Do you let the creators behaviour ruin their creations for you?

[Vagantem]

My examples with this would be. 

Kanye west and Glenn Danzig.. both are idiots, but I dig their songs. 

Even though I find them to be obnoxious, I forget about that and enjoy their work anyway for what it is. 

 

When it comes to games I have two more examples. 

 

Fez.. Phil Fish (the guy who made it) is someone I fundamentally disagree with. He treats his fans like shit and he's a bit of a self centered douche bag, that being said I still tried out his game and I didn't mind it.. I didn't buy it though and I wouldn't have either.

I was offered the option to rent it from playstation via ps plus. 

 

I now have this same issue with Grim Fandango, I want to play it.. but Tim Schafer the guy who made it, has aligned himself with and publicly supported a sexist con artist. 

I find that to be rather silly and I don't really want to give him money. 

But I'm considering it lol. 

 

My question to you is. 

 

Have you ever found yourself disliking the creator so much that it's stopped you from purchasing and or enjoying their creation? 

 

If not, would you ever let it stop you if you found yourself in a similar situation?

Edited February 11, 2015 by Vagantem

[Sir_Bee]

I tend to look at it from the perspective of the product, not the creator.  The person could be a total asshole in real life, but if they make great games, I want them to keep making great games.

[Flop]

Naah. Like, I love Kanye's West music, but I fucking despise him. Even though I think he's a douchebag, I still support his music, because, well, I think it's pretty good. Same deal with games. Hell, if Anita Sarkeesian SOMEHOW made a masterpiece (HA!) like 'The Last of Us', I would buy the shit outta her game. I still hate her regardless though.

[Crispy_Oglop]

By 'sexist con-artist' do you mean him Tweeting a video of Anita Sarkesian saying 'everyone who makes games should watch this'?

[MMDE]

I "digest" content that I like and that I dislike, at least when it comes to ideologies. I feel it's healthy to challenge your own opinions sometimes. While I can stand a bad game, I can not stand a boring game. I do care what the person who created the game meant with the game, and I do let this affect my opinion of a game. When it comes to the person behind a game being a douche, I really don't care if the game doesn't reflect this in any way.

 

As for Grim Fandango. The game was made more than ten years ago, Tim Schafer didn't let his recent opinions affect the game. In fact, it even has the "damsel in distress trope". lol :> It's an amazing game, and you should definitely play it, don't let his feminist opinions affect your enjoyment of this game that has nothing to do with those opinions.

Edited February 11, 2015 by MMDE

[Kashiyuka]

Nope, someone could make a completely genius product but be an absolute asshole in real life.  Doesn't affect the quality of their product for me, but if they're awesome people in real life, their creation definitely gets brownie points.

[damon8r351]

If you're a fan of Kingdoms of Amalur but support things like vaccination and whatnot, don't ever read Curt Schilling's Twitter feed, you'll be in for some disappointment.

[funboy1246]

yea id have to say it doesn't sway me one way or the other. i personally loved fez but hate phish with a passion. hate mel gibson but if lethal wepon 5 came out, i'd watch it lol. only if they've done something extremely wrong, like rape murder etc. would i reconsider supporting their products.

[MMDE]

If you're a fan of Kingdoms of Amalur but support things like vaccination and whatnot, don't ever read Curt Schilling's Twitter feed, you'll be in for some disappointment.

Ah, like Jim Carrey with his ex, Jenny McCarthy. She is most likely responsible for a lot of people's death and diseases. I can't look at her without a feeling of disgust, but if she made a good game I was interested in that didn't have an anti-vaccination message I'd probably play it. I wouldn't have supported her with money if the game did have an anti-vaccination message though.

Edited February 11, 2015 by MMDE

[damon8r351]

Ah, like Jim Carrey with his ex, Jenny McCarthy. She is most likely responsible for a lot of people's death and diseases. I can't look at her without a feeling of disgust, but if she made a good game I was interested in that didn't have an anti-vaccination message I'd probably play it. I wouldn't have supported her with money if the game did have an anti-vaccination message though.

 

Wait, wait, I was incorrect and had to do some research. Curt Schilling is publicly against the theory of evolution, but if he was against vaccination too it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Gotakibono]

I've always been of the belief that if any artist and their respective work were to be completely blacklisted on account of their various personality traits or flaws, then art galleries around the world would be very empty indeed. 

[funboy1246]

^ truth

[MMDE]

Wait, wait, I was incorrect and had to do some research. Curt Schilling is publicly against the theory of evolution, but if he was against vaccination too it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

You may want to check out this link then:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/170822/believe-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

^ Correct link, the other one was for 2 years ago, this one is for last year.

Edited February 11, 2015 by MMDE

[ZeroXOF]

Naah. Like, I love Kanye's West music, but I fucking despise him. Even though I think he's a douchebag, I still support his music, because, well, I think it's pretty good. Same deal with games. Hell, if Anita Sarkeesian SOMEHOW made a masterpiece (HA!) like 'The Last of Us', I would buy the shit outta her game. I still hate her regardless though.

 

Kanye needs to go back to the Good Morning phase, this was his peak. 

[Vagantem]

By 'sexist con-artist' do you mean him Tweeting a video of Anita Sarkesian saying 'everyone who makes games should watch this'?

No he was in one. 

 

It's pathetic. 

I "digest" content that I like and that I dislike, at least when it comes to ideologies. I feel it's healthy to challenge your own opinions sometimes. While I can stand a bad game, I can not stand a boring game. I do care what the person who created the game meant with the game, and I do let this affect my opinion of a game. When it comes to the person behind a game being a douche, I really don't care if the game doesn't reflect this in any way.

 

As for Grim Fandango. The game was made more than ten years ago, Tim Schafer didn't let his recent opinions affect the game. In fact, it even has the "damsel in distress trope". lol :> It's an amazing game, and you should definitely play it, don't let his feminist opinions affect your enjoyment of this game that has nothing to do with those opinions.

 

It's just the fact that I'm giving him money you know? Seems hypocritical in a way. 

[MMDE]

It's just the fact that I'm giving him money you know? Seems hypocritical in a way. 

 

If the game sent the messages you disliked, then I'd totally get it. I wouldn't support an Anita Sarkeesian  game either. This game has nothing to do with that and you're not supporting his opinions/beliefs by purchasing a game about something entirely different made long before he had these opinions.

Edited February 11, 2015 by MMDE

[Vagantem]

If you're a fan of Kingdoms of Amalur but support things like vaccination and whatnot, don't ever read Curt Schilling's Twitter feed, you'll be in for some disappointment.

I've never understood that movement. They have to be some of the dumbest people around, 

Science and Doctors have told them time and time again that, that the one study they're basing their whole movement on was a fake. 

It was done by doctor who was paid to lie about the side effects of the vaccinations and since then has lost his license.. 

Yet they still continue on where their dumb ass movement. 

 

I feel bad for the children. 

If the game sent the messages you disliked, then I'd totally get it. I wouldn't support an Anita Sarkeesian  game either. This game has nothing to do with that and you're not supporting his opinions/beliefs by purchasing a game about something entirely different made long before he had these opinions.

You're right and I agree for the most part. 

I just think there's a line you know. 

If say KFC banned gay people from eating there would you still go because you appreciate the product?

Or would you make a stand and not go their anymore?

 

I know my analogy is very extreme and he's merely expressing opinions that aren't effecting his games for the most part.  

But I'm still giving him money and he's helping out Anita.. who's actively campaigning against video games she doesn't agree with. 

She's pushing the narrative that some games condone and subliminally make men more misogynistic.

Tim should be fighting against that because it goes against him, his lively hood  and some of his own fans..   but instead he gives her a stage to speak from and tells his fans to listen. 

That's fucked up in my opinion. 

 

All of her bullshit has been debunked.. she's a sexist con artist. 

[Crispy_Oglop]

I get what you are saying, but the money you spend on something like Grim Fandango doesn't go directly into his pockets, you aren't agreeing with his opinions or giving him power to reinforce them. Double Fine isn't Tim Schaefer. Double Fine is Tim Schaefer and a bunch of talented people making interesting videogames.

 

If anything you are voting with your wallet that classics like this can still be successful today and possibly starting a movement to resurrect this kind of title in a world of sub-par games with lazy storytelling. Your money is paying talented developers to make more games etc.

 

You have to keep in mind that Tim Schaefer didn't make the entire game, sure he worked on it and founded Double Fine. But other talented people worked on it too and Lucasarts had a huge hand in its development. It was also made during a time where people like Sarkeesian weren't around (or rather - the internet didn't exist for them to preach to everyone)

Edited February 11, 2015 by Crispy_Oglop

[MMDE]

You're right and I agree for the most part. 

I just think there's a line you know. 

If say KFC banned gay people from eating there would you still go because you appreciate the product?

Or would you make a stand and not go their anymore?

 

What kind of a message is the KFC that bans gay people sending? Do you want to support it?

 

What kind of a message is the game sending? Do you want to support it? Also, as I said earlier and IIRC the game actually has somewhat the "damsel in distress" trope. You are doing it all for a girl, even if there are other motivations too though.

Edited February 11, 2015 by MMDE

[antithesis]

Peter Molyneux. The guy is a liar with a god complex. It affects his products. I won't buy his games.

[Vagantem]

What kind of a message is the KFC that bans gay people sending? Do you want to support it?

 

What kind of a message is the game sending? Do you want to support it? Also, as I said earlier and IIRC the game actually has somewhat the "damsel in distress" trope. You are doing it all for a girl, even if there are other motivations too though.

That's a false equivalence. In your analogy it would be what message in the chicken sending lol. 

I'm talking about funding the creator not the creation. 

 

But people here have persuaded me to buy it. 

Peter Molyneux. The guy is a liar with a god complex. It affects his products. I won't buy his games.

Hmm yeah if it affects the products that's another ball game lol. 

[MMDE]

That's a false equivalence. In your analogy it would be what message in the chicken sending lol. 

I'm talking about funding the creator not the creation. 

 

But people here have persuaded me to buy it. 

Hmm yeah if it affects the products that's another ball game lol. 

No, it's not a false equivocation. You are using the service that promotes this idea. The game doesn't. Ultimately the same people get the money, I understand that's your point, but you're not supporting them for doing that which sends the message you don't like.

Edited February 12, 2015 by MMDE

[Vagantem]

No, it's not a false equivocation. You are using the service that promotes this idea. The game doesn't. Ultimately the same people get the money, I understand that's your point, but you're not supporting them for doing that which sends the message you don't like.

No it is false. 

 

My point is the message Tim Schafer is sending, not his games. 

In my analogy it was what message is KFC sending.. not it's chicken. 

 

So for you to say well forget Tims personal views, what messages are his games sending.. is like me saying, forget KFCs views, what message is its chicken sending. 

My problem wasn't with the product, we've established that already.  

It's with the guy behind it. 

But people like you and others have reminded me that it's not just Tim getting the money, it's all the other people who worked on the game too and I kinda forgot about that.  

[TriggerTortoise]

Mmm, as long as what they're making is good, and aligns with my tastes, I have no problem investing.

[MMDE]

No it is false. 

 

You are correct in that yours was false, which is why I had to reword it.

 

My point is the message Tim Schafer is sending, not his games. 

In my analogy it was what message is KFC sending.. not it's chicken.

 

This is a false equivocation for two reasons!

 

1. The service doesn't send the same message.

2. Tim Schafer is just one of the people who made the game, his opinions are not the opinions of the company.

 

This is why it's a false equivocation, and this is why I had to reword what you said to create more comparable cases. I didn't take that much consideration to the second point as I should have done.

 

So for you to say well forget Tims personal views, what messages are his games sending.. is like me saying, forget KFCs views, what message is its chicken sending. 

My problem wasn't with the product, we've established that already. 

 

The chicken isn't send a message, but that's not all of what KFC offers, they offer a service, and that service sends a message you don't like. Is there anything similar to this when it comes to the game?

 

Considering the points I said earlier, here's a more similar case:

 

1. Tim made the game alone.

2. KFC sells a product in super markets and there they can't ban gays.

 

^ This is not the case though, but would you have bought either then? If I really liked the game and the product, I'd probably do it. There would be nothing wrong with the product or service I got that made me not want to pay for it.

 

It's with the guy behind it. 

But people like you and others have reminded me that it's not just Tim getting the money, it's all the other people who worked on the game too and I kinda forgot about that. 

 

Yes, there are other people too.

 

This reminds me about Knut Hamsun. If you are interested in literature, you may have heard about him because he was before his time with his writing techniques or whatever you want to call it. Has written some great books that still remain relevant and won a Nobel Prize in Literature. He sided with the Nazis in ww2, and remained so after the war as well. I believe he was found guilty of minor treason too. People still have mixed feelings about this. He wrote some great books and was a pioneer in literature, but many people despise some of his views. He died not long after the war, and was very old then (92). The public has mixed feelings about celebrating him etc.

 

I don't need to agree with his opinions to like his books. They are great. Except for his last book, I don't think there is any of his books that has any trace of nazism or anything like that.

 

Let's say he was still alive, what are you supporting when you purchase his books? Are you supporting his opinions or his works? This reminds me of the fallacy, ad hominem, which says that no matter how terrible you think the person is, that doesn't affect the truth of the argument. Much the same, no matter how terrible the person is, that doesn't change what the game is like.

 

Another thing to think about is, why do you not want to support someone you don't like for making something you like? Is it to change their opinion? Is belief a choice? Could you choose to believe different because people didn't support you with money? In the case of KFC, they could have whatever belief they want as long as it doesn't affect the service.

Edited February 12, 2015 by MMDE