Culturally problematic?

[Beardy Wilson]

"Ultimately we felt Warbucks was both culturally problematic and not also very interesting to play so we decided to start over. We understand some people may like aspects of him, and perhaps we will bring some of those aspects back one day. In the meantime, we've decided to move on."
 

Not interesting character? Sure.

But what was culturally problematic about him? If there wasn't anything, than its a weird thing to add as an excuse.

[Hx380]

Warbucks jest escaped from the constant and they needed an excuse. 

 

[Pop Guy]

[Beardy Wilson]

5 minutes ago, Pop Guy said:

w8 wendy is culturally problemetic too? wut

6 minutes ago, Hx380 said:

Warbucks jest escaped from the constant and they needed an excuse. 

 

Well they could have just said he wasn't interesting enough and end it there. 

[Alexias]

I heard that he was associated with colonialism and his stereotype represent bad part of history.

There is post about this if you want

[Beardy Wilson]

4 minutes ago, Namelessgamer said:

I heard that he was associated with colonialism and his stereotype represent bad part of history.

There is post about this if you want

So a game can't depict bad parts of history? There are alot of games where you play in a colonial era colonizing other people. Or enslaving people etc. And there is nothing wrong with that. 

[Footman Crouch]

Well they were uncomfortable with it, and i can respect that, seeing how the forum can implode by just mentioning something that you shouldn't. It's the right call.

[Faintly Macabre]

Jesus ****ing Christ, it's their game and they decided they didn't want him. Get over it.

[Alexias]

7 minutes ago, Faintly Macabre said:

Jesus ****ing Christ, it's their game and they decided they didn't want him. Get over it.

OP just want to know what “culturally problematic” was he, he didn’t even ask to bring him back

just saying.

[Faintly Macabre]

22 minutes ago, Namelessgamer said:

OP just want to know what “culturally problematic” was he, he didn’t even ask to bring him back

just saying.

Except he's arguing with the answer now. Pretty sure he came in with an agenda.

[S19TealPenguin]

3 hours ago, Beardy Wilson said:

So a game can't depict bad parts of history? There are alot of games where you play in a colonial era colonizing other people. Or enslaving people etc. And there is nothing wrong with that. 

There lot's of games that don't handle those topics with the necessary sensitivity and care, in which case there is definitely something wrong with that.

 

Besides, it's clear Klei is more than willing to rewrite history in areas that don't pertain to the game. For example, Wilson, an Englishmen in the early 1900s probably would have used cocaine, heroin, or some type of opiate. However, Klei never mentions drugs because it doesn't matter. The game is rated Teen by the ESRB, and I don't think they want to push it farther. Also, DS is the flagship game of Klei, so they want to avoid controversy about it.

 

It should be noted that every character is caricature of something. Webber is extreme naivety juxtaposed with a horrible symbiosis with a killer spider. Wickerbottom has practically encyclopedia-like knowledge of the world. Wolfgang is the classic strongman stereotype taken to the extreme. Everything in Warly's life has to revolve around making and eating food. But Warbucks never went that far,  he talked old-timey, loved money, and was a pseudo-colonialist but it was surface level. There was no joke (e.g. everything is a play and I'm the lead actress), there was just a character with the potential to be offensive (a controversy Klei does not want). At this point Klei had two options: drop the colonialism or double down and make it a joke (like every other character). Klei tried to remove the colonialist and just have an explorer, but he was too bland. So they cut him. The double down option would have been tricky to get right, if they don't go far enough, they look bad if they go too far, the "joke" is now just the player being hit with a sledgehammer that says "mildly amusing". Klei picked the easy path and I don't blame them.

 

Finally, what is there to gain by having colonialism in the game? If you believe Klei should have doubled down and made colonialism to an extreme the focus of his character then what is the advantage? What reward is worth the risk of potentially bogging down you flagship product with controversy?

[TheOnlyGuyEver]

7 hours ago, Pop Guy said:

Explain Wendy

[Caochu]

If I remember some old posts about it, it was because in some players' eyes Wendy was associated with either suicidal tendencies, either satanism. But, again, if I remember correctly, they were things never really discussed before and which really came onto the table in order to justify that Warbucks wasn't the only "culturally problematic" character. Therefore, it was used as an argument to let him in the game.

I just pass the information I think which the meme is refering, I don't want to give my opinion on this however. 

[Szczuku]

13 minutes ago, TheOnlyGuyEver said:

Explain Wendy

People consider her a "waifu material" and... well… I guess you know the drill.

This thread isn't needed here

[Caochu]

6 minutes ago, Szczuku said:

People consider her a "waifu material" and... well… I guess you know the drill.

This thread isn't needed here

Oh what. Guess we didn't got the same reference 

Edit : The idea of a character being culturally problematic because it is some "waifu material" really makes me giggle 

If going on that slope, I guess that Wendy isn't the only character concerned. Someone told me one day to search Wilson x Maxwell. Life changing materials, nightmare fuel.

Spoiler

 

[axxel]

I thought shooting bipedal intelligent pigs is more culturally problematic than Warbucks, well then. At the very end Klei has to deliver the game and it might be a good thing to remove Warbucks from the character list. Imagine a SJW would play Hamlet, unlocks Warbucks and see him and his quotes. Then he/she write about Warbucks on tumblr or facebook. Many people would be upsad and angry about the whole game because they interpret to much into this and try to boycot it and Klei. Klei and the fans would have gained nothing. @Beardy Wilson please see it from the pragmatic side. However I can understand you, his new quotes weren't problematic anymore and they still take it as an excuse. Maybe there was more behind this.

I think his playstyle was really ok in Hamlet. How come Walani wasn't reworked then?

[Rellimarual]

3 hours ago, Caochu said:

If I remember some old posts about it, it was because in some players' eyes Wendy was associated with either suicidal tendencies, either satanism. But, again, if I remember correctly, they were things never really discussed before and which really came onto the table in order to justify that Warbucks wasn't the only "culturally problematic" character. Therefore, it was used as an argument to let him in the game.

I just pass the information I think which the meme is refering, I don't want to give my opinion on this however. 

No one objected to these aspects of Wendy, but people het up about Warbucks continually offered her as an example of dark or troubling material that is considered OK to lightly parody in DS, while colonialism is not.

There's always going to be a line. Child sexual abuse, torture, slavery, ****, the Holocaust, etc., are all historical facts, but just because they happened real life doesn't mean Klei is obliged to put them in DS. Some subject matter is suitable for the mock-gothic light parody of DS and some is not, for reasons of taste and taste is ever changing. Where you draw the line between what feels like it fits and what doesn't is a judgment call that Klei, the artist, made, and then later they changed their mind about it. But it's their decision because their name is on the end result. If they don't feel comfortable about it, that's their call.

[SouthTom]

52 minutes ago, Rellimarual said:

No one objected to these aspects of Wendy, but people het up about Warbucks continually offered her as an example of dark or troubling material that is considered OK to lightly parody in DS, while colonialism is not.

There's always going to be a line. Child sexual abuse, torture, slavery, ****, the Holocaust, etc., are all historical facts, but just because they happened real life doesn't mean Klei is obliged to put them in DS. Some subject matter is suitable for the mock-gothic light parody of DS and some is not, for reasons of taste and taste is ever changing. Where you draw the line between what feels like it fits and what doesn't is a judgment call that Klei, the artist, made, and then later they changed their mind about it. But it's their decision because their name is on the end result. If they don't feel comfortable about it, that's their call.

I find it weird that they found Warbucks problematic since colonialism is already part of the gameplay because of Pigs.

• You kill them for resources
• You can enslave them to chop wood for you
• Steal from their food supply
• Make them battle to their deaths
• Bribe them into killing their brothers
• Trade worthless junk (trinkets) in exchange of massive amount of gold
• Destroy their houses to steal materials
• Build Pig farms

I felt like Warbucks was thematically appropriate for Don't Starve. While his perks were kinda meh, It was early access so they could have reworked him instead of just removing him.

[Pop Guy]

7 minutes ago, SouthTom said:

I find it weird that they found Warbucks problematic since colonialism is already part of the gameplay because of Pigs.

• You kill them for resources
• You can enslave them to chop wood for you
• Steal from their food supply
• Make them battle to their deaths
• Bribe them into killing their brothers
• Trade worthless junk (trinkets) in exchange of massive amount of gold
• Destroy their houses to steal materials
• Build Pig farms

I felt like Warbucks was thematically appropriate for Don't Starve. While his perks were kinda meh, It was early access so they could have reworked him instead of just removing him.

How much truth.
I would like to add that dear pigs cannibalize each other, even in Hamlet. It seems to me the most disturbing thing in the game, to see a pig dressed as a bourgeois eating a pig's ass on the ground. But apparently the cultural problems are others. 

[Rellimarual]

51 minutes ago, SouthTom said:

I find it weird that they found Warbucks problematic since colonialism is already part of the gameplay because of Pigs

Warbucks’ dialogue implied an equivalence between the pigs and the brown people colonized by the British Empire. Colonialism justified itself with a racist ideology that categorized those people as less than fully human, so the implication in comparing them to bipedal pigs skates way too close to that ideology.

[me real life]

1 hour ago, SouthTom said:

• You can enslave them to chop wood for you

When do you enslave them? You befriend pigs either by feeding them, or playing music. They can and will stop following you if either of these things stop, and they will fight back if you attack.

[Monkey Cups]

someone: makes a post about Warbucks

the forum: distressed whinnying

 

Can these threads die already? Everyone's discussed this many times over.

[minespatch]

35 minutes ago, Xehanightmare said:

Can these threads die already? Everyone's discussed this many times over.

Like with DSTwrecked?

[Beardy Wilson]

18 hours ago, S19TealPenguin said:

There lot's of games that don't handle those topics with the necessary sensitivity and care, in which case there is definitely something wrong with that.

 

Besides, it's clear Klei is more than willing to rewrite history in areas that don't pertain to the game. For example, Wilson, an Englishmen in the early 1900s probably would have used cocaine, heroin, or some type of opiate. However, Klei never mentions drugs because it doesn't matter. The game is rated Teen by the ESRB, and I don't think they want to push it farther. Also, DS is the flagship game of Klei, so they want to avoid controversy about it.

 

It should be noted that every character is caricature of something. Webber is extreme naivety juxtaposed with a horrible symbiosis with a killer spider. Wickerbottom has practically encyclopedia-like knowledge of the world. Wolfgang is the classic strongman stereotype taken to the extreme. Everything in Warly's life has to revolve around making and eating food. But Warbucks never went that far,  he talked old-timey, loved money, and was a pseudo-colonialist but it was surface level. There was no joke (e.g. everything is a play and I'm the lead actress), there was just a character with the potential to be offensive (a controversy Klei does not want). At this point Klei had two options: drop the colonialism or double down and make it a joke (like every other character). Klei tried to remove the colonialist and just have an explorer, but he was too bland. So they cut him. The double down option would have been tricky to get right, if they don't go far enough, they look bad if they go too far, the "joke" is now just the player being hit with a sledgehammer that says "mildly amusing". Klei picked the easy path and I don't blame them.

 

Finally, what is there to gain by having colonialism in the game? If you believe Klei should have doubled down and made colonialism to an extreme the focus of his character then what is the advantage? What reward is worth the risk of potentially bogging down you flagship product with controversy?

I appriciate that you are not reee-ing on me and explain the point perfectly. To the last questions i have only two words. Artistic freedom. They didn't have to double down on anything, they just shouldn't be afraid of a backlash that would never happen. There would be like 3 guys reee-ing while the others just don't care + those 3 guys wouldn't even have hamlet to begin with, or they wouldn't really care either, they would just play another character. Also anything can be made into a contreversy. I honestly belive, if klei didn't change his lines and kept him in it would have had no effect on their product. Many of these things are only fake outrage. I don't think an artist or a developer team's vision should be limited because of people who supposedly get offended by a video game. I think its really childish at best. My relatives were taken into gulags to die there and it was way more recent than colonialism. Should i get offended by gulag jokes too? Should i reee on games that feature communists in it? Of course not. So people who were upset i would just say grow a pair.

[Faintly Macabre]

50 minutes ago, Beardy Wilson said:

To the last questions i have only two words. Artistic freedom.

People love to say this when this sort of thing comes up, but apparently they don't respect the freedom of the artists to decide that they care how a group of people, no matter how small or uninvolved they supposedly are, feel about their art. In a fit of irony, this freedom doesn't seem to include the freedom to have second thoughts. If somebody complains about something and the developer decides to heed those complaints, they're caving or pandering or whatever; they're not allowed to have just listened, learned, and changed their feelings about something based on the input of something else -- unless it's something that they've arbitrarily decided is important, and then you get a forum full of topics about how much a DLC sucks and how terrible they are for not listening to your complaints and suggestions on that topic. Seriously, the hypocrisy is incredible.