GTA The Trilogy: The Definitive Edition (November 11, 2021)

[dieselmanchild]

2 hours ago, SuperSmexy500 said:

I don't know how much Rockstar really cares about not causing offence considering RDR2 allows you to murder both feminists and the KKK alike

They might care more than you think. The stuff you mentioned actually lead to a significant backlash against Rockstar. I remember seeing a whole slew of articles being pumped out by feminist writers who were outraged over trolls making YouTube videos where they would kill the suffragettes in RDR2 in various ways when the game first came out.
 

They kicked up a huge fuss about that and a few other issues at the time, and while it might seem like Rockstar ignored it at the time, you’d have to think those sorts of coordinated political attacks challenging their beliefs and morals as a company in major news publications would start to take it’s toll over time. Rockstar used to seem like they were above political correctness, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they have at last begun to bow to the intense pressure of these special interest groups like everyone else is nowadays.
 

It’s honestly really hard not to. For example, look at all the public drama that has been consuming Netflix recently regarding Dave Chapelle’s recent comedy show. It’s a complete mess. These kind of diehard progressive types are extremely loud and vocal about their politics and have the media on their side, and upsetting them has become any company’s worst nightmare, so most are taking proactive steps to avoid offending them before they even release anything.

 

 

[Raidou Kuzunoha XIV]

2 hours ago, AJ_Radio said:

Germany takes Swastikas very seriously, because of the history of violence and despair they went through under that symbol. Perhaps they look at censorship differently than they do, but they are so ashamed of it they went and censored Wolfenstein II. 
 

Here in the United States, we have this agenda against Japanese games featuring characters in the nude. Yet we allow full scale violence and brutality such as that seen in The Last of Us Part II. There is an obvious bias here that isn’t just restricted to California, where Sony Interactive Entertainment is headquartered. It’s a standard. Officials in the UK saw Bully as offensive so the name was changed, but we allowed it here in its original form.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is basically a fictional take on history that is more or less supposed to reflect a part of American culture. Racism and KKK were commonplace just as much as there were whorehouses. Sexism was also prevalent. Life was rough as an outlaw, and the decline of the Old West was felt in the cowboys and gunslingers of that era. 
 

The Mafia franchise likewise is a fictional take seeing thru the lens into the life and history of the American Mafia. In Mafia III upon starting the game you get a message that the developers made an attempt to accurately portray the period in which the game is set. Segregation, which is evident in the ‘No Colored People’ signs you saw by the front doors of shops. The dialogue between Lincoln Clay and a member of the KKK. Segregation happened and brutal racism was there. 
 

Censoring either game (RDR2 or Mafia III) would of been a giant slap in the face and a great disservice. But we’re talking about an old game (GTA Vice City) having something removed from it because it may cause great offensive, despite the fact the flag itself isn’t seen for than maybe a couple minutes throughout the entire game.

 

That’s my issue in this.

 

I will say that I do find it amusing that, if memory serves (which it may not because my memory isn't great), the character that wears that shirt is one of many Rockstar's mocking stereotypes. It wasn't ever portrayed as something "positive", wasn't really portrayed as anything other than what it was, again, if memory serves. But again, nuance and context generally don't matter to outrage culture, and I use that term in the broadest sense.

 

58 minutes ago, dieselmanchild said:

They might care more than you think. The stuff you mentioned actually lead to a significant backlash against Rockstar. I remember seeing a whole slew of articles being pumped out by feminist writers who were outraged over trolls making YouTube videos where they would kill the suffragettes in RDR2 in various ways when the game first came out.
 

They kicked up a huge fuss about that and a few other issues at the time, and while it might seem like Rockstar ignored it at the time, you’d have to think those sorts of coordinated political attacks challenging their beliefs and morals as a company in major news publications would start to take it’s toll over time. Rockstar used to seem like they were above political correctness, but it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they have at last begun to bow to the intense pressure of these special interest groups like everyone else is nowadays.
 

It’s honestly really hard not to. For example, look at all the public drama that has been consuming Netflix recently regarding Dave Chapelle’s recent comedy show. It’s a complete mess. These kind of diehard progressive types are extremely loud and vocal about their politics and have the media on their side, and upsetting them has become any company’s worst nightmare, so most are taking proactive steps to avoid offending them before they even release anything.

 

 

 

I don't know how much Rockstar cares, as I said. From an outside, consumer perspective, it doesn't really seem like they do. Plenty of games have had their content changed due to backlash, or the devs/publishers will have to insist such and such in a game doesn't represent their views, but the only thing I can recall Rockstar changing in recent history was some of the aforementioned confederate flags in GTAV. Not sure if anyone was even complaining about those? Either way, they've generally always kinda been known as having very controversial games, and they usually own that pretty well.

 

Maybe some things have changed behind the scenes though, but there's no way of really knowing unless it becomes blatantly obvious.

 

There will always be things generally considered offensive or otherwise inappropriate in certain cultures and time periods. I know a lot of people think it's all doom and gloom nowadays, but this has been going on since the dawn of mass distributed entertainment (heck, even before that). It'd be great if we could just have forms of media that some may find offensive, but accept it's just a form of fiction. Sadly though, humans don't really operate that way, and our entertainment often reflects the general zeitgeist and views of the time. Just look at old 1960s movies and compare them to movies released in the past decade. There's a lot of things in old movies that wouldn't fly nowadays, and a lot of things in modern movies that wouldn't fly back then either.

 

I'm not familiar with the recent Netflix controversy, so can't really comment on that, but I do think social media in general has made issues like this more visible. You see more people complaining nowadays because it's easier for people to complain. Cancel culture has always been a thing, it's just more "seen" now because it can literally happen on social media alone. Back in the day, it was more covert and often only concerned those directly involved.

 

I've kind of gone off on a tangent here, but bottom line is, I'm not too concerned about Rockstar making their games any less controversial any time soon. That is, if they even make more games at some point, been nearly a decade since the last GTA...

[AJ_Radio]

3 minutes ago, SuperSmexy500 said:

Maybe some things have changed behind the scenes though, but there's no way of really knowing unless it becomes blatantly obvious.

 

There will always be things generally considered offensive or otherwise inappropriate in certain cultures and time periods. I know a lot of people think it's all doom and gloom nowadays, but this has been going on since the dawn of mass distributed entertainment (heck, even before that). It'd be great if we could just have forms of media that some may find offensive, but accept it's just a form of fiction. Sadly though, humans don't really operate that way, and our entertainment often reflects the general zeitgeist and views of the time. Just look at old 1960s movies and compare them to movies released in the past decade. There's a lot of things in old movies that wouldn't fly nowadays, and a lot of things in modern movies that wouldn't fly back then either.

 

I'm not familiar with the recent Netflix controversy, so can't really comment on that, but I do think social media in general has made issues like this more visible. You see more people complaining nowadays because it's easier for people to complain. Cancel culture has always been a thing, it's just more "seen" now because it can literally happen on social media alone. Back in the day, it was more covert and often only concerned those directly involved.

 

I've kind of gone off on a tangent here, but bottom line is, I'm not too concerned about Rockstar making their games any less controversial any time soon. That is, if they even make more games at some point, been nearly a decade since the last GTA...

 

Cancel culture is more mainstream now than it was in the past. You always had your cancel culture morons. Back in the 1980s musicians like Frank Zappa were opposed to rock albums getting a 'explicit label' on them, and the issue was elevated to the point where it was brought to court. The censorship groups back then were the same types that made a crusade against violent video games a decade later in the 90s. But..... unless you were really reading the news regarding what was going on with lyrics in rock albums and gore shown in video games, you probably weren't aware of them.

 

The vocal minority is able to gather on a single website, in this case Twitter, and have the power to greatly damage and influence things around them. It is no longer just taking to the streets to protest or turning to the newspapers to sensationalize something. That is what's going on with this flag incident in Vice City, and the controversy surrounding Dave Chappelle's new comedy show.

 

Combine this with the fact we now have 24/7 news stations on national television as well as news apps showing you the latest controversies that can give you notifications at any time, and you end up with where we are today. The masses can see and search for this stuff much easier which is why it's more "seen" now. Before, there was only a select group of people turning to cancel culture, they certainly couldn't gather on the internet because for the most part it didn't exist. Which goes back to Frank Zappa, because he was directly involved in the controversy regarding a warning label on new rock albums being released back in the 80s. Those who weren't aware or weren't concerned didn't care about the issue.

[Raidou Kuzunoha XIV]

22 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

Cancel culture is more mainstream now than it was in the past. You always had your cancel culture morons. Back in the 1980s musicians like Frank Zappa were opposed to rock albums getting a 'explicit label' on them, and the issue was elevated to the point where it was brought to court. The censorship groups back then were the same types that made a crusade against violent video games a decade later in the 90s. But..... unless you were really reading the news regarding what was going on with lyrics in rock albums and gore shown in video games, you probably weren't aware of them.

 

The vocal minority is able to gather on a single website, in this case Twitter, and have the power to greatly damage and influence things around them. It is no longer just taking to the streets to protest or turning to the newspapers to sensationalize something. That is what's going on with this flag incident in Vice City, and the controversy surrounding Dave Chappelle's new comedy show.

 

Combine this with the fact we now have 24/7 news stations on national television as well as news apps showing you the latest controversies that can give you notifications at any time, and you end up with where we are today. The masses can see and search for this stuff much easier which is why it's more "seen" now. Before, there was only a select group of people turning to cancel culture, they certainly couldn't gather on the internet because for the most part it didn't exist. Which goes back to Frank Zappa, because he was directly involved in the controversy regarding a warning label on new rock albums being released back in the 80s. Those who weren't aware or weren't concerned didn't care about the issue.

 

If people have enough power to influence media, then I can only imagine companies value these people's opinions enough that they think censoring or editing something is worth it enough to do so. Maybe a good chunk of those demographics buy their products so they want to keep them appeased as a result, or maybe it's just marketing ploys/good PR/virtue signalling. Again, not much different from how things have always been, but social media makes it much more widespread and visible. When it comes to corporations, the things that speak the loudest are money and subsequently a good public image, so I can't really blame 'em for trying to appeal the most to what is currently popular and makes them money.

 

I briefly skimmed the Dave Chappelle controversy, didn't really look into it enough to have any firm opinion, but I can understand why it rocked the boat. Personally, I'm glad we're at a point now where people can criticise things like this and actually be taken seriously. Whether Netflix decides to drop this person and/or their show as a result of this, is really Netflix's own prerogative. While people on social media may certainly have some influence, the decisions that ultimately get made are always down to the producers of said media themselves. And there's certainly been plenty of times when a developer/etc. has chosen to do nothing, and all is forgotten eventually. I don't remember anything ever really coming from the Heartbeat (game) controversy, to give one example, other than the game's reputation being permanently tarred in the eyes of some.

[AJ_Radio]

14 minutes ago, SuperSmexy500 said:

 

If people have enough power to influence media, then I can only imagine companies value these people's opinions enough that they think censoring or editing something is worth it enough to do so. Maybe a good chunk of those demographics buy their products so they want to keep them appeased as a result, or maybe it's just marketing ploys/good PR/virtue signalling. Again, not much different from how things have always been, but social media makes it much more widespread and visible. When it comes to corporations, the things that speak the loudest are money and subsequently a good public image, so I can't really blame 'em for trying to appeal the most to what is currently popular and makes them money.

 

I briefly skimmed the Dave Chappelle controversy, didn't really look into it enough to have any firm opinion, but I can understand why it rocked the boat. Personally, I'm glad we're at a point now where people can criticise things like this and actually be taken seriously. Whether Netflix decides to drop this person and/or their show as a result of this, is really Netflix's own prerogative. While people on social media may certainly have some influence, the decisions that ultimately get made are always down to the producers of said media themselves. And there's certainly been plenty of times when a developer/etc. has chosen to do nothing, and all is forgotten eventually. I don't remember anything ever really coming from the Heartbeat (game) controversy, to give one example, other than the game's reputation being permanently tarred in the eyes of some.

 

I don't speak for the corporations. Never have, never will. But there is no doubt they hold such power and influence that even the government can do little to stop them.

 

Every other celebrity these days is practically a controversy, because that's what the media wants. People that should mean little to us because they are celebrities. I remember the Casey Anthony trial a decade ago and that was when I officially decided to stop taking the media seriously. Like with Dave Chappelle, the trial was thrown into the public spotlight. Facts, truths and evidence became muddled in public bullshit. Suddenly millions of people were the judges in the courtroom.

 

I used to think bullshit only spread in the United States but over the past 10 years it is prevalent in other western countries. Yes, I'm a bit biased, I will admit.

 

This is simply big business doing their bullshit as usual. Unfortunately Rockstar was one of the few remaining companies who seemed to be above political correctness, as someone already pointed out. But they finally have seemed to succumb to the special interest groups. I already knew about them removing the Confederate Flag out of Grand Theft Auto V, so this was likely a decision they already made well before the news was released.

 

A Confederate Flag being shown in a nearly 20 year game on some character. Didn't really matter to most of us because we were still kids when Vice City originally came out. More people were pointing out the violence and the mayhem that was the gameplay in Grand Theft Auto. But making a case out of a flag that is literally only shown for no more than a few minutes has to be reaching a new low.

 

Not that I'm going to get the remastered collection because I think the visuals look awful. Definitely would of preferred an actual remake, like what Hangar 13 did with the original Mafia game.

[Zephrese]

13 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

A Confederate Flag being shown in a nearly 20 year game on some character. Didn't really matter to most of us because we were still kids when Vice City originally came out. More people were pointing out the violence and the mayhem that was the gameplay in Grand Theft Auto. But making a case out of a flag that is literally only shown for no more than a few minutes has to be reaching a new low.

 

I can't take that last part seriously, I'm sorry.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Zephrese

[AJ_Radio]

4 minutes ago, Zephrese said:

 

I can't take that last part seriously, I'm sorry.

 

Then we'll just agree to disagree. I don't like the flag itself, as a matter of fact I condemn it. But I honestly can't help but think this change was done at the last minute, and it's obvious as to why. Rockstar doesn't want and probably can't afford to piss off a legion of people out there.

 

Too many people cannot differentiate reality from fiction. This is definitely a sign the times are changing. The most vocal aren't going to get this trilogy anyway, so like most everything now, this debate isn't going to go anywhere.

[Zephrese]

15 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

Then we'll just agree to disagree. I don't like the flag itself, as a matter of fact I condemn it. But I honestly can't help but think this change was done at the last minute, and it's obvious as to why. Rockstar doesn't want and probably can't afford to piss off a legion of people out there.

 

Too many people cannot differentiate reality from fiction. This is definitely a sign the times are changing. The most vocal aren't going to get this trilogy anyway, so like most everything now, this debate isn't going to go anywhere.

 

I just don't understand how people can be this vocal about something they claim does not warrant getting offended over, only then to proceed and do the exact thing.

(Like it or not, making a big fuss about it like this is getting offended, even if not necessarily in the stereotypical "reee!!!!" kind of way)

 

Most people that complain about this kind of stuff to this degree and ignore logic or severity typically and ironically parrot the exact same people they're complaining about.

It's really just people who constantly complain about other people getting supposedly so easily offended because they see things differently or have had different experiences in their lives, and then proceeding to becoming so easily offend themselves and using moronic terms like "snowflake" or "feminazi" unironically.
(Likely because their vocabulary is lacking, and they can't be bothered to try anything other than the cheapest and lowest effort of insult they can muster)

 

It's ultimately an uroboros like a lot of political tripe is nowadays;

The two sides always end up behaving the exact same way, albeit from two different angles, until they're equally as obnoxious and detached from reality as one another, thus we run in circles and nothing gets anywhere anytime soon.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Zephrese

[Raidou Kuzunoha XIV]

31 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

I don't speak for the corporations. Never have, never will. But there is no doubt they hold such power and influence that even the government can do little to stop them.

 

Every other celebrity these days is practically a controversy, because that's what the media wants. People that should mean little to us because they are celebrities. I remember the Casey Anthony trial a decade ago and that was when I officially decided to stop taking the media seriously. Like with Dave Chappelle, the trial was thrown into the public spotlight. Facts, truths and evidence became muddled in public bullshit. Suddenly millions of people were the judges in the courtroom.

 

I used to think bullshit only spread in the United States but over the past 10 years it is prevalent in other western countries. Yes, I'm a bit biased, I will admit.

 

This is simply big business doing their bullshit as usual. Unfortunately Rockstar was one of the few remaining companies who seemed to be above political correctness, as someone already pointed out. But they finally have seemed to succumb to the special interest groups. I already knew about them removing the Confederate Flag out of Grand Theft Auto V, so this was likely a decision they already made well before the news was released.

 

A Confederate Flag being shown in a nearly 20 year game on some character. Didn't really matter to most of us because we were still kids when Vice City originally came out. More people were pointing out the violence and the mayhem that was the gameplay in Grand Theft Auto. But making a case out of a flag that is literally only shown for no more than a few minutes has to be reaching a new low.

 

Not that I'm going to get the remastered collection because I think the visuals look awful. Definitely would of preferred an actual remake, like what Hangar 13 did with the original Mafia game.

 

We have no idea why the flag was removed. I'm sure if anything the conversation at Rockstar maybe went something like this: Person A: "Hey, maybe we should edit the flag on this character's shirt, y'know, just in case?" Person B: "Yeah, you're prolly right. Do that" Person A: "Alright boss". And that was it, no deeper meaning behind it or any serious discussion or thought put into it, just something they thought maybe wouldn't go over too well nowadays and thought it best to remove. Or who knows, maybe Rockstar actually loves the controversy and deliberately removed it to spark controversy in the opposite direction. I doubt, but manufactured outrage is pretty common nowadays.

 

Anyway, I legitimately don't understand why this is such a hot topic in all honesty. I get it, censorship bad, but why does it really matter at the end of the day that a NPC's shirt was changed? Is it just because Rockstar is seemingly kowtowing to the Twitter mob? If it was the 1990s or early 2000s and this game was hypothetically re-released on PS1/PS2 (having originally being released on PC) with the exact same edit with the shirt on these new ports, I have to wonder if it would generate the same level of controversy.

Edited October 26, 2021 by SuperSmexy500

[Z1MZUM]

Hard Copy for sure, I still have the trilogy on the OG Xbox.

 

Snowflakes everywhere and the reason COD is so fucked up with SBMM. Mind you I live in a country that had a "Special" version of the original GTA3 on ps2, Luckily I got a copy of the real deal as well as Manhunt before it was shelved. Lets pretend no-one is racist and prostitutes don't exist while I get my mum and dad watch me sniper a prostitute between the eyes  and then run her over after having sex back in 2001.

[AJ_Radio]

2 minutes ago, Zephrese said:

 

I just don't understand how people can be so vocal about this, clamming that it's not a big of enough deal in of itself to warrant getting offend, only to then proceed and get overly offend by it being removed.

 

Most people that complain about this kind of stuff to this degree and ignore logic or severity typically and ironically parrot the exact same people they're complaining about.

It's just people who complain about other people getting so supposedly easily offended, and then get so easily offend themselves and use moronic terms like snowflake or feminazi unironically.
(Likely because their vocabulary is lacking and they can't be bothered to try anything than the cheapest and lowest form of insult they can muster)

 

It's an uroboros like a lot of political tripe is nowadays;

The two sides always end up behaving the exact same way from two different angles until they're equally as obnoxious and detached from reality as one another, thus we run in circles.

 

Please.

 

Rockstar didn't even give a valid reason for removing it to begin with. The entire Grand Theft Auto franchise from GTA III going forward is basically a parody of American culture. It is fiction. Many of us were aware Phil Cassidy is a redneck type of person, who himself is a parody as are/were many GTA characters. The only valid reason I can think of is they removed it to conform to the changing times. I'm not going to go into what the flag itself has stirred up in recent memory since we already know.

 

It is sad we have come to this point, but this is the reality we live in now.

[Zephrese]

13 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

Please.

 

Rockstar didn't even give a valid reason for removing it to begin with. The entire Grand Theft Auto franchise from GTA III going forward is basically a parody of American culture. It is fiction. Many of us were aware Phil Cassidy is a redneck type of person, who himself is a parody as are/were many GTA characters. The only valid reason I can think of is they removed it to conform to the changing times. I'm not going to go into what the flag itself has stirred up in recent memory since we already know.

 

It is sad we have come to this point, but this is the reality we live in now.

 

They don't have to give a valid reason because it's their game. lol

Doesn't mean one has to like it, but proportionally speaking the reaction some people are having to this is the equivalent of a child getting mad because a toy they didn't even play with was taken away. I'd obviously understand if it was something bigger, but this just doesn't make much sense to me.

 

More than anything I just want this topic to be about anything other than this mundane garbage, hence why I'm a bit peeved, but that's expecting a lot from some of the people here it seems.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Zephrese

[Shadiochao]

2 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

The only valid reason I can think of is they removed it to conform to the changing times. I'm not going to go into what the flag itself has stirred up in recent memory since we already know.

 

It's almost certainly because the character wearing the shirt is friendly with the player.

 

This isn't the first time a confederate flag has been removed from a GTA game. The Lost bike gang members used to wear them in GTA 4 until you were given the option to play as them, and instead the flags were given to their rival gang. One confederate flag was removed in GTA 5, and it also belonged to The Lost. So that's two games in addition to this one where flags have been selectively removed, and the thing they all have in common is that they were used by friendly characters. 

 

They're obviously not afraid to show the flag, they're just rightly not associating it with likeable characters.

[AJ_Radio]

1 minute ago, Shadiochao said:

They're obviously not afraid to show the flag, they're just rightly not associating it with likeable characters.

 

They weren't afraid to show it, but ultimately the change is due to the flag being a hot issue within the past few years. In the end, Rockstar doesn't want to divert people from buying their products, and someone felt that the flag would affect sales, even if they were minor, because their bottom line is money.

[Shadiochao]

Just now, AJ_Radio said:

They weren't afraid to show it, but ultimately the change is due to the flag being a hot issue within the past few years. In the end, Rockstar doesn't want to divert people from buying their products, and someone felt that the flag would affect sales, even if they were minor, because their bottom line is money.

 

The first example I gave was changed in 2009.

 

And it's a bit more than a hot issue. Maybe in 2002 it was mainly associated with rednecks and gun nuts, but 19 years is a long time and now if you have a character wearing the flag they'll be associated with things like this:

 

The flag doesn't convey the same message now. So if you want to show someone as just being a redneck type of person, you don't use something that's being proudly paraded alongside Nazi flags. 

[AJ_Radio]

3 minutes ago, Shadiochao said:

 

The first example I gave was changed in 2009.

 

And it's a bit more than a hot issue. Maybe in 2002 it was mainly associated with rednecks and gun nuts, but 19 years is a long time and now if you have a character wearing the flag they'll be associated with things like this:

 

The flag doesn't convey the same message now. So if you want to show someone as just being a redneck type of person, you don't use something that's being proudly paraded alongside Nazi flags. 

 

I'm perfectly aware of what happened back then. I went to high school with kids who had Confederate flags, we had a small gathering of "rednecks" if you will at my school. It's basically publishers being afraid of bad press. A fictional character wearing it shouldn't be looked at with the same scrutiny as an actual person wearing it on their T-Shirt.

 

Rockstar has turned into the very thing they once made fun of.

[DrBloodmoney]

14 minutes ago, Shadiochao said:

The flag doesn't convey the same message now. So if you want to show someone as just being a redneck type of person, you don't use something that's being proudly paraded alongside Nazi flags. 

 

This ^

 

 

Having the confederate flag T-Shirt on a character in 2002, said something about that character that was intentional.

Having the confederate flag T-Shirt on a character in 2021 says something completely different about that character - which does not marry with the original intent.

 

By retaining the flag, they wouldn't actually be 'preserving' the original intent, they would be changing it - because the context has changed.

They would no longer be implying that the character has a 'Redneck' slant to his personality, as was originally intended - they would, unintentionally, be implying that the character is an Alt-Right incel fascist, which makes no sense for the character.

 

By removing the flag, it could therefore be argued they are actually doing a better job of retaining the original intent than they would be if they kept it, as the cultural overtones the symbol represents have changed so drastically in the intervening years. 

Edited October 26, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[TomataEighty9]

1 minute ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

This ^

 

 

Having the confederate flag T-Shirt on a character in 2002, said something about that character that was intentional.

Having the confederate flag T-Shirt on a character in 2021 says something completely different about that character - which does not marry with the original intent.

 

By retaining the flag, they wouldn't actually be 'preserving' the original intent, they would be changing it - because the context has changed.

They would no longer be implying that the character has a 'Redneck' slant to his personality, as was originally intended, they would, unintentionally, be implying that the character is an Alt-Right incel fascist, which makes no sense for the character.

 

By removing the flag, it could therefore be argued they are actually doing a better job of retaining the original intent than they would be if they kept it, as the cultural overtones the symbol represents have changed so drastically in the intervening years. 

 

This post HAS to win post of the thread!  

 

I never thought about it this way, and you just convinced me i was wrong. Thank you sir. I LOVE when my perspective is widened by well thought and delivered opinions  

[AJ_Radio]

4 minutes ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

This ^

 

 

Having the confederate flag T-Shirt on a character in 2002, said something about that character that was intentional.

Having the confederate flag T-Shirt on a character in 2021 says something completely different about that character - which does not marry with the original intent.

 

By retaining the flag, they wouldn't actually be 'preserving' the original intent, they would be changing it - because the context has changed.

They would no longer be implying that the character has a 'Redneck' slant to his personality, as was originally intended - they would, unintentionally, be implying that the character is an Alt-Right incel fascist, which makes no sense for the character.

 

By removing the flag, it could therefore be argued they are actually doing a better job of retaining the original intent than they would be if they kept it, as the cultural overtones the symbol represents have changed so drastically in the intervening years. 

 

People are failing to see the bigger picture here, and whether or not this "definitive edition" is actually going to stay true to the source material. Maybe some of the dialogue in the radio talk shows has been changed as well.

 

We don't know until more people play these games and find out.

[TomataEighty9]

2 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

 

People are failing to see the bigger picture here, and whether or not this "definitive edition" is actually going to stay true to the source material. Maybe some of the dialogue in the radio talk shows has been changed as well.

 

We don't know until more people play these games and find out.

 

I agree with you, if they do changes that change the MEANING of the original. 

 

But if they change things, because the meaning of the object/subject has changed, and make sure it keeps the original meaning, i think it's all good. 

 

The comment from before really opened up my perspective on this matter   and that's good.

[DrBloodmoney]

Just now, AJ_Radio said:

People are failing to see the bigger picture here, and whether or not this "definitive edition" is actually going to stay true to the source material. Maybe some of the dialogue in the radio talk shows has been changed as well.

 

We don't know until more people play these games and find out.

 

I'd say that getting bogged down on a "nothing should even be changed, no matter how much cultural changes radically alter the original intent" is the very definition of "failing to see the bigger picture."

 

The bigger picture is what the Confederate flag represents in the current cultural climate.

 

The infinitesimally small picture is how much a change in one T-Shirt design in a 50 hour game matters.

[AJ_Radio]

1 minute ago, DrBloodmoney said:

 

I'd say that getting bogged down on a "nothing should even be changed, no matter how much cultural changes radically alter the original intent" is the very definition of "failing to see the bigger picture."

 

The bigger picture is what the Confederate flag represents in the current cultural climate.

 

The infinitesimally small picture is how much a change in one T-Shirt design in a 50 hour game matters.

 

I can't agree with you here.

 

Preserving integrity, something I care about, seems to be mostly tossed by the wayside. Phil Cassidy is supposed to be an undesirably unintelligent, gun-toting, moonshine-drinking, racist redneck. We don't know too much else aside from the flag change, but I already don't like how this definitive edition is turning out.

 

The video game media today in its current state can kiss my ass.

[DrBloodmoney]

5 minutes ago, AJ_Radio said:

Preserving integrity, something I care about, seems to be mostly tossed by the wayside. Phil Cassidy is supposed to be an undesirably unintelligent, gun-toting, moonshine-drinking, racist redneck. 

 

And my point is, in 2002, a confederate flag implied just that.

 

In 2021, it implies something different - something that has nothing to do with the original intent for the character.

 

If someone new came to the game in 2021, and saw the confederate flag T, they would not think "redneck". They would think "Alt Right incel" - something that makes no sense for the character.

 

Therefore, I think taking the flag out is Rockstar preserving the integrity of their game. 

 

Keeping it would be a bastardisation of that integrity - as it would imply completely different things now, which they never meant it to do when they put it in originally.

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by DrBloodmoney

[AJ_Radio]

1 minute ago, DrBloodmoney said:

And my point is, in 2002, a confederate flag implied just that.

 

In 2021, it implies something different - something that has nothing to do with the original intent for the character.

 

If someone new came to the game in 2021, and saw the confederate flag T, they would not think "redneck". They would think "Alt Right incel" - something that makes no sense for the character.

 

Therefore, I think taking the flag out is Rockstar preserving the integrity of their game. 

 

Keeping it would be a bastardisation of that integrity - as it would imply completely different things now, which they never meant it to do when they put it in originally.

 

This is a very minor detail, because back when I played Vice City decades ago I didn't even notice the flag when I was playing those missions that involved Phil Cassidy.

 

My biggest issue isn't the flag removal itself, it's us reaching that point where companies like Rockstar don't even have to release something, it hits the injustice test before it even gets to the general public. Rockstar has dealt with controversy countless times, but this is no longer the company that we loved. The leadership has changed and the company itself has changed.

 

Something gets leaked and suddenly there is a controversy about it. It's happening more and more now to where I'm not fazed at all anymore.

 

I'm against altering art and the past. Not trying to argue here, just trying to present my point from how I see things.

[You]

Considering how much gore, violence and questionable stuff there are in games these days, I can't believe there is all this fuss about a flag, which is basically just a picture, in a game that has prostitutes killing and murder in it.

 

I couldn't care less either way about the change, but I think the flag should stay in out of principle because that was how it was in the first release. Are we going to start taking out Nazi flags from Wolfenstein next? Just because 2002 and 2021 are different years, whose to say what might be fine now but unacceptable when RockStar decides to release these games yet again in 2031 and what changes they need to make but don't need to make in 2021.

 

Super Sidekicks recently got delisted off the PSN store because it featured the Taiwanese country flag, which I think is a ridiculous reason to remove a game. But hey 2017 is different to 2021, And it's a obscure NeoGeo from the mid 90s so nobody cares about that I guess.

 

First it's just flags, or slightly nudish girls for Final Fantasy 8's summon graphics, or weird upskirt stuff on RE4 removed for the upcoming RE4 VR release, I doubt anyone really cares about any of those changes, as they are minor. But then it moves onto other things, like with the banning of an entire Soccer game.

Or like when Koei Tecmo just decided to not bother releasing their Beach DOA titles outside of Japan, because of all the backlash it would inevitably get if they did.

 

That flag still exists in literally millions of copies of the game bought throughout the years, all this change is doing is making more people aware about the flag, not less. It's a backhanded promotion of the flag. I didn't even know what that flag was or is until I started reading this thread.

 

I doubt anyone here really cares all that much about the change in this trilogy, I don't, but this how it starts and maybe one day, when it's a change in a game that you like. You'll likely be upset then.

 

I'll only be mad if Rockstar mess with the RiseFM and MSM FM radio stations on GTA3, that's all I ask, but hey, I know some people will already be mad at the missing tunes on Vice City or San Andreas as some of those tunes have been missing for a long time.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2021 by enaysoft