I'm unapologetic too, mostly because I honestly have no idea what he's talking about. For one thing, you can clearly see that the comment was not edited an hour later. For another, the only thing I remember changing is the made up detective's name.

But then, I've long since realised BreOl likes to troll me. Maybe he think I was trying to stral his username or something >shrug<

...

Oh, I see. You're not talking about the post from yesterday, you're talking about a post from two days ago that I absolutely totally remember.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't deleting any insults, since Catventurer is a friendly face and we've always been pefectly capable of disagreeing respectfuly, and we weren't even disagreeing here... but sure, it is possible I suddenly revealed the the true nefarious colors of "my ilk" and started insulting him for no reason.

Oh, Breja, Breja...and here I was thinking you were an Alpha - and I bet so do you...how wrong we both were, huh?

But Catventurer wasn't your initial addressant.
That's where the edit came into play.

Do these quotes ring a bell? So the term "SJW", that you used in your reply to those, was not meant to be an insult?
I mean - don't get me wrong: I had a good laugh, when I read it.

My first thought was: "Really, Breja? "SJW"? Tsktsk, that's so 2011".
Hahaha...

Well, I'm glad you remember.

Keep shaking that cage man... Well, better not. I'm not actually saying people should do this, because I love animals.

Another example then. When you put red and black ant colonies together in the same container, they will live in harmony next to each other, but when you shake their homes they start to fight and kill each other.

Do you think this might apply to people as well? And if so, how would you make people fight each other? You can't really put everyone in cages. But perhaps you can force them into different categories and then put pressure on both groups?

Here is another shocking idea for everyone. We actually all want the same things in life: health, happiness, freedom... Amazing isn't it?

No I don't think neither rat biology and behaviour nor ant biology and behaviour applies to humans.

Here is another shocking idea for everyone. Shaking has no effect on whether different ant species attack each other. Amazing isn't it?

But if it makes you healthy, happy, and free. I can fix the final report on the experiment:

After shaking the cage the rats stopped what they were doing, started hyperventilating, and after a brief moment started yelling "quota!", "woke!", "agenda!", "DEI" (one of the rats was like a week older, so instead of "DEI" it yelled "CRT!"), "forced!" and similar exclamations. Completely at random with no observable pattern. The rats chanting increased in intensity until the cage imploded and the rats DIED!!!!!!!

so the conclusion of the experiment is that there can't be women in videogames or some such. You were totally right :D

If it is the same team who made Murder on the Orient Express, which I do hope because they did an outstanding job, you will not have to worry about it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I can say that I was opposed to the idea of Murder on the Orient Express being set in our time. When I first saw the announcement and looked at the screenshots, my first reaction was: Why have they done this? What were they thinking? There's no way on earth I'm going to play this! Only to end up paying full price and, after getting over the initial shock of seeing Poirot running around with a smartphone, flat-screen TVs in a hotel room, and the modern setting, it was a blast!

The critique about Murder on the Orient Express using sloganeering, with a character saying something about war and the need to save refugees, and how it was seen as DEI and propaganda, is now being directed towards Death on the Nile.

This former game can be interpreted as an attempt at spreading propaganda, 'raising awareness' about an issue, and also using a black character in Death on the Nile as a way to 'sell' the game, with a line like: "From feminist movements and the rise of minority rights to the liberation of societal norms, set in the 70s..." None of these elements will actually play a significant role in the context of the game, and they won't be commented on in the way other games might: forcing these issues onto the player, demanding acceptance, and potentially alienating those who don't agree.

Instead, these themes will be seamlessly integrated, with the timelines blending naturally, creating a sense of the past and present (in this case, the 70s) being interconnected. If there is a message, it is that nothing said or done in the present is truly new; it has all been said and done before by different people.

I had wished they used Hastings instead of some unknown, new character, like they did with Joanna. I can honestly say that I was glad for the switch, which felt like a breath of fresh air. I know some will disagree, but Poirot is a snob, egotistical, and full of himself. So, it was a welcome change to be able to make that switch, and I hope they utilize this new character more effectively than they did with Joanna.

Unlike Murder on the Orient Express, I am very much looking forward to this new game and how it will present another well-known story and how everything comes together. I am also looking forward to see, if they are also including someone or another couple, fictionalized but otherwise recognizable, from the 70's it will be a big plus for me.

If they wanted to make a story in the 70's with a black person taking the lead, why don't they make a game rooted in blaxploitation cinema? Lots of possibilites: we have Shaft, Coffy, Truck Turner, Black Gunn or Black Ceasar.

But noooo! They just have to inject modern BS into an established story, and change everything just to score ESG/DEI points.

A lot of "established" stories,(and a lot of times) have been reinterpreted and have been told from different perspectives
As an example my favourite interpretation of ABC Murders was a TV miniseries with John Malkovich as Poirot, that told the story from a very radical different perspective, political context and even the Poirot personality and past. And it was great.

But in modern political times only those stories in which any black people or gay or female are incorpored in the script are considered an "offense" and a drama just because the new script does not want to perpetualize the guettification of culture and the old stories

For me those complains are just the classic racism told from a different perspective and in a more "intelectual" and digestible manner. And a lot of people buy the merchandise. Again.

The only limit for those things is the copyright. the legal limitation to modify an script.
If not, it is fine and possibly a wave of fresh air if the revision is fine and artistically good.

If you do not like the new approach forget and do not consume it. Easy.

At the surface level yes, but the true reasons go way deeper than that.

I don't consume things, I'm not cattle.

You can interpret it however you want and throw your racism accusations all day long for all I care.

Uhh.. how about no?

Could you elaborate?

What does any of this have to with Death on the Nile?

Well, "woke" everywhere, "a bit of I am not racist nor machist but...."

Excuses and more excuses.The same old message with new codes that are getting already older. You need guys to Invent another parabol to tale the same prejudice. Again.

Call it racism or whatever you consider.

The first post in this thread has been about it. Judge youself how is it.

Yes, I understand you do not care, you just play the game like others.