Cyberpunk 2077 - CDProjekt's New Joint

Nah, they got quite a bit of publicity out it. They happened to have the artist responsible at E3, so there were several interviews with her at various sites that also published, so they got even more word out, and specifically their side of it.

I don’t get the impression that this has been negative publicity for them overall.

Fair point. I meant they’d have gotten less negativity but I suspect you’re right that this is a net positive regardless of the tone of some of it.

I suppose it’s possible that no one is that outraged about it either, but is using this as an opportunity to publicize the cause. Everyone wins (?)

Which really isn’t any better an interpretation of the article than “context doesn’t matter”. The article doesn’t need re-interpreting to telegraph it’s point. Which, again, is “Cyberpunk 2077’s in-game context doesn’t matter if its marketing contributes to transphobia right now” which is the title of the article and is written in response to other writing highlighting that imagery and the reaction to it and the common defense of it.

I’m perfectly okay with people disagreeing with the arguments the article makes, I just don’t really see why doing so necessitates distilling the simple premise of it into a pithy statement that is disingenuous with what it actually states.

Personally, discussions around representation of under-represented demographics in video games is something I find interesting. I’m not trans, so my initial reaction was to consider this something inclusive. I find conflicting views, like the RPS article, to be pretty interesting, since they’re from such a different perspective than my own.

Distilling the premise into the premise the author made. Yes, it’s very disingenuous.

Was the marketing really contributing to transphobia before publications like RPS made a big thing out of it?

And is treating trans people like everyone else (oversexualized and made into objects by corporations) really all that transphobic?
If anything it seems kind of inclusive in a strange way.
I mean they could have easily just not had any trans people whatsoever like 99.95% of games and no one would’ve said anything.

Except that this is not the premise the author made:

Seriously, disgree with what it says. (For the record, I do.) Dismissing it by spouting a pithy soundbyte straw argument that you can sneer at is surely what the internet is good at, but it’s not a real discussion of anything and does no favors to constructive discourse.

That’s kind of my takeaway. It’s a dystopian future where pretty much everyone that’s not ultra-rich is being exploited, and trans folks are getting exploited right alongside everyone else. It’s a very dark comment, but not at the expense of trans folks.

Yes, everyone should think the same 100% of the time and noone should ever question the authority figures of your moral cause. Anyone who does is clearly in league with the reactionaries and should be condemned. A true utopia will only happen when we all agree on everything; dissent cannot be tolerated.

The number of mainstream movies, with marketing, is probably larger than the number of mainstream games with comparable marketing (where comparisons are possible). Movies have a long head start on games, in terms of cultural awareness, for sure, too.

I will say, anecdotally, that pretty much all of the students I teach (college students) are now coming from households where one or both parents grew up playing games; many of their parents still play games, often with them.

I don’t have any problem with disagreement. I disagree with a bunch of the premises of this latest RPS by Sam Greer (Though she is trans, so that lends her observations a bit more weight for me.) What I object to is the dismissal of any article that attempts social critique with accusations of white-knighting or click-baiting. Most of the time people present this kind of criticism out of vested interest or out of real empathetic concern. Cavalier dismissal by impugning motive reads as an attempt to stifle any discussion of the issue at all.

Maybe someone can help me out here since I feel like I missed something…

What is making folks think that chick in the in-game poster is a trans person?

I’m not seeing anything to suggest that’s the case.

Besides the artist saying so, the character in the ad has a huge penis bulge (really more of an erection outline) the ad says “Mix It Up” and the drink is “Chromanticure.”

I might’ve missed it too if it wasn’t pointed out to me, but the contours of the outfit below the waist are subtle until I suddenly realized they were anything but subtle.

You can really only see it if you are very zoomed in. I would never have noticed it from the original images NVIDIA released since the ad was far in the distance.

Ok, so I guess I didn’t notice it.
So then the next question becomes, “Why would this matter?”

I mean, sexualized people in ads is pretty much the standard, right? Presumably in some future world where trans people are accepted as normal, you’d see them in that same role, right?

Welcome to the last few days of this thread!

I told you I was behind!