Kotaku: “Detroit is forcing me to do things I don’t want to so I’ve paused it in protest and am just sitting here,” I messaged the group chat on Sunday. I’d resolved to finish the game that weekend, but I’d reached an impasse.
Kotaku again over thinking and over analysing a game to the point of obscurity. On the one hand Kotaku derides David Cage for the real world social justice references in his game, by which they claim - "the game is marred by it's shallow swipes at history." Yet on the other hand the same Kotaku applaud DICE for including customisations in Battlefield V, which rightly could also be said to be - "shallow swipes at history". In Battlefield V it's fine to be revisionist, but in Detroit Become Human it's not. Why? Because "reasons"? or because "agenda"?
Kotaku serm to have a weird hatred for David's Cage games. They've been nothibg but negative towards Detroit, as though they are attempting to put people off playing it.. It's sad because it's a genuinely good (if somewhat niche) game that does create an intriguing and beautiful world. But so many people just brush it off as a typical David Cage game, or they overemphasise the civil rights aspect of it when there's so much more to the game than just a shallow revolution for the androids.
*Clicks article* Kotaku *leaves*
"However, Cage’s assertion in conjunction with the existence of these trophies thwarts the game’s attempt at impartiality, placing Detroit firmly in one philosophical camp. It is not immoral to kill androids, therefore androids are not people" Just like humans, androids are capable of mistreating their fellow beings. If anything, that particular scene the author picks on, makes the androids appear more human (not the opposite as in the authors conclusion). I get that the authors problem stems from the fact that, in that particular situation, you have no choice to decide otherwise. I don't think that one can jump to the conclusion, that the androids have no free will and hence are not humans. Nowhere in the game do they claim that humans actually do HAVE free will. Then the author picks on the historical parallels (like slavery) which he thinks are not elaborated in an appropriate mannor. To me, the author seems to advocate some form of censorship, where a game should not contain content that could be interpreted in a way that some people don't like. But then we would have no fictional stories at all. I also think that it is a very dumb idea to restrict creative freedom, free speech and the freedom of expression, only to not offend some people who might derive the wrong message from a fictional story. That said, I'll enjoy the rest of this beautiful game now.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.