I know that there was a lot of backlash from certain people that find the idea of a game about feminism and PC-culture going too far simply unbearable, but it sounds like a really interesting topic to tackle. I really hate it when creative media gets bullied by political trends into toning down certain aspects of their projects to pander to anyone, be they the overwhelming majority or the smallest minority.

After the developer came out and apologised he also mentioned something about changing the theme of the game...I really hope he didn't just get harassed out of his own creative project. Personally I hate the idea of having to apologise for writing a story as this is how creativity dies, but who knows, maybe there is hope?

Either way this game looks awesome and I can't wait to play it either way...I'm surprised more people aren't talking about it on here tbh.

(trying not to make this post too edgy, but I think the conversation of censorship in games is a worthy discussion so please don't delete unless it's absolutely neccessary :) )

This is not what the game is about. The creator even states on Twitter, “In no way is The Last Night a game against feminism or any form of equality."

The game is about what he believes is the logical conclusion of a universal basic income, wherein everyone is given what they want and, because of this, find no motivation to do or make anything.

From the Steam page, version 1:

"Stabilised by universal income, people struggle to find their calling or identity, and define themselves by what they consume, rather than what they create."

Version 2, recently modified:

"Humans first knew the era of survival. Then they knew the era of work. Now they live in the era of leisure. Machines have surpassed human labour not only in strength, but in precision, intellect, and creativity. The fight for survival doesn’t mean food and water, but a purpose for living. People now define themselves by what they consume, not what they create."

This conclusion is predicated on the assumption that the only reason people do or make anything is out of a desire to be monetarily compensated for their work. That is an entirely different issue.

Seems like you nailed it in one - certain types of gaming communities are obsessed with pinning anything negative on feminism or "PC Culture" even when the creators of said thing specifically say its not about that. They always need a boogeyman.

I think the backlash was about the stupid things he has said on twitter, not the premise of the game itself.

I suppose this is the problem in responding to a creative work's themes before actually seeing it. Personally, I can't bring myself to dive into a twitter hole to try and figure out who the hell said what to whom and when and in what context, but suffice it to say I would love to see more indie games with unusual, specific, and/or nuanced political points in them, because that's something no big studio is ever going to be comfortable doing.

So I'll wait and see the game itself. I'd love to spend some time pining for a day where we find a way to forward our social goals without the endless condemnation churn that leads to situations like this, but that's a much bigger issue with no easy answers.

Game looked great from what I saw during E3. Looking forward to playing this!

Don't do it! Your eyes will roll out of their sockets and you'll discover how incredibly entitled a lot of journos are. All the whining about the public being allowed in E3 sure is a trip.

Ahem,

"In 2014, Soret wrote that The Last Night “takes place in a cyberpunk world where modern feminism won instead of egalitarianism,” appending the Gamergate hashtag. Around the same time, he claimed the game would show “the dangers of extreme progressivism,” and inquired about the possibility of using Gamergate mascot Vivian James in the game."

Yes it is.

I don't see how that is against equality?

If the creator is against "modern" Twitter feminists who seem to crap on men instead of wanting actual equality, I get it, and that's not a controversial opinion to have. A lot of women are against those people too after all. I'm a feminist because women should have the same rights and opportunities as men (physical strength differences in sports/military aside), but I won't support any feminists that are clearly trying to be elevated above men.

Including Gamergate mascots would be tacky as hell though and just asking for controversy.

Why does such a cool looking game have to have such a dumb premise.

Yeah, 2014. The quote above is from 2017. He says the narrative has changed.

I'm not sticking up for him. I have no stake in proving he's good or bad. I think he's terribly naive, and is commenting on subjects about which he has very little knowledge or experience. But, I'm going to believe a comment made two weeks ago above a comment made three years ago.

I wish more people took this stance, a lot of people just freaked out over what he said back then and then planned to boycott the game and contact Microsoft. :/

I'm personally getting really goddamn sick of the amount of dog piling that's going on in the game industry. You've never said something dumb or cringe four years ago?

I'll admit it. I got suckered into becoming a Gamergate sympathizer and got the hell out when it became hijacked by some of the worst elements of the MRA and alt-right movement.

Fuck, Colin Moriarty got the hell out of this goddamn snake pit while the getting was good.

@kcin said:

Unfortunately I have seen several journalist saying they are not interested in giving second chances since time is finite. Giving the benefit of the doubt, or trust in change, isn't a universal value. Though I would think if we can believe criminals can change that we would extend the same courtesy to a random guy on Twitter but maybe not.

I was especially interested in a Waypoint Vice segment where Austin and Patrick stated how they did not believe that Kratos is redeemable, but the designer behind the new God of War told them he does not believe anyone is beyond redemption on principal. Similar differences in beliefs may be at play here.

For what it's worth, I'm really only commenting on what the game is being presented as being 'about', not necessarily who he is or what he believes in. At one point three years ago, in the preproduction stage, he said the game would be about feminism. Now the game is almost finished and he says it isn't about feminism anymore. That's the only differentiation I came to this thread to make.

Again, I think he's a terribly naive person who is speaking way out of turn on a regular basis. He's young, and arrogant. He participated in GamerGate and was a vocal supporter of it, which is disgusting to me. Whether or not he should be forgiven for his past actions and words, though, is up to the individual. (Since you mentioned Waypoint, there is a great conversation about his age and what role that plays in his ability to be forgiven in an E3 podcast epi about this game.) I think that's a different discussion, and it's worth separating that discussion from what the game is about. There are several people in this thread who think the game is 'about' his beliefs, in spite of the fact that he has publicly recanted both the things he has said about GamerGate and feminism (to a large extent, though arguably not fully), and that the game would be 'about' feminism. That's a problem. This whole thread is predicated on that (willful? argumentative?) conflation.

Gamergate has always seemed ridiculous to me as I can't fathom caring at all about ethics in video game journalism. People roll their eyes and insist GG is not about that, but if you look at /r/KotakuInAction, a lot of them actually do care about it. I just don't understand it as I think gaming journalism is so unimportant, to me it's not even journalism as it's full of self masturbatory opinion pieces and adding a paragraph of commentary to press releases. Actually that's probably a bit harsh to blanket it like that, but...

I do think the whole "Gamergate = you are a harasser" thing is bullshit though, and people still think that is actually true. I've seen KotakuInAction enough times and it isn't about harassing people, that's stuff that goes on at something called Baphomet, I don't know what that place is exactly though... it's either a subreddit or somewhere on 4chan I think.

Tbh pro Gamergaters and anti Gamergaters are just as bad as each other most of the time. It's nicer pretending none of it exists.

What does that even mean? I don't know what Kratos could have done to not be "redeemable" except be in too many games.

It's not the game industry, it's the age of information my friend. People don't have time to reason, they just read a tidbit and react. There is no room for nuance or people to misspeak/make a mistake. It is incredibly exhausting to watch, and kind of depressing because a lot of people that get dog piled on probably could learn from their fuck ups, but most likely won't learn shit since they just get attacked.

Will add that Colin seems like the person who recognizes this, said some shit that he knew would stir the pot, and it played out accordingly. I really do not like the guy.

It's based on some stuff that happens in the new game, and it's mostly done for a goof. Kratos is kind of an asshole, and a large part of it was about how he still seems like a terrible father, and it's unlikely he can become a good one in any believable way by the end of the game.

ugh, if this is true then pass for me. What a shame, this game had styyyyyyle.

You know why Gamergate started, right? It wasn't hijacked, that it was it was about from the beginning.

How is it a dumb premise? It's probably the most likely future that we have. Universal Basic Income will create an extreme class based system, where the "normal" people have to get their scraps from the ultra rich. It's not a world most people will want to live in, and it's a scary idea.

While simply a videogame character, you're telling me that Austin and Patrick want to pin the Scarlet letter onto a character that they deem morally corrupt? No! Really!? They do this to everyone, they are simply no different than Christian Moral Crusaders.

Yeah, I noticed their comment as well. I wanted to write that it rubbed me the wrong way, but frankly it made me a little sick. Liberal left, the side I most closely identify with, shouldn't deal with such absolute statements. Nuance is our game. That's why "they" call us the "morally relativist swamp". This smacks of some reverse puritanism.

That's the thing I don't understand. I thought liberals are about forgiveness? It seems very easy for the extreme left to forgive criminals, but for some reason, the perceived "moral slights" from comments on the internet are beyond redemption. Soret was piled on for some very minor comments, much like Moriarty; it's sad and dangerous that there are large groups of extreme internet people that are out to destroy careers because someone said something that offends their sensibilities. This is exactly reverse puritanism and it's scary since unlike with puritanism there are no true rules, the rules change constantly.

I'm pretty sure that was the premise of gamergate

You're correct, I'm not pro-gamergate and character assassination is a terrible terrible thing that's been so much easier to do now with social media. I'm buying Last Night no matter the quality due to the respect I have for the publisher not abandoning the developer. More companies should do this.

This is one of the things of true christians that I really like, the easiness to forgive, it's something I strive to do no matter the act. Besides, what he did shouldn't require forgiveness anyway, it was an opinion, he didn't call for violence, without the freedom to voice opinions we do not live in a free society.

@methodman008: Ugh. I am way too sober right now to go through all that nastiness again. I'm getting flashbacks on how bad it got. On both sides.....just yuck.

Still getting the game when it eventually gets released on PlayStation. I loves me some cyberpunk. I also like to actually maybe play the game before I break out the pitchforks and torches.

Cool visuals and an interesting premise. Looks and sounds awesome so far.

@horseman6: The Waypoint crew thinks it's not reasonable to condemn The Last Night's dev for what he did and said because he was quite young and his attitudes have changed and evolved since then. Feel free to listen to the segment, its on their E3 podcasts. Feel free to listen to the Kratos segment while you're at it dude. (That conversation was about storytelling, not actual morality. Not that that would offer you a jumping-off point to yell about liberals, though, so your mileage may vary!!)

@horseman6: I agree that we should be able to freely voice our opinions, but if your opinions are problematic at best I don't think that the sheer fact of it being an opinion should shield you from the very real consequences of that. If people don't like what you said, I don't think it's up to people to forgive and forget as if you never said it. They especially shouldn't be expected to just go ahead and give money to somebody they find disagreeable. Boycotts and protests are great at bringing to light qualms and wrongs that can give pause and shape opinions to be more favorable or at the very least invoke the desire to learn more about why people don't like certain views. If people don't want to buy his game because of his opinion, that's entirely valid and a product of a free market. Sticking to your guns as if that's a desirable quality just makes you look stubborn and not receptive to criticism. People, and business partners, appreciate apologies and owning your mistakes. There is a bad focus of call-out culture to never relent or give up, especially when it's super easy to dig up some embarrassing details or points of view from way back in somebody's life currently. But when there's an established pattern and point of view a person likes to proclaim on social media, it isn't exactly character assassination (unless it's something taken out of context, but again, an established pattern is what people look for).

I think he comes across as incredibly naive and ignorant of the topics he's trying to portray in his game. Reading recent interviews shows that he understands that people are upset, but he doesn't come across as truly knowing why people are upset. He has a poor grasp of what he thought was a "united" people when he was growing up in the 90s where identity politics didn't divide people, despite the history of millions of people being disenfranchised and discriminated against. The advent of social media and easy, unrestricted access to the internet allowed for it to become easier for people to voice their problems and frustrations; division wasn't suddenly created, it was illuminated. For what it's worth, I don't think he's truly malicious or trying to malign against a group of people, and it's entirely possible that English as his second language is making it hard for him to fully express his thoughts and feelings, but everything I've seen of this game and his interactions remind me of David Cage. All style and window dressings with no substance. UBI as an extension of the oppressors to keep classes where they are is an interesting idea, but not one that I'm confident he can deliver on. In truth, I'm fully expecting some kind of fantasy reminiscent of terrible 4chan threads where people fantasize about being a persecuted straight white male in a bizarre future where cis-heterosexuality is banned. If anything changes, I'm expecting some writing changes to make the story more believable and better, not some perceived fear that they're going to inject diversity for diversity's sake.

Also, he's had recent posts on Twitter that people have a problem with (the main one being angry at Bill Nye discussing gender), so it's not just the old posts people are fixated on.

See, I cant fathom how a future, feminist, politically correct distopia isn't just a reversal of where we're at now.

Imagine a world where you're barred from all the best jobs and your female colleagues earn more than you.

Imagine a world where your big white face is seen as a threat, and the police have free reign to kick the fuck out of you, or shoot you on the spot.

Imagine a world where men get pregnant? Whaaaat?

I'm no science fiction writer man. I might be missing something.

I don't support waypoint in any case, especially because it's vice. Too much garbage in that network.

@burncoat: But this is the main problem, to the extreme left and the crowd like Vice and Waypoint, everything could be problematic; who decides what's problematic? Some group of like-minded left-coast and east-coast journalists and ethnic studies majors? Because that's who it seems is driving all of this stuff. Also, these people aren't boycotting, they are actively attacking and trying to get people fired and ruin careers for minor or non-existent issues with past statements and opinions, there's a big difference. One engages in freedom of speech and the other seeks to condemn those who express it. It's extremely dangerous and we've already gone past the point where the older puritanical mindset is being replaced by a new anti-speech PC mindset; it makes people scared to voice opinions and I think will backfire soon. . .in fact it kind of already has. Like I said, the latter is even scarier in many ways because there are no defined rules. Just look at what happened to Brett Weinstein at Evergreen college, he was cast out of the college cult of educators and students because he dared to say that it was wrong to ask white people not to go to campus for a day. He's basically in hiding now because of threats from faculty and students. Just think of that, it's 2017 and a Jew is being persecuted because he's a "privileged white male."

Imagine a world where men and women are all allowed to have the best jobs, and women don't make less than you just because they're women.

Imagine a world where the police are accountable for their actions, and don't beat innocent people up.

Imagine a world where women still get pregnant, but aren't actively shamed for it.

That's what feminism means. It means belief in women, not "lol what if we swap men and women".

You're welcome to voice your opinion, but that doesn't mean people need to like or accept that opinion. After all, that is their opinion, and without the freedom to voice opinions, etc etc.

Edit: I don't know why that quote turned into a link. /shrug

I'm no gamergate advocate (at all) but I personally think this game looks fascinating, and I don't really care what the guy said years ago.

With regard to the OP, to me, the game sounds a lot more like a critique of communism (and potentially a defense of capitalism), than a critique of feminism or PC culture. Gaming journalism is a bit of an echochamber so it doesn't surprise me that there has been (and will continue to be) a lot of pointed criticism of the game, but ultimately, I think it should provide for an interesting thinkpiece that should hopefully serve as a jumping off point for an engaging discussion. As a libertarian, I personally often disagree with the views expoused by of the more politically vocal members of the gaming press, but I think that some do a much better job than others of engaging in the discourse without acting like their views are the only reasonable ones. For example, I've also appreciated Austin, liberal as he is, and his ability to present his viewpoints in an articulate and uncondescending manner. I'm very interested in hearing his views on the game's message once it's released. Unfortunately, both Austin and Patrick were absent during the recent Waypoint podcast where they discussed the Last Night. AS a result, I found that episode unlistenable.

Not entirely sure how this is different from, you know, now. UBI means we wouldn't have people literally begging for money for food, housing, and medicine, like we do... now. You know, in our extreme class based system. That we have now. Whenever people talk about stuff like having people not starve to death, or access to basic healthcare as a "scary idea", it makes them seem totally disconnected from the lives of most people.

The creator seems to think providing for people's needs will kill creative desires. Right now, there are tons of creative people who can't act on their desires because their needs AREN'T provided for - only those lucky enough to be rich, to have people like spouses support them, or to basically destroy their health and lives can fulfill creative pursuits. The creator of this game is so disconnected, he doesn't seem to realize that.

Also, attacking people who published an open interview with someone and accusing them of "trying to get him fired" for... daring to discuss his beliefs? Tone down the self-righteousness a bit, would ya? You're totally unwilling to read or listen to what people are actually saying, but outright projecting actions and intent on them with no basis in fact, and it's really obviously silly. I don't see how you saying "I don't have to listen to those people, but I know what they're saying is bad, and I'm going to tell you the motive without even hearing them out" is supposed to be "pro-freedom of speech". Sounds like an anti-speech mindset to me!

@horseman6: Okay. You're commenting on something you openly refuse to understand. Consider not doing that.

@horseman6: You're going to get fringe extremists and misguided people no matter what the issue is. Those far-left reactionaries that cry for the immediate firing of people who misspeak are horrible, but far-right reactionaries are born out of the same mold. For every case of people protesting and calling for resignation of Deans who give a stage for Neo-Nazis, you're going to get people doxxing and stalking women who criticized their videogames. It doesn't eliminate or make less of the actual issues people have. And if you lined up the atrocities committed by both sides, you'd find one side is heavily skewed anyways and it's a false-equivalence to think they're equally bad.

Jumping to hyperbole and claiming a slippery slope that people being held accountable for shitty views is a horrible side-effect of "PC culture" is paranoia. People have a right to voice their opinion, but nobody has an obligation to listen or not question it. And you have to get off this warped view that coastal elites are policing your thoughts and voices. Actual disenfranchised voices are pushing against hate and negative opinions, not some ethics professor bankrolled by a silicon-valley tech mogul or a website full of a diverse cast (of which Austin I think is uniquely experienced in discussing discrimination and negative attention he's received). Sexist, transphobic, and racist remarks will always be considered problematic, this didn't just sprout up because some Ivy League elite said it was. To say it's not questionable to have those views just because it's "an opinion" is disingenuous and ignorant of the impact those kinds of opinions have, especially when they're held by people in positions of power and make decisions based on those opinions to potentially marginalize already powerless groups. It's always struck me as odd that "PC culture" is seen as an attack on free speech when in reality it's literally "That shit you said was not cool," and "Respect that person's decision in how they want to live their life."

Free speech is not free from consequences from the public, it only keeps the government from silencing you. If I'm friends with Tommy and Greg, and Tommy said something bad about Greg to me, it's not on me if I tell Greg about it and Greg decides to not hang out with Tommy again. If I tell an employer that their employee went on a racist tirade or disparaged women, they're free to fire or sanction them. People are free to call-out others just as much as people are free to spout ignorant opinions and insults. The power excised here is just the power to be vocal, what companies and people in positions of power do is up to them alone (unless the problem is actually the result of vicious rumors, then that's libel and slander, of which there are laws to defend against that, and in the worst cases of somebody acting violently on your rumors criminal liability). I respect the right to free speech, I don't have to respect what they say.

To stay on topic, I'm free to not buy this game and criticize the creator for his shitty views if I want. I appreciate him making an apology, but the statements he made in the past and present, as well as the Steam description and his interviews, have raised too many red flags for me. That's about all I'm going to give on that topic and anything else about this argument about an attack on free speech.

Up till now all i've seen is a announcement trailer. I'll check out the review and if it's cool , i'll play it.

The whole issue will probably not even be that noticeable, just like Fallout didn't really go into politics to decide which political affinity started fucking around with nukes. You just see the aftermath. I expect something similar with this. A neat looking dystopia. That there's a deep dark secret reason for why this dystopia is like this, hidden in twitter posts, doesn't really matter.

So the premise is like the opposite of Star Trek? hmmm I hope it's good.

also lMao feminism is about women not men, it only involves men when they get in the way or cause a problem, or maybe the effects of patriarchy loop back around. please stop saying dumb shit like "what if men got pregnant" ugh.

@burncoat: Everyone should be ripping Bill Nye, his new show is an embarrassment, and I don't mean going after him on Twitter, he should just be getting all kinds of criticism for that insane show

Because I really want to hear about "fleshlights in the moonlight" when I watch Bill Nye, good god, I cringe just thinking about the segment

I also didn't appreciate how his shitty show tried to shame people for being straight, clearly calling them boring, it also presented homosexuals as being always game for sex and basically just creeps, it's pathetic all around

Well this is straying far off topic I guess

@horseman6:

From what I recall of the segment (I don't follow waypoint that closely, but for E3 I like to absorb as much content as possible) it was more that Patrick and Austin came to the conclusion that it was possible that the new GoW doesn't necessarily need to have a happy ending with Kratos being perfectly redeemable with a cherry on top, or that he changes/learns but is not suddenly the world's best person/dad. Which is fine to me and makes much more sense with GoW as a franchise and a lot of what I have seen of the new game. There are plenty of stories where the main character isn't really redeemable or a "great guy", and does not need to be for the the narrative to "work" or be satisfying/fun so I don't see why this should be any different.

I mean I agree on principal or would like to think no one is beyond redemption/anyone can be redeemed/forgiven, but at the same time I don't think a serial killer who killed like 50 people really should be forgiven so much. Or on a different scale, if you had a creepy stalker who eventually mellowed out years later and was nice or whatever, you're not gonna go and be close friends with them, you're still gonna want them to go and fuck off because you want to live your life. It's complicated for sure.

As someone else said isn't this just a more cynical take on Star Trek where post-scarity leads to a emotionally empty dystopia?

Fuck a duck I can't imagine how exhausting it would be to live where this is a drama of any magnitude.

Game looks real cool, hope it plays well.

I don't even think Austin or Patrick said Kratos should be beyond redemption. If I remember correctly they said that Kratos going "I now realize all this violence has been bad, I will stop doing it" would be way too cheesy and Lifetime. They wanted him to have his redemption but they said it should be that he realizes that he is not a good influence on the kid and goes away, which would be a much more realistic redemption arc. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is walk away when you realize that you're hurting someone.

tbh I don't care what the developer said or continues to say I'll judge the game on its own merits closer to release, The Last Night synopsis on Steam/Wikipedia doesn't seem to relate at all to this thread or the OP, atm its twitter drama and that rabbit hole goes on forever I ain't got time to care for that crap.

From what I've read/heard of people who have played the game it's all flash and pretty visuals with little substance. Not surprising, the premise sounds pretty lame.
Also I knew I had seen this game in some form before and it turns out Patrick played a really old version of it here on GB. https://www.giantbomb.com/videos/worth-playing-07-21-2014/2300-9239/

If I've learned anything in my short life, it's that creative projects are exactly the same throughout their entire development, and nobody changes their opinions or morals ever.

The irony of reaction to some off-the-cuff remarks by Austin and Patrick in relation to the reaction to this game is strong.

I can't imagine I'd be able to make it through a game with that message no matter how well it plays.

I'm going to carry on as if I never saw this and continue to be excited for what looked like a gorgeous, stylish, cyberpunk game, since whatever this is seems completely irrelevant.