comment on whether OSC is receiving some kind of financial gain from "Shadow Complex" simply because there is no proof of such. However, I must say I doubt this is the case until proven otherwise.
How does this change the argument? Well, it's pretty obvious, but in case you don't see it, by boycotting "Shadow Complex" you are, in no way that anyone is certain of, hurting OSC's contributions to any organization he is a part of. I guess you could consider yourself sending a message to Chair that you will not support them because they choose to let a popular author write a story set in their IP, but the business of games is just business, and they want to make money like the rest of us. OSC's book and the royalties they would likely gain from the sell of it FAR outweigh any financial impact you could possibly have by boycotting "Shadow Complex".
In conclusion, leave politics out of games. The point made above about the other stands one could take against corporations that themselves support questionable policies would be a far better un-use of someones resources. In America, and any other democratic republic, it is of course, your prerogative to choose to spend how you want. I just think this whole argument is rather silly. Don't buy OSC's book if you want to make a statement to him.
@skrilla
"The original article makes it seem that the property is Card's and Chair licensed it from him. I cannot comment on whether OSC is receiving some kind of financial gain from "Shadow Complex" simply because there is no proof of such. However, I must say I doubt this is the case until proven otherwise."
Actually, I make absolutely no reference whatsoever about who licensed what from whom and who owns what. I do, however, claim that he is involved with the game, which is a reasonable assumption to make considering that he has given interviews in relation to the game (for example, one which you can find on giant bomb) and that there is some form of collaborative effort going on in creating this Empire universe, which is evident when you see that the books are being written concurrently with the game(s) and they inform each other. Because it is a private company and individual, we will probably never find out the details, but in most cases where someone makes a contribution to a particular fiction's story or characters, or there is some sort of collaborative effort, what are sometimes called 'format royalties' are split among the contributors. In OSC's case I think it is unlikely to be a great amount of royalties (because his contribution to the actual game fiction is probably rather minimal). However, given there's currently no way of knowing otherwise, acting on the assumption that OSC may be getting some money is not as unreasonable as you say.
Should it somehow arise that OSC makes nothing out of the game, that undoubtedly makes the case for boycott much weaker and the boycotters would have to work much harder to justify their actions without broadening the scope of their boycott. But please do not speak as if I have just made up a bunch of shit without checking because a) I hardly said anything about who owns what in the first place and b) It seems I looked into this more than you think.
"The original article makes it seem that the property is Card's and Chair licensed it from him. I cannot comment on whether OSC is receiving some kind of financial gain from "Shadow Complex" simply because there is no proof of such. However, I must say I doubt this is the case until proven otherwise."
Actually, I make absolutely no reference whatsoever about who licensed what from whom and who owns what. I do, however, claim that he is involved with the game, which is a reasonable assumption to make considering that he has given interviews in relation to the game (for example, one which you can find on giant bomb) and that there is some form of collaborative effort going on in creating this Empire universe, which is evident when you see that the books are being written concurrently with the game(s) and they inform each other. Because it is a private company and individual, we will probably never find out the details, but in most cases where someone makes a contribution to a particular fiction's story or characters, or there is some sort of collaborative effort, what are sometimes called 'format royalties' are split among the contributors. In OSC's case I think it is unlikely to be a great amount of royalties (because his contribution to the actual game fiction is probably rather minimal). However, given there's currently no way of knowing otherwise, acting on the assumption that OSC may be getting some money is not as unreasonable as you say.
Should it somehow arise that OSC makes nothing out of the game, that undoubtedly makes the case for boycott much weaker and the boycotters would have to work much harder to justify their actions without broadening the scope of their boycott. But please do not speak as if I have just made up a bunch of shit without checking because a) I hardly said anything about who owns what in the first place and b) It seems I looked into this more than you think.
@Surplus Gamer
If you inferred that I was accusing you of "making shit up", I apologize. The only accusation that I made of your article was that it inferred that OSC was directly responsible for the Shadow Complex IP, which I'm sure you'll agree, lends tremendous credit for anyone making the case to boycott. I feel that, in all news/op-ed, that the consumer of information has the right to know exactly what it is that the conversation is about.
"One thing I will not be discussing is whether it is necessary to separate the artwork from the artist. "
The first thing that a reasonable person would infer from this statement is that the two subjects of your article, OSC and Shadow Complex, fit into these two words, artwork and artist.
"Briefly, though, I would argue that it is not only unnecessary but sometimes impossible to separate artwork from artist. "
And again, you use the same language which lends to the same implication: that OSC is the artist of Shadow Complex, the art.
Yes, down to the nitty gritty, you did not say OSC created Shadow Complex. But it seems that you were content to let the implication hang out there without tying down the facts one way or the other. If there is to be a pseudo conversation about a topic like homosexuality in the context of video games, a topic that everyone would agree is highly inflammatory, I believe that you owe your readers the full facts surrounding the controversy.
I do not contest that OSC has a relationship to the Shadow Complex IP, and his worldview is a widely known fact. In the end, Chair was the entity that created an excellent game and worked very hard to do it. No matter the scale, when you start writing articles that could effect the income of a person/entity such as Chair, or OSC for that matter, you owe it to all parties involved to allow your readers to make an informed decision.
I do applaud you for writing an article that explores both sides of the argument, instead of one that advocates one or the other. And again, I never felt that you didn't understand the whole dynamic, only that you didn't express all of the relevant and important facts of the case. Thanks for your reply.
If you inferred that I was accusing you of "making shit up", I apologize. The only accusation that I made of your article was that it inferred that OSC was directly responsible for the Shadow Complex IP, which I'm sure you'll agree, lends tremendous credit for anyone making the case to boycott. I feel that, in all news/op-ed, that the consumer of information has the right to know exactly what it is that the conversation is about.
"One thing I will not be discussing is whether it is necessary to separate the artwork from the artist. "
The first thing that a reasonable person would infer from this statement is that the two subjects of your article, OSC and Shadow Complex, fit into these two words, artwork and artist.
"Briefly, though, I would argue that it is not only unnecessary but sometimes impossible to separate artwork from artist. "
And again, you use the same language which lends to the same implication: that OSC is the artist of Shadow Complex, the art.
Yes, down to the nitty gritty, you did not say OSC created Shadow Complex. But it seems that you were content to let the implication hang out there without tying down the facts one way or the other. If there is to be a pseudo conversation about a topic like homosexuality in the context of video games, a topic that everyone would agree is highly inflammatory, I believe that you owe your readers the full facts surrounding the controversy.
I do not contest that OSC has a relationship to the Shadow Complex IP, and his worldview is a widely known fact. In the end, Chair was the entity that created an excellent game and worked very hard to do it. No matter the scale, when you start writing articles that could effect the income of a person/entity such as Chair, or OSC for that matter, you owe it to all parties involved to allow your readers to make an informed decision.
I do applaud you for writing an article that explores both sides of the argument, instead of one that advocates one or the other. And again, I never felt that you didn't understand the whole dynamic, only that you didn't express all of the relevant and important facts of the case. Thanks for your reply.
@Skrilla
Well, it's true, I didn't directly address the issue and some people could have been left with the impression that it's OSC's IP which he is licensing to Chair. It's true that some people could come away from the article believing OSC was more responsible for the game's fiction than he actually was... what you might not realise is that I originally wrote a piece about twice as long where I went into some of these sorts of surrounding issues, but I decided to reduce it to a more focused piece in the interests of being concise - after all, the pertinent background information is available in lots of different places, but I only have so much space to get my opinion across. I did start writing from an informed position, and the intent of anything that got left out was not to mislead, and I'm glad you don't think it was.
Incidentally, looking back I didn't mean to respond as grumpily as I did, and thanks for your considered reply.
Well, it's true, I didn't directly address the issue and some people could have been left with the impression that it's OSC's IP which he is licensing to Chair. It's true that some people could come away from the article believing OSC was more responsible for the game's fiction than he actually was... what you might not realise is that I originally wrote a piece about twice as long where I went into some of these sorts of surrounding issues, but I decided to reduce it to a more focused piece in the interests of being concise - after all, the pertinent background information is available in lots of different places, but I only have so much space to get my opinion across. I did start writing from an informed position, and the intent of anything that got left out was not to mislead, and I'm glad you don't think it was.
Incidentally, looking back I didn't mean to respond as grumpily as I did, and thanks for your considered reply.
follow
