I hate it when people force their own agendas just out of the blue without buying me a drink first.
But for the sake of the lore, I think a good way to justify this is that a) Akira was taught this at some point or b) Akira is just a ♥♥♥♥♥.
My money's on the second.

Originally posted by Jolt the Goat:

I hate it when people force their own agendas just out of the blue without buying me a drink first.
But for the sake of the lore, I think a good way to justify this is that a) Akira was taught this at some point or b) Akira is just a ♥♥♥♥♥.
My money's on the second. :brandeis:

I like the game, I'm just annoyed me how preechy that little android is. Either way I'm so against letting them control humanity. Unless, of course, a drink is provided first. Although I know of mean bartender so they've got high competition.

Originally posted by Extra Fabulous:

Originally posted by Jolt the Goat:

I hate it when people force their own agendas just out of the blue without buying me a drink first.
But for the sake of the lore, I think a good way to justify this is that a) Akira was taught this at some point or b) Akira is just a ♥♥♥♥♥.
My money's on the second.

I like the game, I'm just annoyed me how preechy that little android is. Either way I'm so against letting them control humanity. Unless, of course, a drink is provided first. Although I know of mean bartender so they've got high competition.

Mmm. I feel the same way. Especially since it's unwarrented.
Somewhere, Big Red is smiling, knowing that in the year 2079, there is an android who is driven to combat the potentially nonexistent opression of women.

The opening with the implants... The fact it gives you the illusion of choice but ultimately decides for you what is "right." Yeah, the choices don't really matter and there's a lot of ♥♥♥♥♥♥ influence in it. It gets more tolerable once you actually get to Donovan's part and you get some ability to have your own input instead of having the same worldviews crammed down your throat as you get in the rest of the industry right now.

I wanted to see what would happen if you gave the "eebil corporate soots" implants that indeed would make them healthier without boning them to be honest. But nope, game starts off as the most ill-written "DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS regardless of what they're made of or who is part of them" crap ever. Only later do they remotely touch on the idea that there are people.

My point here? I played this game for GosT, his small bit was one of the best written parts, Donovan's part was decent and somewhat redeemed the narrow worldview we saw crammed into the beginning. It wasn't complete crap, but I still feel like I paid money in a movie theater for something that advertised itself differently.

Originally posted by QWARKED.COM:

...I wanted to see what would happen if you gave the "eebil corporate soots" implants that indeed would make them healthier without boning them to be honest. But nope, game starts off as the most ill-written "DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS regardless of what they're made of or who is part of them" crap ever. Only later do they remotely touch on the idea that there are people.

That down with corporations part annoyed me too. I wanted to do the same thing. I didn't want to ruin someone's life I never met just because I was told they were evil. It was annoyingly limiting. That whole section was limiting. I tried giving people completely irrelevant implants, "I keep getting writers block", here have a sex appeal implant that should keep your mind off it. Nope. Got to give him something relevant.

Limiting was a general feeling I got playing this game to be honest. The whole section where you try to guide Akira should she become the overlord was the most constrictive. You can't answer these questions with two short sentences. You need a whole scientific/philosophical papers on something remotely resembling an answer. Laws of the land require months/years of open discussion and debate. Even then they can be overturned at any point during its life. Yet here we are making permanent societal descisions with two choices. I know its a game, but you know, design around it or don't make me have to make a decision in the first place.

Originally posted by QWARKED.COM:

...It wasn't complete crap, but I still feel like I paid money in a movie theater for something that advertised itself differently.

Exactly this. It seems to be a common feeling among those that have played it. I was kind of expecting Blade Runner meets VA-11 Hall-A. Oh well, one day someone will make the cyber punk game I want. I'm looking at you CD projekt red.

Generally speaking I liked the game. I would recommend it, even. But that bit was so out of the blue and out of place that it pretty much broke the immersion. That's one of the most ham-fisted ways to push the SJW ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ agenda I have ever seen in a game.

Originally posted by Von Gromenauer:

Generally speaking I liked the game. I would recommend it, even. But that bit was so out of the blue and out of place that it pretty much broke the immersion. That's one of the most ham-fisted ways to push the SJW ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ agenda I have ever seen in a game.

A-♥♥♥♥♥♥♥-men

But there are only like 5 named male characters in the game and maybe 6-7 female ones. So this is based on anecdote. I'm sure their world wasn't supposed to be too different from ours if you look at the big picture.

Originally posted by QWARKED.COM:

The opening with the implants... The fact it gives you the illusion of choice but ultimately decides for you what is "right." Yeah, the choices don't really matter and there's a lot of ♥♥♥♥♥♥ influence in it. It gets more tolerable once you actually get to Donovan's part and you get some ability to have your own input instead of having the same worldviews crammed down your throat as you get in the rest of the industry right now.

I wanted to see what would happen if you gave the "eebil corporate soots" implants that indeed would make them healthier without boning them to be honest. But nope, game starts off as the most ill-written "DOWN WITH CORPORATIONS regardless of what they're made of or who is part of them" crap ever. Only later do they remotely touch on the idea that there are people.

My point here? I played this game for GosT, his small bit was one of the best written parts, Donovan's part was decent and somewhat redeemed the narrow worldview we saw crammed into the beginning. It wasn't complete crap, but I still feel like I paid money in a movie theater for something that advertised itself differently.

It's cyberpunk, you can't do cyberpunk without evil corporations. Besides, I'm pretty sure it counts as the game calling you out as a ♥♥♥♥ if you end up sabotaging the company.The ending note wasn't that the corporation was evil bu that the AI was or whatever the ♥♥♥♥.

I'd like to adress several things:

1. When you play as Akara, you are being restricted for a reason.
The point of this part is to convey the feeling of having to obey/not having a say in the matter.
Everything serves a purpose, especially Akara. She simply cannot go against it.
When she does, she does it for a reason that ultimately does end up serving said purpose, just in a manner that is less immediate/obvious. You were never supposed to make any choices by yourself.
And yes, it's also supposed to make you think in certain ways, which is also part of the plot.
The game is justified in doing what it does. Your irritation is natural, as it should be.

2. I agree nothing in this game makes you think that women are being oppressed.
I don't agree with the rest of the criticism, and I think it's unreasonably colored, but when the game presented me with this question, it felt out of place. Society felt very advanced and very progressive to me, especially with all the gay undertones and strong, successful, female characters.
I am not saying there is no oppression, I am saying the game completely fails to convey it.
Maybe it's meant to emulate/exploit ignorance (after all, they gave us a third option for a reason), but since there were no hints whatsoever, I call foul play. You have to give us something, and you certainly can't judge us for not noticing something you haven't shown us before. It's dirty and unfair. I am a reasonable person (sometimes), so be reasonable with me.

3. I don't think the game's politics go beyond its own scope.
It presents you with a certain world that has certain characters, morals, and issues.
This is all fair game within the realm of fiction. I don't feel offended by anything it does (at most, slightly disappointed), and when it comes to being patronized, it's justified by the respective character's personality. Akara and "the CEO" are in a position where it makes sense for them to treat people like that. I don't think anything in this game is trying to target the player, specifically, nor do I think it is trying to propagate any kind of belief. It even shows that most of them have glaring flaws, especially (ENDING SPOILERS) when it comes to "every corporation is evil", as Supercontinent is heavily implied to be genuinely "good".

Well bollocks. Reading your post has just made me realised the android's name is Akara. I thought Akira seemed odd considering it's a male name.

Originally posted by Caldaria:

I'd like to adress several things:

1. When you play as Akara, you are being restricted for a reason.
The point of this part is to convey the feeling of having to obey/not having a say in the matter.
Everything serves a purpose, especially Akara. She simply cannot go against it.
When she does, she does it for a reason that ultimately does end up serving said purpose, just in a manner that is less immediate/obvious. You were never supposed to make any choices by yourself.
And yes, it's also supposed to make you think in certain ways, which is also part of the plot.
The game is justified in doing what it does. Your irritation is natural, as it should be.

I'd say thats valid in a way. But it was not the corporation that I found limiting, my issue was that there were no truely abstract ways to solve the clients' problems. Also when the activist comes in and asks you to operate on the executives you have to give them one of the activist mods, you couldn't avoid doing it. They could have solved it by simply having the activist truly force me, instead I seem to just do it just for the hell of it. Seems an odd thing for an highly empathetic practically omnipotent robot to do.

Originally posted by Caldaria:

I'd like to adress several things:

2. I agree nothing in this game makes you think that women are being oppressed.
I don't agree with the rest of the criticism, and I think it's unreasonably colored, but when the game presented me with this question, it felt out of place. Society felt very advanced and very progressive to me, especially with all the gay undertones and strong, successful, female characters.
I am not saying there is no oppression, I am saying the game completely fails to convey it.
Maybe it's meant to emulate/exploit ignorance (after all, they gave us a third option for a reason), but since there were no hints whatsoever, I call foul play. You have to give us something, and you certainly can't judge us for not noticing something you haven't shown us before. It's dirty and unfair. I am a reasonable person (sometimes), so be reasonable with me.

My main point, which we seem to agree on, was the lack off evidence or world building to suggest that women were oppressed. In all regards there is an appearance of advance tolerance and progression in their society yet we are chided for expressing this belief.

My latter point hopefully just highlights the fact they didn't appear to consider the appearence of one gender in a game that brought up gendered politics. However if you do consider gender politics in their portrayal it all appears very sinister. Although you'd need a tin foil hat to think its deliberate and a truly man hating psychopath in charge in developement for it to be real.

Originally posted by Caldaria:

I'd like to adress several things:

3. I don't think the game's politics go beyond its own scope.
It presents you with a certain world that has certain characters, morals, and issues.
This is all fair game within the realm of fiction. I don't feel offended by anything it does (at most, slightly disappointed), and when it comes to being patronized, it's justified by the respective character's personality. Akara and "the CEO" are in a position where it makes sense for them to treat people like that. I don't think anything in this game is trying to target the player, specifically, nor do I think it is trying to propagate any kind of belief. It even shows that most of them have glaring flaws, especially (ENDING SPOILERS) when it comes to "every corporation is evil", as Supercontinent is heavily implied to be genuinely "good".

Every good bit of fiction has a set of rules that define that character and their motivations. Even looney toons has very deliberate and unbreakable set of rules that defines a character. Akara is presented as practically omnipotent, for her to adress female rights and not male is a denial of its existence or worthiness.

Within its scope is definitely third and fourth generation feminism. "Should I let women remain oppressed?" That's her direct phrase. Nothing else is phrased in this manner. All the other issues are pretty broad and unopinionated. Depression/Anxiety, suicide, rape, murder, and hatred (including but it is never limited to homophobia and xenophobia). Then we have women oppression as a topic.

Have you stopped beating your wife? Select from yes, no or I don't believe wives are beaten. Do you see where I might have an issue with that question and my options to answer, much like I have an issue with the question and options to answer women remaining oppressed?

That whole section is poorly thought out in my mind. No other topics such as genocide, terrorism, mass murder, or serial killers are raised either. I would argue that would be pretty pertinent.

Oh and if you tell Akara to deny depression over a month but allow all other options she still calls you a hypocrite attempting to control people, when you're depressed for over a month the chances are very very great that you're clinically depressed, aka a medical condition brought about by a chemical imbalance in their body. I doubt I'm a hypocrite for suggesting you treat medical conditions with the MNA. But then again I couldn't specifically ask you to treat clinical depression because it wasn't a choice so my bad.

(Reply to ENDING SPOILERS) It's also shown that despite originally having the aim of being good willed. Supercontinental is still at the whims of their CEO and board of executives who can turn it in an opposite direction. Hence, you could argue, every corporation is inheriently evil in the story's eyes.

Originally posted by Extra Fabulous:

(Reply to ENDING SPOILERS) It's also shown that despite originally having the aim of being good willed. Supercontinental is still at the whims of their CEO and board of executives who can turn it in an opposite direction. Hence, you could argue, every corporation is inheriently evil in the story's eyes.

Something is not inherently evil just because it is corruptable. If you make that assertion then you must accept all people are evil.

I pretty much agree wholeheartedly with Caldaria's post.

I think there's a lot of griping about the game not being more of a choose-your-own-adventure experience when it was clearly meant to tell a specific story about a specific world by characters who are only able to be mildly influenced by the player's decisions.

I can understand wishing to impose my own personal views on others in a game setting. (For example, in Skyrim, I fking detest the oppression on the Nords and will do my best to subvert the assimilation in every possible way. ) But, I also recognize that the game is, basically, a slightly interactive visual novel where there are right and wrong answers that are determined by the game's setting, and the views/knowledge of its characters.

Plainly, we are offered multiple choice answers and the "right" answers lead us closer to the "true ending" of the novel. "Wrong" answers lead us down alternate paths that are usually 'bad,' giving us an "unhappy ending." It just so happens that this story is one about ethical dilemmas of all kinds--not simply gender politics. Do we give up information that might get someone killed? Do we keep a secret? Is sacrifice for the greater good necessary? Is it the only way?

I could go on, but I won't. Many of the people posting seem to be very set in their opinions, and don't seem open to different ways of looking it. That's cool, too.

Also, I want to point out something that seems to've been overlooked... Ariadne reprogrammed Akana. Ariadne was a political revolutionary extremist (a cyberpunk SJW, if you will). Her personal views, whether wrong or right, likely played very strongly in the reprogramming of Akana. So...

Originally posted by amok:

Something is not inherently evil just because it is corruptable. If you make that assertion then you must accept all people are evil.

Sorry a bit late on the old reply. Depends, you’re right if the corporations have free will or are wrong if corporations are implied to always be destined to be evil by design. In reality you’re right obviously but in the story’s narrative I’m not sure. If they really want to go the, “corporations are evil route”, they can claim fate will always make then evil.

I’d like to make clear I’m arguing from the eyes of the narrative. I am NOT A NUTTER.

Originally posted by BlushingCreep:

...It just so happens that this story is one about ethical dilemmas of all kinds--not simply gender politics. Do we give up information that might get someone killed? Do we keep a secret? Is sacrifice for the greater good necessary? Is it the only way?

Also, I want to point out something that seems to've been overlooked... Ariadne reprogrammed Akana. Ariadne was a political revolutionary extremist (a cyberpunk SJW, if you will). Her personal views, whether wrong or right, likely played very strongly in the reprogramming of Akana. So...

I think you misunderstood my point. It isn’t that I deny that there are other elements within the story. The rest of it is well written. I just took issue with the way the feminist issue is presented within it. In my eyes it’s someone making a point without any consideration of its affect on the story.

Sadly it might not even be the person who included its fault. This is undoubtably a group writing project. It may have been a finely written element then someones came along and chopped it down keeping only the, “necessary”, parts therefore losing all nuisance. Or simply the story was split up and everyone wrote a part and hence why it just ham fists its way into the plot. More sinisterly reason could be they saw a market to appeal to and whammed it in.

I can enjoy stories with things I dislike in it. For instance I absolutely adore Evelyn Waugh, but he was an absolute christian nut job which reflects in all his stories and which he routinely imposes upon the reader. Resurrection by Tolstoy, a horrid detestable book in terms of themes. Yet a fantastic read by all accounts. My point is I don’t mind a story that imposes a view even disagreeable. But this does it in a distasteful way, Evelyn Waugh at least wove it into his plot.

Originally posted by BlushingCreep:

...Also, I want to point out something that seems to've been overlooked... Ariadne reprogrammed Akana. Ariadne was a political revolutionary extremist (a cyberpunk SJW, if you will). Her personal views, whether wrong or right, likely played very strongly in the reprogramming of Akana. So...

I’m not too sure on which one was Ariadne as It has been a while since I played the beginning. If it’s the political activist at the beginning which breaks in. I don’t think shes implied to be more than anti-corporations, if she’s shown to be an SJW/late generation feminist then it means that they at least put some feminism into the beginning of the story. I just had the impression they just suddenly went there later in the plot.

On the reprogramming I’m not sure if that’s right. The ending heavily implies Akana/Akara (I give up with this name, I’ve got it wrong twice now) is a sentient super being that’s basically omnipotent therefore not hackable. I think Ariadne just reprograms/hacks the implant moulder and Akana just is forced from the fact she must install something for her job rather than she herself is tampered with.