Tactical Shooter Ready Or Not Loses Publisher After Dev Promises School Shooting Mission

[Kane99]

Well that was a dumb move. The developer of Ready Or Not, most likely lost their publisher because they said they would include a school shooter mission. 

It was said In a reddit post that has since been removed. For those who don't know, ready or not is a swat tactical game. The objective is not to kill unless you have to. So as you can see, pretty messed up. The publisher team17 didn't say why they dropped the devs, but it's probably due to that. 

Source - https://www.gamespot.com/articles/tactical-shooter-ready-or-not-loses-publisher-after-dev-promises-school-shooting-mission/1100-6499236/?TheTime=2021-12-23T19%3A36%3A55&PostType=link&ftag=GSS-05-10aaa0a&UniqueID=AF7BB190-6427-11EC-BE24-B5FF15F31EAE&ServiceType=facebook_page

[Empire]

Publisher is trying too hard to be politically correct. It's the kind of move you just make without giving an explanation, because you know yourself it doesn't really make sense.

[Reality vs Adventure]

This is exactly the sort of thing that gets me worried about demonizing any type of individual. Because we know it's going to get attention. 

[Shagger]

6 hours ago, Empire said:

Publisher is trying too hard to be politically correct. It's the kind of move you just make without giving an explanation, because you know yourself it doesn't really make sense.

 

Oh, come on! If the publisher did indeed drop the developer over this, this isn't them being overly politically correct, this is common sense in opposition to something conceived in truly horrendous bad taste. I for one don't favour censorship over artistic liberty, but there is a limit that most people can recognize without having it pointed out to them, and this crosses that line.

[Justin11]

9 hours ago, Empire said:

Publisher is trying too hard to be politically correct. It's the kind of move you just make without giving an explanation, because you know yourself it doesn't really make sense.

I hate it when a publisher tries to play political, or censor it's employees. If I am one of the employees affected, I wouldn't stay on. I'll definitely quit. 

[m76]

2 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

Oh, come on! If the publisher did indeed drop the developer over this, this isn't them being overly politically correct, this is common sense in opposition to something conceived in truly horrendous bad taste. I for one don't favour censorship over artistic liberty, but there is a limit that most people can recognize without having it pointed out to them, and this crosses that line.

This is exactly what political correctness is, avoiding topics that are sensitive, so to not offend anyone.
How can you have thought provoking games if you refuse to put out something because it might upset someone?

Who decides what is bad taste and what is not? Let the audience decide if they want a game that tackles this topic.

Anything can be butchered to a point where it becomes bad taste, like the WW2 representation in Call of Duty Vanguard. It's not the topic, but how its handled that matters.

If every game was refused publishing that somebody somewhere thought was in bad taste, then not many games would make it into market.

 

 

[Shagger]

1 minute ago, m76 said:

This is exactly what political correctness is, avoiding topics that are sensitive, so to not offend anyone.
How can you have thought provoking games if you refuse to put out something because it might upset someone?

Who decides what is bad taste and what is not? Let the audience decide if they want a game that tackles this topic.

Anything can be butchered to a point where it becomes bad taste, like the WW2 representation in Call of Duty Vanguard. It's not the topic, but how its handled that matters.

If every game was refused publishing that somebody somewhere thought was in bad taste, then not many games would make it into market.

 

 

 

What your referring to is the bounds of moral controversy, and this situation is not that. For something to be controversial at least slightly plausible argument for both side to morally justify it, and when it come to school shooting, there is no way to just it, so there is no way to justify glorying it either. A video game or video game level that simulates a school shooting is not a moral controversy, it's just plain stupid, tasteless and wrong. Like it or not, creative liberty is not without limits, limits that define the difference between something that is edgy and provocative and something that is harmful. Ready or Not looks like a very promising game, especially for early access, but no publisher would want anything to do with it if the game would ever have that kind of content and who could blame them. You and @Empire can't be so stupid as to not recognise that playing a game where you have to shoot up a school as "too far". If that's just creative liberty and saying that's too far is being "overly PC", then why stop there? let's allow anything go down as creative liberty.

 

Like "Kill the Faggot". That's not homophobic, it's creative liberty.

 

 

If think that all political correctness and censorship is wrong and there should be no stifling of creative liberty at all, then you have to say there nothing at all wrong with this game. You can't have it both ways.

 

[The Blackangel]

You're right. Many games wouldn't make it onto the market. Maybe that's why Hatred isn't on the PS4. Or Xbox. Or Switch. There is a line between PC and outrageous. How many people at Columbine do you think would be okay with this game? There have been so many school shootings in this country that the game would most likely be banned REAL quick. Possibly before it was even released. Personally I have PC. I have a sticker on the back of my van of a kid pissing on "political correctness" while giving you the finger. There are just some things that you don't do in a video game. Hell we may as well bring Custer's Revenge back with the updated graphics of today. I bet that one would go over great.

Edited December 24, 2021 by The Blackangel

[Crazycrab]

The idea is definitely in bad taste and I don't blame the publisher for distancing themselves from this.  I'm all for freedom of speech not I'm normally against censorship, but this is one situation hits just a bit to close for to many people. The devs can still explore the same ideas and gameplay scenario with a different setting that doesn't involve children.

[m76]

7 minutes ago, Shagger said:

 

Like "Kill the Faggot". That's not homophobic, it's creative liberty.

Yes, it is creative liberty, if someone chooses to do a degenerate game let them, and leave it to the audience to scrutinize it. If stupid ideas should be ridiculed, not banned, so everyone sees it for their stupidity.

7 minutes ago, Shagger said:

If think that all political correctness and censorship is wrong and there should be no stifling of creative liberty at all, then you have to say there nothing at all wrong with this game. You can't have it both ways.

One does not follow the other.  Just because I don't want something to be censored / banned doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. If something is distasteful and has no artistic value the audience will call it out, it doesn't need to be censored because word of mouth will prevail.

Bad games should be put out in the open to be ridiculed. If it's banned the creator can claim it was the best game ever, and nobody can call them bluff. If it's in the open everyone can see it for what it is.

As the saying goes: I might disapprove of what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

[Shagger]

On 12/24/2021 at 10:55 PM, m76 said:

Yes, it is creative liberty, if someone chooses to do a degenerate game let them, and leave it to the audience to scrutinize it. If stupid ideas should be ridiculed, not banned, so everyone sees it for their stupidity.

One does not follow the other.  Just because I don't want something to be censored / banned doesn't mean I think it's a good idea. If something is distasteful and has no artistic value the audience will call it out, it doesn't need to be censored because word of mouth will prevail.

Bad games should be put out in the open to be ridiculed. If it's banned the creator can claim it was the best game ever, and nobody can call them bluff. If it's in the open everyone can see it for what it is.

As the saying goes: I might disapprove of what you are saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

 

I'm not gonna lie, I'm actually surprised you took that stance. To the point where I'm almost lost for words. Let me just put into words what you just did. When presented with a blatantly homophobic piece of media, you said "that's fine, that's thier freedom of expression." You know damb well that there are members of the LGBTQ community that post on this forum (one such person was recently promoted to a moderator), yet you were willing take that stance because you're stubbornly proud of your point of view and didn't want to admit the error in your point, so instead you said... that.

 

First thing, freedom of expression stops being freedom of expression when the intent is to hinder someone else's human rights, and that's the law pretty much across the board in democratic society. Here is how it is written in UK law, for example, officially known as Article 10.

 

 

Your own country will almost certainly have something similar, and I know that America does as well. In short even the law states that there is a limit to freedom of expression. If you ask me, artistic expressions like "Kill the Faggot" are obviously expressions of hate and so damage the rights and reputations of the LGBTQ community, so would not call that protected freedom of expression. Just because it's less extreme than, let's say, North Korea where they banned laughing for 11 days around the anniversary of Kim Jong Il's death (I'm not kidding, that actually happened), doesn't mean there isn't limits and they, in fact, necessary. It's freedom of expression to say "Manchester United are shit", but it is not freedom of expression to shoot somebody in a Man' U' shirt and claim "This is my way of saying Man' U' are shit. Freedom of Speech" The reason why that's not freedom of expression/speech is because that so-called "expression" has impeded another persons rights, in this case that Man' U' fan's right to live. That's a blunt and extreme example, but it is the same philosophy of law that applies to artistic expression on the internet. The TL;DR is, you are factually wrong.

 

I do agree that public scrutiny is a great tool to measure where something sits in terms of it's acceptability, but that doesn't mean people have right to do and say whatever they want so the public can "gauge" whether it's right or wrong, and nor should they. 

 

Ultimately, if Void Interactive actually follow through with this they will deserve all the ridicule they get and them some. At the very least it's disrespectful and tone deaf, it's just not the kind of subject you mess around with. If this is what Team17 parted ways with them then I applaud them. I know that @The Blackangel mentioned the game Hatred earlier in the thread and in that game you do literally run around brutally murdering innocent people, but the whole tone, style and theme is the game is built around that premise and it is made to feel uncomfortable, so there is context. For a game based around being a part of a SWAT team for them to just say, "I know, let's make level 5 a school shooting! That'd be awesome!" is the mark of somebody who I sincerely hope is deeply, deeply stupid, because the alterative is even worse.

 

Like I said at the start, this is not censorship, nor is it an overbearing dose of political correctness, it's common fucking sense.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Shagger

[skyfire]

But if you think about it, the developer who decided to even make something like this has a dark humor. Not cool but yeah, if we can have wall painting simulator, meh. Then school shooting mission is kind of coming anyway. 

[m76]

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

I'm not gonna lie, I'm actually surprised you took that stance. To the point where I'm almost lost for words. Let me just put into words what you just did. When presented with a blatantly homophobic piece of media, you said "that's fine, that's thier freedom of expression." You know damb well that there are members of the LGBTQ community that post on this forum (one such person was recently promoted to a moderator), yet you were willing take that stance because you're stubbornly proud of your point of view and didn't want to admit the error in your point, so instead you said... that.

Banning ideas makes them go underground, and fester, where it gains a secret following. You can't see the forest because of the trees, that I'm actually taking the side of LGBTQ people*. Actual homophobes should be exposed and ridiculed, not hidden away from view to protect the feelings of those people. Sheltering is never the answer. You are being condescending to any non straight person by being offended on their behalf. They are not weaker, nor do they need you to be their straight saviour.

*I hate to use the word community, because that suggests they are somehow all the same and must act as a group rather than individuals. It's like saying the straight community, there is no such thing as a straight community, I Have nothing in common with most other straight people. So why should there be an LGBTQ community? Where everyone who is not straight is lumped together as if they are indistinguishable from each other. To me this seems more homophobic than any stupid game can ever be.

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

 

First thing, freedom of expression stops being freedom of expression when the intent is to hinder someone else's human rights, and that's the law pretty much across the board in democratic society. Here is how it is written in UK law, for example, officially known as Article 10.

In the UK there is no freedom of speech as such. I'm not going to be dragged into a debate about UK laws. You can be arrested there just for cursing in public.

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

Your own country will almost certainly have something similar, and I know that America does as well. In short even the law states that there is a limit to freedom of expression. If you ask me, artistic expressions like "Kill the Faggot" are obviously expressions of hate and so damage the rights and reputations of the LGBTQ community,

You think people have no agency and they need someone to tell them what is bad and what is not. But you already know this game is offensive, then why do you assume others can't see that? Why doesn't it turn you into a homophobe, but it turns others?

The only reputation that is damaged by such works of "art" are the people who created it. Can you imagine anyone who was not a homophobe but then decides to become one based on this ridiculous thing? If anything it could help exposing closeted homophobes, by looking at who liked the game.

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

so would not call that protected freedom of expression. Just because it's less extreme than, let's say, North Korea where they banned laughing for 11 days around the anniversary of Kim Jong Il's death (I'm not kidding, that actually happened), doesn't mean there isn't limits and they, in fact, necessary. It's freedom of expression to say "Manchester United are shit", but it is not freedom of expression to shoot somebody in a Man' U' shirt and claim "This is my way of saying Man' U' are shit.

Obviously there are limitations to free speech, like you can't threaten someone with violence.
But you are really grasping at straws here by trying to somehow imply that killing then also falls under freedom of expression.

A videogame is not equivalent to the act of murder, it is art, no matter how grass and distasteful it might be.  If you think that this game is a call to arms to let's kill the gays, then wouldn't that  make Carmageddon a call to arms to run down pedestrians?

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

Freedom of Speech" The reason why that's not freedom of expression/speech is because that so-called "expression" has impeded another persons rights, in this case that Man' U' fan's right to live. That's a blunt and extreme example, but it is the same philosophy of law that applies to artistic expression on the internet. The TL;DR is, you are factually wrong.

Nobody in the history of the world has ever thought that murder should fall under freedom of expression. Yet you hinge your argument against freedom of expression on that.

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

I do agree that public scrutiny is a great tool to measure where something sits in terms of it's acceptability, but that doesn't mean people have right to do and say whatever they want so the public can "gauge" whether it's right or wrong, and nor should they. 

Not whatever, direct calls to violence against people or groups is obviously not freedom of expression, just as divulging personal information without the involved people's consent. So obviously revenge porn isn't covered by freedom of expression. Neither is child exploitation, which some youtube channels borderline fall into, but I digress.

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

Ultimately, if Void Interactive actually follow through with this they will deserve all the ridicule they get and them some. At the very least it's disrespectful and tone deaf, it's just not the kind of subject you mess around with. If this is what Team17 parted ways with them then I applaud them. I know that @The Blackangel mentioned the game Hatred earlier in the thread and in that game you do literally run around brutally murdering innocent people, but the whole tone and them2e is the game is built around that premise and it made to feel uncomfortable, so there is context. For a game based around being a part of a SWAT team for them to just say, "I know, let's make level 5 a school shooting! That'd be awesome!" is the mark of somebody who I sincerely hope is deeply, deeply stupid, because the alterative is even worse.

But you don't know in what context would this happen in the game. By taking the publisher's side you are condemning all the developers involved. You'd rather  assume that everyone involved is morally bankrupt than give them a chance and judge the actual game.

A swat team eliminating a terrorist threat at an airport or an active shooter at a school, what's the fundamental difference? Both are being part of a swat team  There are children at airports too. If it's handled well I don't see why would this make the developers "deeply stupid"

9 hours ago, Shagger said:

Like I said at the start, this is not censorship, nor is it an overbearing dose of political correctness, it's common fucking sense.

There is no better textbook example of censorship than a publisher refusing to publish something.

[Shagger]

On 12/25/2021 at 9:58 AM, m76 said:

In the UK there is no freedom of speech as such. I'm not going to be dragged into a debate about UK laws. You can be arrested there just for cursing in public.

 

I was wrong the whole time. You're not smart, you're an idiot. I see no point in even taking your points seriously enough to recognise them anymore because of just how stupid that is. I don't want a response from you that isn't an admission that you are blind, (suddenly) can't understand English, too arrogant to admit you're wrong, or just plain fucking stupid. But I I'll know get one, your overinflated ego will not allow otherwise. But let me tel you, there is oathing you can say to have this make any sense. You're targeting an audience that, in your mind, is less smart than you. Here's  reality check, they're not, thier smarter, better and more valuable to this community than you.

 

There is all the proof I need to show not only how arrogant you are ,but how stupid as well. First, I literally showed you what it is in writing (it was only meant to be an example anyway), yet you glance over it then make your own mind up about what the truth is. Do you live in the UK? No you don't, but I do, so which on of us is in a better position to say what the truth is? And I'm telling you, what you just said is a complete bullshit.

 

Seriously, who do you think you are? What little respect I had left for you has now evaporated. Until now, despite the fact we but heads a lot, I felt that you brought something of value to VGR, but I was wrong. You're nothing a but a feeble, arrogant, misogynistic, racist idiot and that's the truth.

 

You don't deserve it, you've proven that nothing you say gas relevance anymore, but out of courtesy I'll address the rest of your post before moving on.

 

On 12/25/2021 at 9:58 AM, m76 said:

Banning ideas makes them go underground, and fester, where it gains a secret following. You can't see the forest because of the trees, that I'm actually taking the side of LGBTQ people*. Actual homophobes should be exposed and ridiculed, not hidden away from view to protect the feelings of those people. Sheltering is never the answer. You are being condescending to any non straight person by being offended on their behalf. They are not weaker, nor do they need you to be their straight saviour.

*I hate to use the word community, because that suggests they are somehow all the same and must act as a group rather than individuals. It's like saying the straight community, there is no such thing as a straight community, I Have nothing in common with most other straight people. So why should there be an LGBTQ community? Where everyone who is not straight is lumped together as if they are indistinguishable from each other. To me this seems more homophobic than any stupid game can ever be.

 

 

In an ideal world without prejudice, you'd be right, but that's not what we live in. All marginalised groups, not just the LGBTQ community, banded together in support of each other because of pf prejudice. That's what a c community is, it's not a hive mind or people without thier own will, it's people united over one or a handful of specific aspects. You really try to twist the facts to make anything, no matter how positive it is, look like a negative. I always remember when you, a racist, claimed callout out racism was being racist, using worryingly similar logic you've use here actually. Why the hell should any of us take anything you say with regard to prejudice even slightly seriously? And how dare you, and I mean YOU, of all people accuse me or anyone of being condescending. Speaking is support of someone is not being condescending nor is weak to accept help when it's there. There are members of the LGBTQ community on this forum, so don't take my word for it and I sure as hell am not gonna take your word for it, so maybe if one of them reads this they can offer some input.

 

On 12/25/2021 at 9:58 AM, m76 said:

You think people have no agency and they need someone to tell them what is bad and what is not. But you already know this game is offensive, then why do you assume others can't see that? Why doesn't it turn you into a homophobe, but it turns others?

The only reputation that is damaged by such works of "art" are the people who created it. Can you imagine anyone who was not a homophobe but then decides to become one based on this ridiculous thing? If anything it could help exposing closeted homophobes, by looking at who liked the game.

 

First off, "kill the Faggot" would have helped nobody in the closet. I would only help reinforce the idea that being gay is in someway a bad thing make them feel threatened, like any hate speech is supposed to do, so shut up.

 

In the case of Ready of Not, I assumed that you and @Empire didn't find it offensive because of how you both reacted, and clearly I was right. I brought up "kill the Faggot" as an example of why creative liberty has to have it's limits. I didn't assume that you wouldn't be offended, quite the opposite actually. I honestly thought you would be offended by the game. It's lack of morality, it's ignorance, it's stupidity, but as it turned out you weren't. So I failed, and you doubled down on that any form of censorship, no matter how blatantly distasteful, deliberately offensive and disrespectful with no real purpose other that to hurt other people, directly or indirectly, should be allowed. You're painting all censorship with the same brush when there undeniable necessities and even positives for it. But since you refuse to learn and grow and are only interested in making what you believe true no matter how absurd, you pull out every possible excuse you can thing of to make what you believe true. Well let me make it clear yo you, the only person you're going to convince is yourself because you are not nearly a smart as you think you are.

 

On 12/25/2021 at 9:58 AM, m76 said:

Not whatever, direct calls to violence against people or groups is obviously not freedom of expression, just as divulging personal information without the involved people's consent. So obviously revenge porn isn't covered by freedom of expression. Neither is child exploitation, which some youtube channels borderline fall into, but I digress.

 

Credit where it is due, that is the first sensible thing you have posted in this whole discourse.

 

On 12/25/2021 at 9:58 AM, m76 said:

But you don't know in what context would this happen in the game. By taking the publisher's side you are condemning all the developers involved. You'd rather  assume that everyone involved is morally bankrupt than give them a chance and judge the actual game.

A swat team eliminating a terrorist threat at an airport or an active shooter at a school, what's the fundamental difference? Both are being part of a swat team  There are children at airports too. If it's handled well I don't see why would this make the developers "deeply stupid"

 

I wanna make it clear right that right from minute one I assumed that you would be a part of the SWAT team dealing with the crisis in the game, but doesn't matter how it's addressed, it's the subject matter itself that's a no-go. It doesn't need to be school shooting either, you could have a hostage situation at a school, for example. The gameplay could still operate in the scenario just as effectively, it's just no necessary for it to be that dark. I'll give it to you, if you feel that being on the right side of the law in a simulated school shooting can be handled tastefully then that's fine, but I personally believe that the inclusion of such a scenario at all is just not appropriate.

 

On 12/25/2021 at 9:58 AM, m76 said:

There is no better textbook example of censorship than a publisher refusing to publish something.

 

Like I said, I don't blame Team17 for taking this stance if that's why they have, so call it censorship if you want I still applaud them for it. Like I said earlier, just because it's censorship (and it's debatable whether or not it is in this case), doesn't automatically make it a bad thing.

Edited December 27, 2021 by Shagger

[Crazycrab]

1 hour ago, m76 said:

In the UK there is no freedom of speech as such. I'm not going to be dragged into a debate about UK laws. You can be arrested there just for cursing in public.

 

It's clear from this statement that your entire knowledge of the UK comes from a 1950 news bulletin!

 

Seriously! Have you actually spent more than 5 minutes in public in the UK?  Even on school playgrounds the words cunt and fuck are as casual and cat and dog!  Your 1000 times more likely to be arrested using red diesel in your car!

Edited December 25, 2021 by Crazycrab