Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Recent Events and The New DLC

2»

Comments

  • drizzlynewtdrizzlynewt Posts: 104Registered Users

    So they used the pic from the Daily Stormer site? Your point?

    They didn't use the picture from the Daily Stormer site though, the article was posted BEFORE the Daily Stormer was. The Daily Stormer used their picture, not vice versa.

    Never mind that both those threads came months before this Daily Stormer article even existed, so people were voicing objections long before the article emerged. I have no idea how people can even entertain the vaguest of possibilities that this is something that originated there. :\
  • MaedrethnirMaedrethnir Senior Member Posts: 5,509Registered Users

    Then it evolved into this, here you will find quote you have been searching for, this CA_Ella comment on the other hand has not led to thread's termination: https://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/1746720717346294901?ctp=15

    Ah, well, thank you!

    I'm struggling to understand how people think this is, in any way, a misquote. It's exactly what people are saying was said.
    You are most welcome!

    As it usually is with topics of similar breed. It is either ignorance or malice. Or both.
    Drowned in stars, bloated we shine.
    ... .... .... --··-- -. --- - . .- .-. ... ·-·-·- --- -. .-.. -.-- -.. .-. . .- -- ... -. --- .-- ·-·-·-

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,097Registered Users

    So they used the pic from the Daily Stormer site? Your point?

    They didn't use the picture from the Daily Stormer site though, the article was posted BEFORE the Daily Stormer was. The Daily Stormer used their picture, not vice versa.

    Never mind that both those threads came months before this Daily Stormer article even existed, so people were voicing objections long before the article emerged. I have no idea how people can even entertain the vaguest of possibilities that this is something that originated there. :\
    That it blew up in the way it did was because certain people decided to get the Daily Stormer crowd involved.

    There's no other "accuracy" issue that had these results.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,741Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Well, another thread is starting to move down the tube to the toilet. Some of the same people that have caused other threads to be closed seem to be prime characters. I strongly suggest a few folks take a deep breath and review their personal agendas.

    Games are supposed to be fun, not personal statements of life choices or credos for a perfect world order.

    Any more personal comments about other folks, and any more "false flagging" is going to get the thread closed.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,309Registered Users
    edited October 2018
    Well, another thread is starting to move down the tube to the toilet. Some of the same people that have caused other threads to be closed seem to be prime characters. I strongly suggest a few folks take a deep breath and review their personal agendas.

    Games are supposed to be fun, not personal statements of life choices or credos for a perfect world order.

    Any more personal comments about other folks, and any more "false flagging" is going to get the thread closed.



    I remember when there was a ban on threads concerning 100 Longbowmen vs 100 Musketeers due to them always ending in a 'brawl'. This issue is steeped in politics (through certain people's perception) and in the centre concerns people shouting for a person to get punished or lose their job which considering she works in these forums can't be nice.

    I'd be happy with shutting these threads down when they appear.
  • SaborSabor Posts: 229Registered Users
    I will just say I did not want this thread to focus on the issue regarding CA and the masses. This was simply an inquisitive piece asking for anyone's opinion about whether the new Warhammer DLC would be affected since Three Kingdoms was down voted into oblivion at least in part to the recent debacle. Seeing as most people did not read my entire original post or think that I am trying to start a conflict on the forum when I literally was just trying to promote awareness and discussion in regards to the future of Total War: Warhammer. This coupled with moderators refusing to reply back to me and eager to move this topic or shut it down entirely I say just go ahead and close it. :/
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,309Registered Users
    edited October 2018
    People are all mouth, there's no reason to think that it will affect DLC sales, what other game is like TW? Although.. on one hand I'd be disappointed but I may see the funny side if CA just focus on the Chinese market in the future.
  • drizzlynewtdrizzlynewt Posts: 104Registered Users

    That it blew up in the way it did was because certain people decided to get the Daily Stormer crowd involved.

    There's no other "accuracy" issue that had these results.

    One Angry Gamer is a much bigger website than the Daily Stormer though. Doesn't logic dictate that it "blew up" when it appeared on that and that the Daily Stormer was a consequence of that having happened?

    Perhaps no other "accuracy" issue had these results because no other accuracy issue came with a representative of the company saying, practically word for word, what a representative of another company had recently said about the same issue in one of their games which had been a massive news story, leading to websites viewing it as a way of prolonging an ongoing issue and, thereby, attracting visitors?

    I don't understand why you're looking at this situation and jumping to the conclusion that the people behind it must be neo-Nazi white supremacists, not just the same people who got annoyed when the same thing just happened, like, a month ago.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,097Registered Users

    That it blew up in the way it did was because certain people decided to get the Daily Stormer crowd involved.

    There's no other "accuracy" issue that had these results.

    One Angry Gamer is a much bigger website than the Daily Stormer though. Doesn't logic dictate that it "blew up" when it appeared on that and that the Daily Stormer was a consequence of that having happened?

    Perhaps no other "accuracy" issue had these results because no other accuracy issue came with a representative of the company saying, practically word for word, what a representative of another company had recently said about the same issue in one of their games which had been a massive news story, leading to websites viewing it as a way of prolonging an ongoing issue and, thereby, attracting visitors?

    I don't understand why you're looking at this situation and jumping to the conclusion that the people behind it must be neo-Nazi white supremacists, not just the same people who got annoyed when the same thing just happened, like, a month ago.
    Because they're the crowd most likely to respond violently to perceived attacks against presumed male superiority hence why people involved them? Arch and OAG have complained about other issues before, but never with this sort of reaction, even when it was about stuff like WoC pre-order or the BM campaign pack.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,309Registered Users
    They all jumped in before looking at the facts, if you look on Arch Warhammer's YouTube he admits in the notes his mistakes... well some of them.
  • drizzlynewtdrizzlynewt Posts: 104Registered Users

    Because they're the crowd most likely to respond violently to perceived attacks against presumed male superiority hence why people involved them? Arch and OAG have complained about other issues before, but never with this sort of reaction, even when it was about stuff like WoC pre-order or the BM campaign pack.

    So you don't think that the fact that there's just been a MASSIVE gaming story about a triple A title where company representatives said the same thing about people taking issue with the same thing has led to this getting more exposure and reaction than it otherwise would have?
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,804Registered Users

    Because they're the crowd most likely to respond violently to perceived attacks against presumed male superiority hence why people involved them? Arch and OAG have complained about other issues before, but never with this sort of reaction, even when it was about stuff like WoC pre-order or the BM campaign pack.

    So you don't think that the fact that there's just been a MASSIVE gaming story about a triple A title where company representatives said the same thing about people taking issue with the same thing has led to this getting more exposure and reaction than it otherwise would have?
    So this comes from another game?

    No matter how I look at it this gets less and less about CA. CA seem to be the innocent victims of lies and misplaced anger.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • drizzlynewtdrizzlynewt Posts: 104Registered Users

    So this comes from another game?

    No matter how I look at it this gets less and less about CA. CA seem to be the innocent victims of lies and misplaced anger.

    It doesn't come from another game.

    The subject of video game developers saying that people who don't agree with their political ideals shouldn't buy their games had been brought to the forefront of the public consciousness amongst gamers as a consequence of the Battlefield fiasco.

    As a consequence, when another developer - in this case CA - does the exact same thing it's more newsworthy than it would otherwise be because it ties in to an ongoing news narrative. It means that more people paid attention to what CA did than might have otherwise.

    It does NOT mean that people saying that CA did what they did are lying and they're "innocent victims".

    It's unquestionable; The link to the place where it happened is provided above so you can check for yourself. Ella *did* say that if people don't like what they're doing - which it certainly at least appears they *are* doing for political reasons of increasing representation - then CA doesn't want them buying their products anyway.

    That doesn't make it a cut and dry issue of CA being the bad guys; given that CA have not prohibited people who they don't agree with from buying their products they are only voicing an opinion and indicating that the people who are unhappy with their decision are not the people they want to market to. You can argue - reasonably enough - that it's a right of a private company to do that.

    But it does mean that when people say that CA - or at least a representative of them - have said "Don't like it, don't buy it, we don't want you as customers anyway" it's not a lie.

    *That* is what the majority of people who are displeased with the situation object to. It's not the number of women in the game, it's not some sort of white supremacist Nazi agenda, it's people who don't believe that it's the place of a computer game developer to act as a moral arbiter. People feel that the wishes of the customer should be prioritised in commerce, rather than the company that is provide the service or good mandating standards to them.


    I really don't understand what's going on here. You certainly seem to have done your best to be helpful to me earlier, so I'm not going to assume that this is you acting in bad faith and intentionally trying to mislead or lie to people, but follow this link:

    https://steamcommunity.com/app/214950/discussions/0/1746720717346294901?ctp=15

    It's right there, at the top, plain as day: "People saying they won't buy the game because there are too many women in it is fine with us - if that's their reason, we'd rather they didn't anyway."

    THAT is what people are saying Ella said. She did say it, plain as day. Can't you see that it really happened, that people aren't lying or misquoting? Because... I dunno. If your position is that she said it and you think fair enough, you feel like it's an appropriate thing to say then fine, I can certainly understand if that's what you think, y'know? But if you're just going to continue saying that people who say that she said that are lying then I don't really know what else I can possibly say and - unless you have something to say that makes the penny drop on something I'm missing here - I'll just have to leave it here in terms of trying to discuss the matter with you.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,309Registered Users
    "SavageSavant actually got banned for his actions in another thread (along with a couple of others), but having looked over this thread I'm confident in that decision. This thread isn't quite as much of a garbage fire as that one but it's not far off.

    Firstly, I'll say it again: Total War games are historically authentic, not historically accurate - if having female units upsets you that much you can either mod them out or just not play. People saying they won't buy the game because there are too many women in it is fine with us - if that's their reason, we'd rather they didn't anyway.

    Reasonable, civil discussions don't get locked. Discussions that spiral into personal attacks and prominently feature words like "cuck", "SJW", "feminazi", and any directions are locked for a reason.

    Just be nice to each other, guys. That's all".




    Pretty reasonable. It's clear that Ella was dealing with many threads and became frustrated with the same old... (I'm beginning to know how she feels. The fact is this is getting pretty boring now, the new DLC is nearly upon us - cheer up.
  • drizzlynewtdrizzlynewt Posts: 104Registered Users
    davedave, you don't seem like you're an unintelligent person, so you must be aware that constantly acting like other people are really angry, or upset and telling them to cheer up when all they're doing is speaking plainly about an issue, with no signs of emotion or confrontational attitude, is behaving provocatively. I appreciate that perhaps you've had prior run ins with others in this thread that have created an antagonistic relationship - though they don't seem to be interested in carrying it on here, from what I've seen - but I'm not sure what I've done to give you reason to behave in that fashion toward me?

    I saw someone start a thread about something that I've seen people talk about. The description of the people who are unhappy with the issue suggested that they're telling lies about what someone from CA said - which has proven not to be the case - and numerous people, yourself included, made out that the source of this stuff was all from the Daily Stormer and being perpetuated by neo-Nazis.

    On that basis I wanted to find out what the truth was, as the account of events I've seen elsewhere and the one given by people within this thread were irreconcilable. You'll note that, prior to being provided with definitive proof that what you and other people on the same side of the argument were saying was untrue, I was sympathetic toward your arguments. At that juncture I would have gone to bat with letting people I speak to know that a fuss was being made about a misquote.

    Then it turned out that what you, and others, were saying was untrue, since which time I've been working under the assumption that you're not being intentionally deceitful, so I'm trying to explain where it is you're mistaken in the hope that, firstly, you'll stop calling people Nazis which, let's be clear, should be about the biggest insult you could throw at any rationally minded person and, also, you'll be able to actually understand that the arguments of the opposing side are, in the hope that, once you realise they aren't Nazis and they're no longer being provoked by your false allegations about them, you might be able to put aside hurt feelings over the whole business and come to a mutual understanding where, even if you don't agree, you're at least able to respect the logic behind your differing viewpoints.

    Now look, we're in a decent spot now. You and, I assume, any others under the impression there was a misquote now know that that wasn't the case. We all understand that it was, indeed, said. We also know - given that the review bombing was mentioned in the One Angry Gamer article, which predated the Daily Stormer - that the source of the negative reviews wasn't white supremacists.

    Indeed, was it even a review bombing? There's discussion in the initial post that bullies have been spamming all Total War games over the issue, but it seems only Rome 2 has dropped to mixed reviews as a consequence of this whole business. Certainly a couple of other games are also showing as mixed but a quick perusal doesn't indicate the negative reviews are a consequence of this.

    Just so I'm clear: There definitely were some people in those initial threads Grace commented in who were being out of order and being overtly misogynistic and offensive. I imagine there probably are some people out there who've seen this on the Daily Stormer and decided to negatively review everything by CA. It would be preposterous to deny that these individuals exist within the greater whole of people who disagree with CA about the matter. But it's not fair to tar everyone who questions this with the same brush and act like there's no way to separate objecting to an over-representation of women in comparison to perceived historical truth and being a white supremacist.

    You see? The people you describe fall within the greater group of people who object to what CA is doing, but that doesn't mean that everyone who objects is like the people you describe. Now, perhaps if you could stop just calling them Nazis and ignoring what they say you could talk to people who view things differently from you and understand their arguments, at which point you might find yourself agreeing with them! Or you might still disagree with them, but because you're actually talking about what they're saying instead of putting them down for being something they're not, you're able to explain why you disagree and they might end up agreeing with you! Or maybe noone agrees, but in the end you both understand where the other people are coming from and can get along. Wouldn't that be preferable to what's happened previously? :smile:
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,097Registered Users

    davedave, you don't seem like you're an unintelligent person, so you must be aware that constantly acting like other people are really angry, or upset and telling them to cheer up when all they're doing is speaking plainly about an issue, with no signs of emotion or confrontational attitude, is behaving provocatively. I appreciate that perhaps you've had prior run ins with others in this thread that have created an antagonistic relationship - though they don't seem to be interested in carrying it on here, from what I've seen - but I'm not sure what I've done to give you reason to behave in that fashion toward me?

    I saw someone start a thread about something that I've seen people talk about. The description of the people who are unhappy with the issue suggested that they're telling lies about what someone from CA said - which has proven not to be the case - and numerous people, yourself included, made out that the source of this stuff was all from the Daily Stormer and being perpetuated by neo-Nazis.

    On that basis I wanted to find out what the truth was, as the account of events I've seen elsewhere and the one given by people within this thread were irreconcilable. You'll note that, prior to being provided with definitive proof that what you and other people on the same side of the argument were saying was untrue, I was sympathetic toward your arguments. At that juncture I would have gone to bat with letting people I speak to know that a fuss was being made about a misquote.

    Then it turned out that what you, and others, were saying was untrue, since which time I've been working under the assumption that you're not being intentionally deceitful, so I'm trying to explain where it is you're mistaken in the hope that, firstly, you'll stop calling people Nazis which, let's be clear, should be about the biggest insult you could throw at any rationally minded person and, also, you'll be able to actually understand that the arguments of the opposing side are, in the hope that, once you realise they aren't Nazis and they're no longer being provoked by your false allegations about them, you might be able to put aside hurt feelings over the whole business and come to a mutual understanding where, even if you don't agree, you're at least able to respect the logic behind your differing viewpoints.

    Now look, we're in a decent spot now. You and, I assume, any others under the impression there was a misquote now know that that wasn't the case. We all understand that it was, indeed, said. We also know - given that the review bombing was mentioned in the One Angry Gamer article, which predated the Daily Stormer - that the source of the negative reviews wasn't white supremacists.

    Indeed, was it even a review bombing? There's discussion in the initial post that bullies have been spamming all Total War games over the issue, but it seems only Rome 2 has dropped to mixed reviews as a consequence of this whole business. Certainly a couple of other games are also showing as mixed but a quick perusal doesn't indicate the negative reviews are a consequence of this.

    Just so I'm clear: There definitely were some people in those initial threads Grace commented in who were being out of order and being overtly misogynistic and offensive. I imagine there probably are some people out there who've seen this on the Daily Stormer and decided to negatively review everything by CA. It would be preposterous to deny that these individuals exist within the greater whole of people who disagree with CA about the matter. But it's not fair to tar everyone who questions this with the same brush and act like there's no way to separate objecting to an over-representation of women in comparison to perceived historical truth and being a white supremacist.

    You see? The people you describe fall within the greater group of people who object to what CA is doing, but that doesn't mean that everyone who objects is like the people you describe. Now, perhaps if you could stop just calling them Nazis and ignoring what they say you could talk to people who view things differently from you and understand their arguments, at which point you might find yourself agreeing with them! Or you might still disagree with them, but because you're actually talking about what they're saying instead of putting them down for being something they're not, you're able to explain why you disagree and they might end up agreeing with you! Or maybe noone agrees, but in the end you both understand where the other people are coming from and can get along. Wouldn't that be preferable to what's happened previously? :smile:

    Please stop pretending you're an uninvolved third party.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,309Registered Users
    edited October 2018
    Now, perhaps if you could stop just calling them Nazis and ignoring what they say you could talk to people who view things differently from you and understand their arguments, at which point you might find yourself agreeing with them!

    I've not called anyone a Nazi, I've listened to their arguments, directly argued against their arguments and simply don't agree. I do not believe Ella should be punished or especially sacked. The end.
  • drizzlynewtdrizzlynewt Posts: 104Registered Users

    Please stop pretending you're an uninvolved third party.

    Well, I don't suppose I am any longer, given that upon investigation it quickly became evident that the people arguing on your side of things were saying things which were provably untrue. Admittedly, once it transpired that your arguments were based on lies - perhaps not your own, perhaps lies you'd previously been taken in by - and that those lies were being used to slander people who disagreed with you, accusing them of misogyny and, bizarrely, white nationalism, yeah, I kinda turned against those arguments.

    At point of first post, however, I'd say I was an uninvolved third party.

    That's how things go. People who are unaware of an issue encounter it, see people saying different things, and seek clarification on the matter. Once they are able to find the objective information at the heart of the matter they will then, typically, be able to establish which side they think had the right of it. In this case I don't feel that the side which are saying things which are untrue is right in the arguments they make based on that untruth.

    Once a side is taken up, which it has been, it then becomes an issue of attempting to explain your reasoning for taking up that side - in this case "given that the information you're working from has proven to be incorrect, I feel you're wrong". Let's clarify your position on this, from earlier in the thread, Ephraim; "But as I said above, it isn't about R2, it's about the Daily Stormer pushing its regressive agenda." Your position had been that nobody cared about the issue itself, or the statement from a CA representative which said that if you don't agree with CA about it they don't want your business, that the only people who were speaking negatively about CA in this situation were from the Daily Stormer. I looked, found that this all predated the Daily Stormer article and so, shockingly, after that point I no longer gave your statement any credence whatsoever because the facts of the matter were that your statement was incorrect.

    Perhaps you could stop pretending that siding against you - which I have, I'm happy to admit to here and which, even if not implicitly stated should have been quite clear from the content of my prior posts on the matter - is part of some insidious plot I had from the start and is, instead, a direct consequence of you putting forth arguments without any merit to them?

    davedave; When Yharshaarj came in and explained the chain of events and the order in which they happened, including noting that this all happened in advance of the Daily Stormer article, you immediately argued with him over it, trying to spin that they'd used a picture from the Daily Stormer. This heavily implies that you had, previously, been under the impression that the Daily Stormer *had* been the origin point. Your posts also imply that this isn't your first rodeo on the topic and you've been part of multiple threads about it in advance of taking part here. Logic therefore dictates that if, before he clarified the timeline of events, you'd been under that impression then your posts in other threads would have been made on that basis, in which case you would have used the Daily Stormer argument - which inherently implies those you are arguing against are Nazis - there. So yeah, I haven't seen you use the words "you are a Nazi" here in this thread toward anyone. I was just able to ascertain based on the information available to me that you would have in future. And look, if you're gonna call me out for using available information to jump to conclusions even though I think we both know my conclusion was right, keep in mind that you used available information to jump to the incorrect inclusion that the Daily Stormer had been the origin point of things here.

    So you don't believe Ella should be sacked. OK, great. I agree with you. If Ella, employed as a representative of CA, says something that CA as a company believe and adhere to then I also don't believe she should be sacked. I have been provided no reason to believe that CA don't believe and adhere to what she said. So yeah, it would be grossly unfair if she was to be sacked for using her status as a representative to accurately represent the company. We are in 100%, complete agreement. If you think that the only issue that is being discussed here is whether or not Ella should be sacked, ok... I'm not sure why you think that's what other people are talking about since if memory serves you're the only person who's brought it up, at all, within this discussion (and if anyone else has it certainly never became a central theme). But sure, if that's what you think it's about then I'm happy to say that we win this thread, as people who share our opinion on that seem to make up the entirety of people herein!

    The fact that you think this *is* the topic of discussion should highlight the second part of what I said, about you ignoring what people are saying and arguing against points they're not making. You say you've listened to and argued against people's points, but here your response to me is arguing against a point that I have not and have no intention of making.

    Now honestly; Is anyone actually interested in discussing the topic of this thread? The question had been asked, would this affect sales and development budgets in future, given that mean bullies were smearing everything CA was doing with bad reviews?

    We've been able to establish that the mean bullies are a firm minority unlikely to have any real effect on reviews overall, while the majority of negative reviews about Rome 2 seem to have been made by people who disagree with CA either reducing the historical accuracy of the game or trying to mandate politics. In so far as that goes it does seem that the problem has been localised to the game itself for the most part and I don't think we'll see it, by any means, play any role in future sales of other games that have already been released.

    The question of whether it might have consequences to future games and budgets for DLC is a more complex one; Certainly if people feel sufficiently isolated by the comments CA made about not wanting people who don't agree with what they're doing we may well see these people not pick up the game - you can look at the recent failure of Battleground pre orders to see that there is a precedent for that. However, how much of an impact does that actually have? In the case of Battleground, I'm not sure how much of their overall business of sales is based on pre-orders and how much happens after release. I've never actually pre ordered a game myself, with the exception of occasionally placing a pre order a week or so in advance to get a bonus, certainly never months in advance and I don't know anyone else who does. I don't think pre ordering is something that your casual gamer usually does. On that basis is it possible that in the situation with Battleground EA had alienated a particular section of their audience - the "hardcore" gamers - while the issue was one that casual gamers don't care about at all? We're not likely to find out; It seems that EA have panicked as a result of the poor pre order numbers and delayed the release of the game in order to rework it and pander to the people complaining, so we're not going to be able to see whether or not sales would have just picked up again after release.

    That might not be necessary in order to judge the impact that it might have on Total War though; I could be mistaken, but I'm under the impression that the vast majority of people who play Total War fall under the "hardcore" banner, since I don't know many casuals who tend to go out and pick up the latest release every year. The question becomes "Is there a significant correlation between the fanbase of Total War and people who would pre-order Battleground". I honestly don't know about that. If there is a correlation, it seems likely that the same people will react in the same way toward people doing the same things. Although we also then have to factor in that EA, prior to this, had built up an exceptionally poor reputation for their conduct and ethics, something which isn't true of CA. Indeed, there's something to be said for the fact that we have no reason to believe that CA taking a political position on the matter is by any means dishonest or cynical. People are more tolerant of the views of people who oppose them if they believe that they honestly hold those views, rather than attempting to use saying them to improve PR and appeal to a market, which is the general impression that people have of what EA are doing. Perhaps it's ultimately that, sincerity vs. cynicism, which separates the two?
Sign In or Register to comment.