When people who've long demanded diversity in the characters and narratives they enjoy in video games get down to discuss the issue, it always comes down to a lingering why they can't concretely answer -- why does male and white-dominated homogeny in video game protagonists persist, when so much of the audience that wants to be personified in interactive entertainment can't relate?
Even though creativity and self-expression are needed to elevate games beyond predictable "commercial product" industry, the fact remains it's a high risk, hit-driven business, where the answer to why is usually "because it sells." But doesn't the demand for diversity indicate at least some untapped market opportunity, enough to justify the risk?
What if it did? It would mean no more excuses, no more economic reasons not to do things differently. No more data with which to dismiss uncomfortable conversations on why developers won't or can't treat race and gender in games. No more marketing spreadsheets to justify taking the path of least resistance. Wouldn't it be much easier for the army of the status quo to ignore any evidence that would challenge them to do anything new?
Would it even be easier to interpret existing data in whatever fashion's needed to keep things comfortably the same?
That's apparently what happens at Activision, according to what I've been told by numerous current and former employees of the publisher's studios. I covered what these insiders had to say in an article today in Gamasutra, and their claims that the company's decisions on what goes in its games -- including the race or gender of its heroes -- are based disproportionately on focus tests that, the sources tell me, it often skews to support its "preconceived notions."
The timing of my article is unfortunate with recent revelations that CEO Bobby Kotick preferred to spend over a million dollars in legal fees to "destroy" one of his employees who accused another of sexual harassment, rather than settle with her for much less. But accusing an entire corporation of inherent bias goes a bit further than I'm aiming, here; I want to be clear on that.
I've also heard from plenty who say that it's not just Activision where this occurs, and despite the focus on a few exemplary anecdotes in my story, this is likely true. Still, the facts on how market-driven methodology -- which happens to various extents at every publisher -- make it nearly impossible to address new markets or pioneer new and representative game characters are very hard to ignore.
That there is an underlying climate of ignorance and bias wafting in the game industry, populated in significant majority on all levels by white males (to where a female or ethnic developer is still, in 2010, trotted out as worthy of special note) is just the darker undercurrent to this story. People can only create what they know. People are hostile to those unlike them. The game industry's culture and practices bear the deeply-ingrained stains of its long-term homogeny -- and as long as people have "well, we're making money," to hide behind, why would anyone want to change?
To those of you who look at internal process information like this and say, "it's just business," bear in mind that the line between business and bias is not as simply or as tidily parsed as you would like. Perhaps it is a CEO's job to relegate the entire conversation about a medium's creative and cultural future to "this is what sells."
But you're their audience. You're the consumer. You don't have to feel guilty because you buy and enjoy blockbusters like Gears of War or Call of Duty, but the party-line bottom-line talk should not be your mantle to assume. Don't tolerate "it's just a business", because as those who spoke to me for my article insisted, there exist infinite reams of data that can be applied to prove whatever point the status quo wants to prove, to justify the production of whatever it's easiest for the status quo to produce.
The issue goes beyond gender equity or even general "character diversity"; few would wish for "more female characters" just out of the arbitrary desire for political-correctness. When I asked you about it on Twitter, many of you said you don't care what race or gender your characters are as long as they're interesting.
Instead, it illuminates a larger issue about an environment of progressive creation, about developer happiness, about being a healthy, widely-relevant industry that attracts a broad range of interesting people on the production side and on the audience side. And if you need evidence we've got a long way to go, just read some of the comments on the article at Gamasutra.
This issue upsets people. It brings out their ugly side. Nobody wants to face it.
There is no business "formula" for a sure-fire blockbuster video game. Publishers have tried to prove to their investors they've discovered one, and ended up shot full of holes. Why do we continue sacrificing innovation to this straw man?
As one dev told me on Twitter: "People get really upset when they have their privilege challenged." Which means we should do it. And 'on principle' is a perfectly valid reason. 'It's a business' is not an excuse.
91 comments:
Its a basic question of do you want a better world, or not. People accuse those who care about gender (or race, etc) of being liberals, or communists or worse. If wanting things to be better is a political act, then great, bring it on.
A few things to add to this. It isn't only Activision though no doubt the current leadership of Activision seems to exaggerate all the negative feelings of over bearing corporate governance. For example , Bioware has taken to making the protagonist of their games pictured as male even though the player has the choice of gender in Mass Effect and Dragon Age.
And this isn't just a developer/publisher issue. A guy who works at NISA tends to post a bit in the comments at Silliconera and he talks about how retailers have been putting a deal of pressure on their cover designs. Retailers don't want to display anything that's "too cute" or "too anime" (which can easily be codes for for "too girly"). He also hinted without wanting to say too much about that being a big reason the US cover of Alteir Rorona doesn't actually have the heroine Rorona on the cover.
As for what can be done, I don't know. As long as a a sizable portion of the audience refuses to play a female lead (and while I don't know how large the segment is, gaming sites harbor a large amount of out and out misogyny.) they will go after that segment. Calling it out helps but given that the decisions tend to take place layers above the designers in general its hard to see if public pressure will do that much. American Apparel still exists after all and the charges against it make what video games do seem quaint.
I'm so very glad you wrote something about this here, because I wanted to say something on the subject but really didn't want to get mired in the ignorance and downright hostility that seemed to be taking over the Gamasutra comments thread.
I think one of the commenters on the article inadvertently hit the nail on the head with this:
'It depends on how you sell the female. If I can be convinced that the female has her place in the game and isn't just there because "oh we need a female because there are so many games with male leads" or for TnA purposes, then I am all for going for it..'
The sad thing is that this is one of the more progressive comments made, but it still misses one simple fact. Only women (and minorities) have to justify their existence within a game, white men have no such responsibility, they are considered the default.
I mean, I'm a white guy myself, I find men easier to write than women myself, but only because I'm interested in exploring masculine roles and stereotypes. If I'm interested in exploring female gender roles, I'll write a female character. I get that, I'm fine with that, but some people, when they don't have a reason to go one way or another, will always choose white male. If (for example) they are not interested in exploring race they will make a character white, the idea of a black person whose race never comes up is largely ignored.
Here's an idea, if there's no set reason to go one way or another, why not flip a coin? Probability, after all, is democratic.
To me, it's a marketing issue. White (heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied) male is the default; as Tom said, characters and/or individuals who meet those criteria have no need to justify their existence.
Women will play male characters, because male = default. Non-white players will play white characters, because white = default. When a character who deviates from the norm is used, however, it tends to turn the game into a "niche" game; a female lead can turn it into a "game for girls," for example. There are always exceptions, but it's the same principle governing who gets the lead in a movie.
So it becomes an issue of marketability, even though the white/male/het/cis/TAB market is a vanishingly small one. It also becomes of an issue of a lack of imagination on the part of game devs; in a lot of cases, it seems that it just doesn't occur to them that their hero should be anything other than "ideal."
"but the party-line bottom-line talk should not be your mantle to assume. Don't tolerate "it's just a business"..."
This is a great point that has its uses in many arguments, but it's a kind of thinking most people fail on.
Acknowledging that "things are the way they are" is not an explanation of why they SHOULD be that way or why we shouldn't strive to change them. Likewise, saying "publishers should, from here on out, encourage more diversity in their games because that is what I, and the subset of consumers that I represent, will support with our dollars" is NOT the same thing as saying "Publisher's decisions up until this point to exclude diverse characters from their games has been illogical and bad business."
If I'm making this demand, it's because I *know* what the status quo is, I know the reasons behind the way things are, and I'm trying to generate a new reason to do things differently. That's just how the world works!
It is also interesting, and worth noting, that we may ALWAYS have this kind of problem - in games where your avatar can be customized, it can be difficult to market the 'main character' (see point about Mass Effect) - so no matter what variation on a character a publisher chooses, they're essentially sending a message that 'THIS IS WHAT WE THINK THE PEOPLE BUYING THIS GAME LOOK LIKE'.
Great post. I think you are one of a handful of prominent videogame writers I've encountered seem willing to address this.
The "its just a business" is, as you point out, just an excuse. If most games are white straight male oriented because white straight males play videogames more often, then what you have is a feedback loop, not a rational business model.
Limiting your market to a demographic that is actually small (like 10% of the world, and less than half of the US) and growing smaller is generally considered moronic. Except where that demographic happens to be white dudes.
One of the interesting things about the internet core gamer types is that the amount of stuff they read regarding the business end of games seems to take them out of the consumer role and put them more into aimchair CEO territory. A few weeks ago I recall being annoyed with Kotaku's commenters because they were dumping on Gabe Newell for making another controversial remark about the PS3. Avoiding altogether the silly brand allegiance stuff, I don't understand why any gamer would want any developer to hold their tongue for any reason in an environment where we already receive virtually nothing that isn't strictly controlled. Could it be that publishers are actively seeking business coverage because they have found it conditions the most vocal gamers to side with the suits and not the creators (or with gamers)?
I also find the white male thing interesting. I think one of the side effects of white men becoming our cultural default is that white men themselves begin to lose cultural uniqueness. As a white dude, where can I say that I am from? My ancestors are from Ireland and Scotland, but I cannot rightly say that I am Irish or Scottish. As a white Canadian guy living in Canadian society I am sort of just vanilla; so many of my cultural reference points are intended to act as placeholders for everyone's use, positioning me as an indistinct "everyone" lacking in uniqueness or even specificity.
If the white male character may serve as a chameleon into which other races and genders can often project their identity, exactly what identity is a white male like me supposed to project into his avatars?
You have to disregard a lot of games in order to make the assertion true: Guitar/DJ/Band Hero, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, the first five Tony Hawk games, the Shrek games, the forthcoming iCarly games, Dora (as you mentioned), Pimp My Ride from a few years back, and a few more that we'd all probably dismiss as insubstantial or not serious. I still don't understand why we gloss over those to get to Call of Duty or True Crime. I understand the whole they're-licensed-crap or iterated to death cash-ins, but frankly so are Call of Duty and True Crime. Why do we have to put a gun or a sword in a woman's hand in order for her to become "serious" or visible? I don't think games like Bayonetta or Wet do anything to address those questions. They certainly don't do anything more than Dora the Explorer or Judy Nails.
Another question that springs to mind, in games where you can play as a woman, she's always slender and athletic. You can play as chubby and unattractive men in Heavy Rain, Brutal Legend, GTA 4, Mario, but women always have to be waify when they do finally appear...
As a white Canadian guy living in Canadian society I am sort of just vanilla; so many of my cultural reference points are intended to act as placeholders for everyone's use, positioning me as an indistinct "everyone" lacking in uniqueness or even specificity.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that you do not have a culture as a white canadian man (or that I do not as a white american man), I disagree. Its just more difficult for us to see our culture we view it as the default. Its bland to us because we can effortlessly fit in. My impression is that, at least in the US, for people of color (or other oppressed people), that effortless exisence is an almost unimaginable luxury; to be seen as normal rather than as a deviation from the "default" human. For example, being non-privileged subjects people to the near constant stress of micro-aggressions, which are the low key but extremely frequent manifestation of the subconscious racism most of white people have.
While I'm firmly on the more diversity side of this debate (as I said earlier) I've been thinking, and I think it's useful to articulate something that may come across as from the other side.
Simply put, the thought process of a male writer considering the gender (it also works for sexuality and ethnicity) of a character, it goes a little something like this:
Write a gender neutral character as female? - Could get accused of tokenism.
Make femininity part of character? - Could get accused of defining character by their femininity
Write character as male? - Could get accused of not having enough women.
Simply put, writing a female/ethnic/gay character can be a minefield and I'm not surprised (although I don't condone) that many writers try and sidestep it completely.
Now, I think you should suck it up and do it anyway, but I do think it's worth keeping this in mind when lambasting inept portrayals of female characters. If you don't give points for trying, some people won't take the risk.
This is all pretty tangential I know, but I think it's worth thinking about.
"It's just business" is really just a sibling of "it's just a game". Both are pretty diminutive arguments that puts games as just another consumption product. The white male demographic (of which I'm part of) needs to wake up and realize that they are not the be all and end all of the video game world. Women play games, non-white dudes play games, your mom plays games, etc...
There is a real need for more diversity in the industry not because of some kind of political correctness or governmental minority quota but so some of that diversity gets into games.
The other issue is, indie games notwithstanding, that game development is very anglocentric. A lot the biggest game developers are located in developed english speaking country like the USA, Canada, England and Australia. It makes sense that they are there because that's where the money, material and talent is, but what about supporting smaller foreign developers that are trying to make something genuine and that is totally unique to their culture. Santiago based ACE Team gave us Zeno Clash, a game like nothing else on the market. We (the collective Gamer) should support that kind of small local development and not make fun of them, like it happened with Shera Jutt (http://kotaku.com/5489289/the-first-pakistani-arcade-game-could-use-a-little-work).
Keep on rocking the boat Leigh, it needs it.
I think a part of it is historical. IMO, the previous generation's action movie stars have almost overwhelmingly been white, or male, or both. The Governator, Stallone, Jason Statham, Nic Cage (although his action movies are crap), Daniel Craig, Pierce Brosnan. By comparison, the female leads have often been prone to only fleeting moments of strength, tending to acquiesce to the man. I'm not saying it's right; in fact I agree with you in its wrongness (that's not a word), but the fact that it can be brought up, with concrete examples where female leads in movies and games are successful ventures, bodes well for a more diverse set of franchise leads in the future
Interesting article, and interesting point. Personally, I don't care what race or gender the main character of my game is, and I don't know anybody else that does care.
On the other hand, I'm not sure that the hegemony is a result of institutional bias. Frankly, there aren't many good characters out there. Most people fall back on the white, american, muscular, non-accented, tough-talking male because he's easy to write for.
On the other hand, games have as long a history as other media for including interesting non-white or female characters. I'm especially thinking of Rockstar, because GTA IV was one of the first games I've ever played as an immigrant player.
Now, should I be demanding more diverse characters? Maybe, although I feel no inclination to do so. I demand better characters, period. I loved playing as Max Payne, and I loved playing as CJ in GTA:SA. That's what writers should be focusing on, making more interesting characters. I'm sure you're not suggesting this, but an attempt at forced diversity in characterization usually leads to insulting results. Look at the American characters in Japanese games, especially African-American. They're ridiculous. Anyway, I think this is an interesting topic, but I think you're casting blame on the wrong aspects of the industry.
I hate to be crude and value one gender over the other, but the male/female representation ratio in games is so bad, I think publishers should be actively pushing for women instead of men to bring some balance.
I recently wrote about applying the Bechdel Test to video games and it was unpleasant realizing how few games even had two female characters.
Also, I'm fascinated by your mention of Singularity and want to know more. There's a game that's got some really cool ideas but they're trapped in a generic shooter. I can't help but wonder what changes were made to appeal to focus testers.
Well, I have heard differing viewpoints on what the situation with Singularity was, and this article presents the viewpoint of only one source. Sadly, most of the time when people talk they lose their jobs (that's another significant barrier to progress in the industry because it keeps people from being widely aware of the extent and nature of bigger problems), so I can't really share any more than what I have.
Here's a thought to digest. I've wondered if part of the perceived "failure" of female leads in games is a result of marketing that shoves the fact that the lead character is a female into your face. A female lead in a video games is never allowed to just be the lead character. Inevitable, they're trotted around in sexualized promo shots, have pun ladened ad campaigns about their gender, or (at worst) appear in Playboy's Girls of Gaming.
Take a look at female leads in film. Yes, Sigourney Weaver in Alien was a ground breaking female protagonist, but how much of the promo work for that film focused on that. Now granted, I'm looking at this from the perspective of someone who wasn't there at the time (well, I was there as a child, but not paying a lot of attention), but every trailer I've ever seen of the movie does nothing to go overboard to point out the woman starring in the film.
When you see Gears of War advertised, it's never about the MAN Marcus Phoenix and how MANLY he is. Typically the ads show the characters from the game locked in a desperate fight. Why can't a game with a female lead do this without having to draw attention to the fact that it is a woman?
"It's just business" may not be an excuse, but "It's -better- business" as in "It makes us more money" is in fact a reason, and a fairly solid one.
Your article splits the difference between two arguments: "This is an important social issue, and as a matter of principle publishers should choose to give up profits for the sake of supporting a full palette of game characters"
and
"The appeal to business sense is a straw man. There is no economic risk to producing more games with female leads, and it is only irrational biases which leads publishers to claim that there is."
So which is it? If the "business sense" argument is a straw man, then your argument of principle is wasteful and irrelevant. It should be entirely possible to demonstrate (using the aforementioned data) that there's no economic risk and in fact possible economic gain from following the policies you want. And for reference, if data "can be used to prove anything", then the data is in fact good for nothing, and more and better data are needed.
If the argument -isn't- a straw man, then you're going to need a better argument for why this matter of principle should be more important to the people making these decisions than their jobs.
In splitting the difference you render both arguments unpersuasive, which I think is a shame because I generally agree with the idea that more diversity in gaming characters is a good thing.
Ctrl+F = 'Black'(1), 'African' (1), and minority(2). 'White' (30)
White people, Lulz.
Not supposed to mean anything, I just enjoy the irony. =p
@Brer:
I think the point is that one argument is for publishers to see why this is an economically viable idea, and the other argument is to convince gamers why they should be making these requests/demands as the buying public.
The buying public don't make demands based on business reasons, they make demands based on what they want - which may be based on their principles. Businesses then see that it makes good sense to give those people what they want.
I wonder if anyone has done any studies relating the diversity in studios to diversity in games, i.e. if 80% of lead characters in games are male, are 80% of game developers male? Game development includes a lot of people from an engineering background after all, people who might all have a say in the protagonist choice. Writers are often told to write what they know, so I think this might point to one reason for the overabundance of male characters (focus groups are okay, but the article rightly points out that the results are always open to interpretation).
I think what we need is indeed game developers exploring choices out of their comfort zone, since diversity of studios won't change much in the coming years. I especially like games like Mirror's Edge (although, not from an American studio as I recall) which try something different for their protagonist. Or portal, where you were simply female, but didn't really notice it aside from the odd grunt and seeing yourself through a portal every now and then.
In the long run, it would be good to have more diversity in the game industry. This is a supply side problem, i.e. there simply aren't enough female developers to hire. Perhaps game companies should be nudged to aim their next PR campaign at outreach programs to young girls and women to encourage them to get into technology or try out a career in the game industry. Then again, I'm not sure I would wish a career as game developer on anyone.
While I have to definitively agree with the principle, I have to disagree in a (hopefully) subtle way: "it's just business" isn't an excuse. It's a statement that accurately captures the reality of the situation. If you have 10 companies producing games, with five of them choosing one strategy and five choosing a different strategy, the five companies that choose the strategy that earns more money will come to dominate the market.
This is, ultimately, the quintessential unfairness of the free market. It doesn't reward virtue or good behavior or any sort of values. It simply rewards money.
From this, there are two ways to fight the problem. The first is empirical, the second is through your wallet. The first way may or may not work, but I think it's at least worth exploring: in many situations, research comparing genders, races, or similar social constructs is deeply flawed. So one potential solution to the problem of game publishers pushing for white male leads would be to attempt to do proper research and see if the biases among game purchasers are really there, or just a figment of the publishers' fevered imaginations. There is no guarantee, however, that the biases will turn out to be false.
The second way is to buy with your wallet: whenever you see a game with a female lead, give it a closer look. Seek out games with female leads, and buy those you think may be decent. If you're really feeling proactive, you might even hold off on buying male lead games so that the ratio of male leads to female leads stays one to one in your game library. If enough people do this, market forces ensure that more games with female leads will be produced.
The problem really is as long as the majority views playing as certain types of female roles as being lesser, things are not going to change. You can adjust your buying habits, but how much pressure can one person make? Not that much.
This is something that'll be fixed as soon as it is fixed in the wider society. It's the same for similar issues with movies. Until there's no longer a need to make sure that your game/movie is attractive to the choad segment of our society, you'll see stuff like this.
I don't want to embarrass myself again so I'll be brief, but perhaps maybe we could stand to feel a bit guilty about Gears of War.
@ A.J.
From what I recall, everything about the way Gears of War was marketed was about how MANLY and MALE and TOTALLY HETEROSEXUAL BY THE WAY Marcus Fenix was.
The thing about the "It's business excuse" is that most of the time these decisions aren't even good business sense. They're poorly applied observations that don't really correspond with the nature of a creative marketplace.
Turning Black Lotus into True Crime was based on the observation that 'franchises sell' and 'female leads don't sell'. Yet there are plenty of games with female leads that have sold, and whether franchises sell depends entirely on that franchise. Bolting the much derided True Crime name onto a new game arguably detracts from it's marketability rather than enhances it.
Many of the large game companies suffer from applying the logic of a simple service/product provider rather than that of a creative industry. The endless attempts to 'beat' each other (between Microsoft and Sony for instance) being the most obvious. They act as if they are competing for a share of a set audience, yet the likes of Nintendo have proved that trying new and interesting things can grow that audience. Sony doesn't have to do badly for Microsoft to do well, and it really seems to be time they acknowledged that.
By contrast, Valve believe that if there are more good games (regardless of who makes them) then more people will buy games, and they'll benefit. I'd like to see more companies try that approach.
http://www.amazon.com/Narrative-Social-Practice-Anglo-western-Australian/dp/3110181371
If this book is right the protagonist historical is signified as a task oriented male who goes out and conquer the world . And Female is defined as being powerless as an individual only within the support of the community . These are the dominate myths of are media , it defines the chick flick vs the Action flick
The book focuses on the difference the Social role of Anglo-saxon story telling in contrast to the Central Western Aborigine people .
The Marked difference is in a Culture "Aka America" that value individuality over anything else . It Not surprising there a male is always signified as being socially more value than female . And Video games as task oriented devices that focus on individual achievement get associated strongly as "Male " in Anglo Saxon social folklore.
Patriarchy is not universal nor a biological reality (Anin't no evidence of the caveman sterotypes being real and there not alot of evolutionary benefit to being a violent male who dominates particular if you kill your wife and kids ending your lineage)
r.
But there are culture that are not patriarchal , generally they define female and male roles differently and hold different values system in relationships to them that differ from West.. Off the Top of my head many African society before colonialism shifted the bias toward male though woman still maintain social value in there local community that is not overrided by the state . Modern day mosuo and other isolated cultures such as the khasi of india and many native American society also.
(Americans as a culture are society values that highly individualistic male that goes out and conquer the world which is the modern blockbuster . In contrast to the female which is defined as completely opposite , Romantic comedy and the Twilight passive/domestic vs public/masculine. Which makes it easier to say "Well that just the free market , that what sales that what people gravitate to " and do absolutely nothing about it.
I'm a little confused by people's claims that "It makes business sense" is an acceptable argument and then attempt to explain the video-game market in terms for free market philosophy. You may not realize that the video game market, (like the book or movie market) does not fulfill the assumptions for a free market to work. These markets fail to have any sort of "Perfect Competition" and therefor you cannot expect the market to equilibrate (find the game which optimally matches demand.)
Quick Example:
Perfect competition which could differentiate what races made business sense would involve being able to choose from games that are identical except in the aspect of race. In the real world of game development you end up with games like Half-Life competing with games like Starcraft. There are so many different variables between these games that you can't expect the market to be able to be able to equilibrate on just one of them. Because of this you cannot assume that the market has correctly decided that White-Cis-Male-Het is the best decision for games.
Finish him!
"I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean that you do not have a culture as a white canadian man (or that I do not as a white american man), I disagree. Its just more difficult for us to see our culture we view it as the default. Its bland to us because we can effortlessly fit in. My impression is that, at least in the US, for people of color (or other oppressed people), that effortless exisence is an almost unimaginable luxury; to be seen as normal rather than as a deviation from the "default" human. For example, being non-privileged subjects people to the near constant stress of micro-aggressions, which are the low key but extremely frequent manifestation of the subconscious racism most of white people have."
I guess what I was trying to get at is this. The argument for white male protagonists draws on one or more of the following premises:
1) There are more white males playing games than any other race/gender
2) White male gamers accept white male characters
3) Non-white, non-male gamers are more likely to accept a white man than a white man is to accept some other race/gender
The converse of number 3 is that white men don’t like non-white-male protagonists. A female protagonist from India, then, is not ‘for’ the white male demo; I can play as her and enjoy it, but I don’t share this special kind of identity with her. A white fellow from somewhere in America, however, is ‘for’ everyone; I do share his identity to a greater extent than others, but crucially, the argument states that everyone else is supposed to share some of it as well (this is why, Activision’s secret internal memos might tell you, they only use white dudes). This means that as long as the idea of ‘white male=default’ persists, there cannot be a protagonist who is as ethnically/sexually specific to me as is possible for other race/gender combos; there can conceivably be a touchstone for female game characters or for black game characters, but there can’t really be a touchstone for ‘white male’ game characters.
In essence, we white men need there to be women and non-white protagonists in games so that we can have actual white male characters and not half-assed universal placeholders (who, while not nearly as bothersome to us, still kind of suck).
Why does male and white-dominated homogeny in video game protagonists persist?
The Western world consists mostly of white people, and the game industry consists mostly of (white) men. The target audience usually consists mostly of (white) men. People have a tendency to stick to what they're familiar with. Developers also have no moral obligation to include "diversity" in their games.
So much of the audience that wants to be personified in interactive entertainment can't relate.
They're obsessed with race politics and so caught up in their racial identity that they can't or won't relate to anyone of a different race. That's their problem, not anyone else's. Another possibility is that you are so into race politics that you only think non-white people can't relate to white characters.
I am a male member of the dreaded white master race, and I watch Asian cinema almost to the exclusion of everything else. I have no problem relating to, say, a 16th century Korean woman.
But doesn't the demand for diversity indicate at least some untapped market opportunity, enough to justify the risk?
I don't see how there could be any money in making video games for ethnic minorities. Having "diversity" in a game is also unlikely to have much of an effect on sales. And what "risk" are you talking about? A game isn't going to sink because the player character is non-white, or because some of the non-player characters are.
A crucial factor in making a wildly profitable video game is to make it appeal to as many people as possible. This is what Nintendo has successfully done with many of their games. The Sims and World of Warcraft are also good examples.
No more data with which to dismiss uncomfortable conversations on why developers won't or can't treat race and gender in games.
Why on Earth would anyone want to "treat race and gender in games" (i.e. make all the white heterosexual male players feel guilty about being alive)? Having "mature themes" is one thing, but being subjected to trite diversity propaganda would be completely intolerable and unnecessary. Video games are entertainment, not Women's Studies.
People can only create what they know.
Yes, surely a writer or designer cannot create a character or setting that falls outside his or her own race, gender or culture. Most writers make their living by telling stories about things they don't know.
People are hostile to those unlike them.
Aren't you just projecting now?
As long as people have "well, we're making money," to hide behind, why would anyone want to change?
Nobody cares about the race and gender hangups of liberals. Developers want to make kickass games, not preach to players about white guilt and male power.
And here comes part two. Why does Blogger have such ridiculous size limitations for comments?
Robert:
As long as a a sizable portion of the audience refuses to play a female lead...
Tomb Raider is a popular and long-lasting franchise. Resident Evil has managed to survive despite having several female player characters. Metroid is still going strong. Mirror's Edge and Bayonetta did pretty well. Portal is popular.
Tom:
Only women (and minorities) have to justify their existence within a game, white men have no such responsibility, they are considered the default.
And whose fault is that? Think carefully.
Brendan:
As a white dude, where can I say that I am from? My ancestors are from Ireland and Scotland, but I cannot rightly say that I am Irish or Scottish. As a white Canadian guy living in Canadian society I am sort of just vanilla.
You are from Canada and your family is from Ireland and Scotland. Why is a man from Bangladesh, Kenya or Turkey more real or authentic than you? Don't buy into this white guilt bullshit.
In essence, we white men need there to be women and non-white protagonists in games so that we can have actual white male characters and not half-assed universal placeholders.
So a character like Max Payne is just a "half-assed universal placeholder," and not a real character. Because he's white. Because white people are boring and generic and not authentic and keepin' shit real in the ghetto.
Cecil J. Farquhar:
The subconscious racism most of white people have.
Yes, because you'll not encounter any racism or xenophobia in South America, Africa, the Middle East or Asia.
@Ghost4
I'm just going to leave this link here and you can check it out if you want to or not.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html
Ghost4
"And whose fault is that? Think carefully."
That would be the fault of the society we live in for forming these preconceptions and the fault of the designer/writer for accepting such preconceptions blindly.
Regarding your earlier post:
"They're obsessed with race politics and so caught up in their racial identity that they can't or won't relate to anyone of a different race. That's their problem, not anyone else's."
You've constructed a self defeating argument here. If non-white's should accept white characters because they should be able to relate to characters of other races then whites should surely accept non-white characters for the same reasons. If you truly believe this argument then you believe the race of characters is irrelevant, in which case, why are you arguing that companies are in the right for deliberately whitewashing their casts? They are the ones who have made it an issue here, not us.
"Why on Earth would anyone want to "treat race and gender in games" (i.e. make all the white heterosexual male players feel guilty about being alive)? Having "mature themes" is one thing, but being subjected to trite diversity propaganda would be completely intolerable and unnecessary. Video games are entertainment, not Women's Studies."
First off, whether games are merely entertainment or art is up for debate. Secondly the fact that you believe themes regarding any other race, gender or sexuality make the rest of us feel 'guilty to be alive' says more about your own problems than anybody else's. Not to mention that merely acknowledging that other races exist is 'diversity propaganda' in your eyes, what a strange place you must live in.
The the rest of us, seeing other races, other genders and other sexualities is nothing more than an acknowledgement that this how the world is.
Also:
"So a character like Max Payne is just a "half-assed universal placeholder," and not a real character. Because he's white. Because white people are boring and generic and not authentic and keepin' shit real in the ghetto."
No-one has said that, you are merely twisting the words of others and looking rather silly whilst doing so.
Finally:
"Nobody cares about the race and gender hangups of liberals. Developers want to make kickass games, not preach to players about white guilt and male power."
You know, when you take away the bastardisation the word has undergone in the US vocabulary, most of the western world is liberal, get over it.
In this particular case, the developers wanted to make a 'kickass game' featuring and Asian woman, but were prevented from doing so by the publishers. You have taken a story about a developer being forced to change the race and gender of their character against their will and attempted to turn it into an argument that calls for diversity will lead to developers being forced to change the gender and race of their characters against their will. As such I can only conclude you are either (poorly) attempting to cloak your dislike for other races and genders in a mask of reason, or (much more likely) are simply a rather stupid and ignorant person.
Russ
I'm just going to leave this link here and you can check it out if you want to or not.
Hahaha. Don't tell me I'm supposed to take that seriously.
Tom
That would be the fault of the society we live in for forming these preconceptions and the fault of the designer/writer for accepting such preconceptions blindly.
Liberals have turned ethnic minorities into circus attractions, so it's little wonder if they draw attention.
You've constructed a self defeating argument here. If non-white's should accept white characters because they should be able to relate to characters of other races then whites should surely accept non-white characters for the same reasons.
Did I say or imply at any point that white people should not accept non-white characters in video games? No, obviously not. So what are you talking about?
If you truly believe this argument then you believe the race of characters is irrelevant, in which case, why are you arguing that companies are in the right for deliberately whitewashing their casts?
Developers can make their characters whatever race they want to. It's called "living in a free society."
They are the ones who have made it an issue here, not us.
No, it's specifically you who've turned it into an issue. If you don't like all those white characters in video games, start your development studio.
Secondly the fact that you believe themes regarding any other race, gender or sexuality make the rest of us feel 'guilty to be alive' says more about your own problems than anybody else's.
The sole function of "treating race and gender in games" is to make white heterosexual men feel guilty about being alive.
Not to mention that merely acknowledging that other races exist is 'diversity propaganda' in your eyes.
Really? Where did I say that?
No-one has said that.
Except the person who said it.
You know, when you take away the bastardisation the word has undergone in the US vocabulary, most of the western world is liberal, get over it.
I'll get over it as soon as people stop being liberals or liberals run all of Western civilization into the ground. Whichever happens first.
You have taken a story about a developer being forced to change the race and gender of their character against their will and attempted to turn it into an argument that calls for diversity will lead to developers being forced to change the gender and race of their characters against their will.
I didn't say anything about Activision.
As such I can only conclude you are either (poorly) attempting to cloak your dislike for other races and genders in a mask of reason, or (much more likely) are simply a rather stupid and ignorant person.
When all else fails, make random accusations that are based on nothing!
@Ghost4
I just assumed you could take a minute to actually think about issues from outside of your comfort zone. It is alright if you aren't ready for that yet, someday you might be. On that day you might realize that the discussion about privilege is not about killing white or western civilization. I was hoping you would read the article and realize that maybe the world looks very different from many other people's perspective. You entire postings make it seem like you are some kind of warrior for "white culture" and that you are defending it from "other culture" but you don't have to. No one here wants to destroy anything, this is about expanding our culture to be more inclusive. It is always easy to say that this is the way its always been, but that isn't a convincing argument.
Ghost4
"I didn't say anything about Activision."
You didn't have to, you posted a comment on an article about Activision's policies. You have also repeatedly stated that it should 'be up to the developer' when, in this particular case, it was not.
Again, no-one is talking about forcing developers to change the ethnicity of their characters here except you and Activision. People are simply expressing that they would like to see games be more representative. Expressing their opinion is something we like to call 'living in a free society'.
Incidentally, the philosophy that everyone should be able to do what they want to, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone? That's called Liberalism.
If you're going to (ineptly) argue politics, at least learn what the words actually mean.
Russ
I just assumed you could take a minute to actually think about issues from outside of your comfort zone.
I've heard about white/male/heterosexual/Christian privilege for so long and so much that it's coming out of my ears.
On that day you might realize that the discussion about privilege is not about killing white or western civilization.
No, that's pretty much what it always comes down to. The number one enemy of any liberal is a white, heterosexual and Christian male.
You entire postings make it seem like you are some kind of warrior for "white culture" and that you are defending it from "other culture" but you don't have to.
Yes I do, when it's under attack. White people are allowed to exist too.
Tom
You didn't have to, you posted a comment on an article about Activision's policies.
And yet I said nothing about Activision.
You have also repeatedly stated that it should 'be up to the developer' when, in this particular case, it was not.
So there's some kind of contradiction between me saying that it should be up to the developer and Activision deciding that it isn't?
People are simply expressing that they would like to see games be more representative.
You're not fooling anyone who knows how you people really think.
Incidentally, the philosophy that everyone should be able to do what they want to, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone? That's called Liberalism.
Liberals don't hold that belief.
No no no silly Tom, it doesn't actually matter what words mean, simply what he chooses them to mean. Such is contemporary conservatism rather fascinating love affair with post-modernism. What you say is irrelevant, HE knows whats really going on here. Reality doesn't matter, only his interpretation. To whit: "and yet I said nothing about Activision." You didn't say anything because it nullifies your entire paranoid posture. The publisher (Activision) forces the developer (Treyarch) to make major changes to the substance and content of their game, against the desire of the artists, but by not admitting this basic fact, either out of duplicity or ignorance, you can make a bunch of people whose only real power is calling marketplace BS into, well, fascists, natch. It's cool brother, incoherence is my bag too.
Ghost 4:
"Liberals don't hold that belief."
Liberalism - a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
Still I doubt there's any point you learning that, when someone starts spouting things like this:
"No, that's pretty much what it always comes down to. The number one enemy of any liberal is a white, heterosexual and Christian male."
Then it's quite clear they're beyond all reason or rational debate and it's best to let them rot in their medieval mindset while the rest of us live in the 21st century.
White male here, so disregard before reading. None of you are capable of even conceiving ghost4's argument, much less compose a counterargument, so I'm not even going to touch that. For the purpose of the subject at hand I think even that is overcomplicated, and I'm breaking this down from the only perspective I have: that of a gamer. It stretches far beyond the scope of games but I'm keeping it compact: there's only one point that I think needs to be made here, and if you can fit it through your heads I think you'll be able to take in how fucking absurd this whole bitchfest is.
At its core there's a pretty simple reason why all of this is fuck-irrelevant. I could take you on a magical journey through the interconnected misconceptions that lead this sort of thing to be raised as an issue when really it would be utterly meaningless even if it was impossible to find video games with female leads (it's not, you're basing your argument on a fistful of western-developed games that, with few exceptions, wouldn't be worth paying for if the main character was a sociopathic teddybear, much less a woman or minority), but I won't. It's a trip for another time, another place. To keep things simple, I want you to consider my gaming habits. I always play female characters in Monster Hunter, I play Bayonetta, I main female characters in BlazBlue and Guilty Gear, I play tons of STGs, doujin and otherwise, that contain female characters exclusively. Don't get me wrong, I play a lot of male characters, too, but just to make a point: I've played female characters in numerous games, and in spite of this, I am still the main character. I'm projecting myself into the character regardless of what race, gender, or species it is, because in a video game I'm still the one calling the shots. I don't flip a shit when Persona takes place in Japan instead of New York and the MC doesn't look like me. I don't bitch because I'm not a blue hedgehog and I can't relate to the protagonist of Sonic 2. This doesn't even occur to me, because when I'm playing I am still the main character, REGARDLESS of the character that represents me in-game. You could say the main character is always a white heterosexual male in my case, but I don't even think that covers it. I'm just me, and it doesn't matter what I'm shaped like in-game, I'm still the one playing.
If you still don't get it, consider this inane comment from above:
"If the white male character may serve as a chameleon into which other races and genders can often project their identity, exactly what identity is a white male like me supposed to project into his avatars?"
How about YOURSELF. That seems like a good place to start.
now someone goes "But dood, if it's irrelevant, then why won't Activision blahblahblah?" FUCK IF I KNOW. But who cares? True Crime was a piece of shit anyway. I don't think adding a couple polygons and reskinning the player character model would make that big a difference. If it really bugs you so much that mediocre games have male protags then go back to playing Wet, Mirror's Edge, and... I dunno, Kya: Dark Lineage or something.
"But who cares? True Crime was a piece of shit anyway. I don't think adding a couple polygons and reskinning the player character model would make that big a difference."
I've seen a few people make this point, but I honestly don't get it, why are we supposed to dismiss this 'because True Crime games are shit'? It wasn't a True Crime game until Activision meddled with it, the fact that they attached the much derided True Crime label to it is just another way they fucked up, it's certainly not in their favour. Now sure, Black Lotus might have been shit anyway, but you can't really apply these things on a quality basis, because who's going to be the judge of that anyway?
As for the rest of your comment, honestly it just seems like a giant ramble, I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. Could you summarise exactly what your point is please?
"None of you are capable of even conceiving ghost4's argument, much less compose a counterargument."
That's certainly true, you can't argue will incomprehensible madness.
Point, Tom, is that in video games the player is always the main character. The in-game MC is just a way we interact with the game world. Doesn't matter if I'm playing a bullet witch or a monkey or a Russian, I'm still the person I'm playing as. I don't "become" whoever I pick for this match of Street Fighter. In games what's important is what you do, not who you are. Everything else is just aesthetics, which I mean, it's great and all, but it doesn't make a bad game great. At most it makes a mediocre game good (Okami, Earthbound, etc).
Like seriously, how much better would Just Cause 2 be if the main character was a black woman? Nothing changes, the game is still a retarded action game with impossible flight controls, just the main character is now a black woman.
And put this on top of how there really isn't any shortage of female protags. The only real issue Leigh is seeing is Activision, and honestly guys, all this "Kotick is the devil" stuff is getting a little old. Can we just chill here, wait until they release a game, and THEN bash it?
Ultimately if my argument here is formless, it's because this whole issue is formless. What is all of this going to accomplish? Look the fuck out, Activision makes a game with a female main character. It still has a shit plot, shit game design, shit everything it's still unoriginal tripe. You all going to praise it then? There's so much that goes into a video game that the gender ratio matters fuck all on the list of shit devs should be improving on. Which brings me to
"you can't really apply these things on a quality basis, because who's going to be the judge of that anyway?"
Uh, yes, yes I can, because *spoilers* I am the judge of quality. As, you know, a consumer, and maybe sometime as a critic. You too.
There's just so many ways to attack this that I'm wearing myself out. Let me just leave you off with something my bro just said to me a minute ago. It's about Bayonetta.
"No matter how we reacted to Bayonetta, it wouldn't have changed anything, because like whoever made it gives a fuck. If he gave a fuck, we would've never had Bayonetta in the first place."
I think in the end that's the most important thing here. The creators who are really driven are going to do whatever they want with their characters and themes, and the shitty American devs who have no energy behind their creative visions are going to make Exactly What Activision Told Them To. If you've got a good idea, like a really good idea, don't fucking compromise. If you're making a shitty GTA clone, do whatever because nobody cares.
Look Andy:
You don't care what race, gender or sexuality your character is, good for you, I do, why not butt out and give me what I want?
If it really didn't matter who game characters were, then they'd be all colours, no? But apparently it matters to someone enough to keep whitewashing our games, they've made it an issue, not us.
All I want to do is to be able to look around in a game and see the world I see out my window every day. I just want to play without thinking "Hey, where'd all the brown people go?".
Oh, and it clearly does matter who some characters are, you know, characters who are characters in story driven games. It might not matter who you play in Street Fighter, but if Ubisoft had ordered The Prince of Persia to be turned into a white guy? That would change the game a lot, probably for the worse. Maybe you don't like that kind of game, fine, but I do, so again, why are you putting so much time and effort into writing an angry rant about how little you care?
Regarding the quality thing, what I'm saying is that sure, you can judge what you like, but what I like is different, so I wouldn't want you judging what is good for me. You can't get someone to decide what's good and insist on diversity there, because we can't agree on what is good and because it's a stupid idea anyway, sure you're a rubbish gamemaker, that doesn't give you a free pass.
Lol, Andy. Yeah. Okay. I'm Andy.
You don't care what race, gender or sexuality your character is, good for you, I do, why not butt out and give me what I want?
Take it, Tom. It's not mine to give.
If it really didn't matter who game characters were, then they'd be all colours, no? But apparently it matters to someone enough to keep whitewashing our games, they've made it an issue, not us.
Who's "they"? Activision? It's one fucking developer, and it's only ever "ruined" one shitty game that nobody liked anyway.
All I want to do is to be able to look around in a game and see the world I see out my window every day. I just want to play without thinking "Hey, where'd all the brown people go?".
That's beautiful. My dream is for western devs to learn how to make a game fun. I hope we can meet halfway.
Oh, and it clearly does matter who some characters are, you know, characters who are characters in story driven games.
This is the kind of tomfoolery that's holding western devs back. "story driven games". The story doesn't play the game, I do.
It might not matter who you play in Street Fighter, but if Ubisoft had ordered The Prince of Persia to be turned into a white guy? That would change the game a lot, probably for the worse.
That's absurd. He's the Prince of Persia. Do you have accounts of this shit happening frequently, like, involving games other than True Crime, and devs other than Activision? Because I'm gonna bet you don't.
Maybe you don't like that kind of game, fine, but I do, so again, why are you putting so much time and effort into writing an angry rant about how little you care?
I gave no description of the games I was referring to other than that they were mediocre action shitfests. I didn't even name names besides, lol, Just Cause 2. Now here, are you admitting to liking mediocre action shitfest games exclusively? The argument only exists because you're only regarding games that fit into the argument. If you have specific games to criticize, go for it: but you'd be hard pressed to find a game that needs diversity more than it needs decent mechanics.
Either way, these broad, sweeping complaints that "SOMETHING'S GOTTA CHANGE" isn't going to do anything. Like, what if I agreed with you? Where do I start? By high-fiving ya through the internet and going downstairs for some popcorn?
You can't get someone to decide what's good and insist on diversity there, because we can't agree on what is good.
In some ways this is true, but I think we can agree on what ISN'T good, and what therefore has far more problems than lack of diversity.
sure you're a rubbish gamemaker, that doesn't give you a free pass.
It does give them a free pass on being bitched at over irrelevant aesthetic choices (because typically nobody remembers their games long enough to bitch). It does not give them my money, however, and it does not make them exempt from criticism. So, small price to pay.
It's like I said: The people and game studios who can make what they want will do so without regard for what Activision or Leigh Alexander wants them to make, and the devs who hardly have any choice in the matter will continue being pushed around by CEOs and pushing out mediocre action shitfests year after year that nobody will remember.
ghost4: "The number one enemy of any liberal is a white, heterosexual and Christian male."
What if I am a liberal, white, heterosexual, Christian male? Am I my own worst enemy? Or do I vanish in a puff of logic?
"This is the kind of tomfoolery that's holding western devs back. "story driven games". The story doesn't play the game, I do."
Thank you for neatly illustrating my point about differing opinions. I love story, I think western devs are currently running laps around their Japanese counterparts (man of whom also write story driven games, it's just that they're rubbish stories), but they could stand to be a little deeper.
So since you don't care about anything but gameplay, again, why are you arguing?
"That's absurd. He's the Prince of Persia. Do you have accounts of this shit happening frequently, like, involving games other than True Crime, and devs other than Activision? Because I'm gonna bet you don't."
Well the main character being Asian was supposed to be important to Black Lotus, but that one got changed.
And now we're asking for evidence? Evidence of what exactly? That there aren't a lot of ethnic minorities in games? My evidence is the games themselves, go take a look.
"I gave no description of the games I was referring to other than that they were mediocre action shitfests. I didn't even name names besides, lol, Just Cause 2."
You refereed to everything but gameplay being irrelevant aesthetics, it's hardly a leap to assume you don't like story driven games.
"If you have specific games to criticize, go for it: but you'd be hard pressed to find a game that needs diversity more than it needs decent mechanics."
I have no idea why you think these are mutually exclusive.
Finally this:
"Either way, these broad, sweeping complaints that "SOMETHING'S GOTTA CHANGE" isn't going to do anything. Like, what if I agreed with you? Where do I start? By high-fiving ya through the internet and going downstairs for some popcorn?"
And this:
"It's like I said: The people and game studios who can make what they want will do so without regard for what Activision or Leigh Alexander wants them to make, and the devs who hardly have any choice in the matter will continue being pushed around by CEOs and pushing out mediocre action shitfests year after year that nobody will remember."
Are just absurd. Seriously, what is your point? Because right here you seem to be saying that there's no point in anyone ever having an opinion or voicing it.
In which case I once again have to ask, why are you reading and commenting on an opinion blog about games? Why have you taken so much time and energy to inform us that you lack and opinion and even if you did it wouldn't matter? It seems rather counter-intuitive.
Ug, designers should just be left alone to design. It really shows when an abruptly conjured or stereotypical characer has been forced on a writer.
Additionally we have a problem of correlation in marketing research. More male leads means greater sales figures for games with male leads. I'd really like to see some decent data, percentage of market held by female leads by market earnings of games with female leads, compared to the same stat for male leads.
Overall I think publishers need to look at saturation vs sales rather than just at sales.
the unalovebomber
The publisher (Activision) forces the developer (Treyarch) to make major changes to the substance and content of their game, against the desire of the artists, but by not admitting this basic fact, either out of duplicity or ignorance, you can make a bunch of people whose only real power is calling marketplace BS into, well, fascists, natch. It's cool brother, incoherence is my bag too.
Were exactly have I refused to admit that Activision did that?
Tom
Still I doubt there's any point you learning that.
Reality > dictionary definition.
Then it's quite clear they're beyond all reason or rational debate and it's best to let them rot in their medieval mindset while the rest of us live in the 21st century.
I have a "medieval mindset" because liberals hate white, heterosexual Christian males? Does not compute.
If it really didn't matter who game characters were, then they'd be all colours, no? But apparently it matters to someone enough to keep whitewashing our games, they've made it an issue, not us.
It's "whitewashing" when the characters are white, but "diversity" when the characters are black. Yeah...
All I want to do is to be able to look around in a game and see the world I see out my window every day. I just want to play without thinking "Hey, where'd all the brown people go?".
Then games might as well be made based on what a Chinese or Norwegian man sees out the window.
Oh, and it clearly does matter who some characters are, you know, characters who are characters in story driven games.
I.e. adventure games, which almost nobody cares about anymore. Why suddenly bring them up?
And now we're asking for evidence? Evidence of what exactly? That there aren't a lot of ethnic minorities in games? My evidence is the games themselves, go take a look.
Left 4 Dead 2, which I've been playing a lot recently, has two black characters and one of them is a woman. I also played through Arkham Asylum a while ago, and I saw black characters. Saints Row 2 has black, hispanic and Asian characters and the player character can be any of them. Crackdown has several ethnicities for the player character. Mass Effect 2 has various ethnicities. Half-Life 2 has black main characters. Mirror's Edge and Stranglehold have an Asian player character. Crysis has a black main character.
By the way, they're called minorities for a reason.
ArchStanton
What if I am a liberal, white, heterosexual, Christian male? Am I my own worst enemy? Or do I vanish in a puff of logic?
It's called "self-loathing."
ghost4: "It's called self-loathing."
You're serious, of course. That's a pretty limited perspective on what it means to be: liberal, white, heterosexual, Christian, or male.
I guess I won't be subscribing to your newsletter...
Thank you for neatly illustrating my point about differing opinions. I love story, I think western devs are currently running laps around their Japanese counterparts (man of whom also write story driven games, it's just that they're rubbish stories), but they could stand to be a little deeper.
Well excuse me for not instantly assuming everyone I meet is a casual.
And this is how it is with you casuals, in the same breath you bitch about shitty writing in games. Do you fucking like anything? Is it just the "potential of the medium" you're interested in? In that case, you should probably just give up.
Well the main character being Asian was supposed to be important to Black Lotus, but that one got changed.
keep dreaming, bro.
And now we're asking for evidence? Evidence of what exactly?
Evidence that other publishers have forced developers of potentially great games to change minor aesthetic quirks that "ruined" them.
That there aren't a lot of ethnic minorities in games? My evidence is the games themselves, go take a look.
Quote ghost4:
"Left 4 Dead 2, which I've been playing a lot recently, has two black characters and one of them is a woman. I also played through Arkham Asylum a while ago, and I saw black characters. Saints Row 2 has black, hispanic and Asian characters and the player character can be any of them. Crackdown has several ethnicities for the player character. Mass Effect 2 has various ethnicities. Half-Life 2 has black main characters. Mirror's Edge and Stranglehold have an Asian player character. Crysis has a black main character.
By the way, they're called minorities for a reason."
cry some moar.
I have no idea why you think these are mutually exclusive.
It's true that ultimately aesthetics and mechanics are the same thing, but that's most definitely not what you mean by this. Which leads to the question: The fuck do you mean by this?
Are just absurd. Seriously, what is your point? Because right here you seem to be saying that there's no point in anyone ever having an opinion or voicing it. Why have you taken so much time and energy to inform us that you lack and opinion and even if you did it wouldn't matter? It seems rather counter-intuitive.
You misunderstand, Tom. My opinion is extremely valuable: it is the opinion that YOUR opinion is wrong. This is an important point of view. Sadly most people are unable to see it. Casuals like you are all over the place these days, clouding shit up with your "gameplays" and your "untapped media" and idiotic cries that we should first let developers make what they want without outside influence and THEN DEMAND THEY IMPLEMENT SPECIFIC AESTHETIC FEATURES. You're telling Activision to stop forcing devs to use green paint and in the same breath demanding red paint.
And to quote Chris, who probably thinks he disagrees with me:
"Ug, designers should just be left alone to design. It really shows when an abruptly conjured or stereotypical characer has been forced on a writer."
This is really the only issue here. No racism, no equality. Devs should be able to do what they want. If they fuck up, then they eat our criticism and low sales. But as it stands the devs with any imagination and drive more or less do what they want at all costs anyway (you know, idiots like Tim Schafer or those insufferable indie artfags). Even when this results in a shit game, you have to admire that resolve when held up against the dullards who will bend over to accept whatever demands are forced upon them by the publishers. I'll criticize the former harshly, but only because, unlike the latter, they are in a position to learn from their mistakes.
Oh Christ, where to begin, because this has really gone off the deep end.
First Ghost4, who is clearly a nutter:
"Reality > dictionary definition."
I'm sorry, but you don't get to define reality for the rest of us. Most of the world is able to comprehend that liberalism is the political philosophy that stem from the belief that an individual should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. You apparently believe that it means some sort of cartoonish, moustache twirling supervillain.
"I have a "medieval mindset" because liberals hate white, heterosexual Christian males? Does not compute."
I'm not surprised sense fails to compute for you. You have a medieval mindset because you believe this to be the case, despite any rational person being able to see otherwise.
"It's "whitewashing" when the characters are white, but "diversity" when the characters are black. Yeah..."
Do I have to explain to you what diversity means as well? It means things are 'diverse', that is that there are representations of several different races.
I mean seriously, if you're going to try and debate politics at least try and learn the language.
"I.e. adventure games, which almost nobody cares about anymore. Why suddenly bring them up?"
Adventure games are not the only story driven games by a long shot. If anything games have become increasingly story driven of late.
"All I want to do is to be able to look around in a game and see the world I see out my window every day. I just want to play without thinking "Hey, where'd all the brown people go?"."
If you're trying to sell a Norwegian or Chinese man a game, sure, why not? Hell games staring Norwegians and Chinese people would be a welcome change from more grim American Space Marines.
"Left 4 Dead 2, which I've been playing a lot recently, has two black characters and one of them is a woman. I also played through Arkham Asylum a while ago, and I saw black characters. Saints Row 2 has black, hispanic and Asian characters and the player character can be any of them. Crackdown has several ethnicities for the player character. Mass Effect 2 has various ethnicities. Half-Life 2 has black main characters. Mirror's Edge and Stranglehold have an Asian player character. Crysis has a black main character."
Citing a handful of counter-examples does not a trend make. The numbers are very much on the other side. I never contended that there weren't any games with black or Asian characters, I'd just like some more please.
"By the way, they're called minorities for a reason."
I never asked for every major character to be black. Run the numbers, they're under-represented.
Now Alex, who seems a far more reasonable, if rather irate and hard to follow, person.
"Well excuse me for not instantly assuming everyone I meet is a casual."
I'm sorry, but that's not what casual means. In fact most 'casual' games are gameplay heavy and story light, so it's practically the opposite. People who talk about writing in games are generally anything but casual, because in doing so they clearly thing deeply about gaming as a medium, what it is, where it's come from and where it's going. Claiming nothing is relevant but fun gameplay? That sounds more like casual in my book.
Do I fucking like anything? Did you miss the part where you slagged off western games and I praised them there?
If you want a frame of reference I'm a big fan of Bioware games.
"Keep dreaming, bro."
You did read the article right? The article that just said exactly that?
"Evidence that other publishers have forced developers of potentially great games to change minor aesthetic quirks that "ruined" them."
Why? Because you're not going to agree it's a bad thing unless I provide several examples of it happening (a bit pointless seeing as you're dismissing the one that has been presented)? It's still a bad thing however often it happens.
The simple fact is we don't know how often this comes up, because it's very hard to get information out of these companies (what with people fearing for their jobs).
"It's true that ultimately aesthetics and mechanics are the same thing, but that's most definitely not what you mean by this. Which leads to the question: The fuck do you mean by this?"
So said you'd rather have a game with good gameplay than a black lead. I was questioning why you seem to think you have to choose between the two, can't we have both?
"You misunderstand, Tom. My opinion is extremely valuable: it is the opinion that YOUR opinion is wrong. This is an important point of view. Sadly most people are unable to see it."
How terrible that most people do not accept you as the arbitrator of all that is good and true in the world. Obviously I think I'm right and you're wrong, but I'm grown up enough to know that everyone thinks that, so it's not much of an argument.
This whole paragraph here rambles quite a lot by the way, once again I'm having trouble following what you're saying. Apparently it's very important that you voice your opinion that my opinion is wrong, yet not long ago you asserted that it was not important the Leigh voice her opinion that Activision is wrong. This seems rather inconsistent.
"Casuals like you are all over the place these days, clouding shit up with your "gameplays" and your "untapped media" and idiotic cries that we should first let developers make what they want without outside influence and THEN DEMAND THEY IMPLEMENT SPECIFIC AESTHETIC FEATURES. You're telling Activision to stop forcing devs to use green paint and in the same breath demanding red paint."
Ah, I think we've reached the crux of the misunderstanding. This has actually been explained several times in these comments but you have apparently missed it, so let me put it simply:
"No-one is demanding devs be forced to implement 'red paint'"
We're saying we like red paint, we're saying we're all for more red paint because seriously all this green paint is getting pretty dull. No-one is forcing anyone to change the race or gender of their character. Except Activision. Who you are apparently defending.
This is actually a recurring theme in these kind of debates, I honestly don't get it. At what point do people start reading "I'd like more of this" as "I demand you be legally enforced to produce this"?
Tom
I'm sorry, but you don't get to define reality for the rest of us.
That would actually be what you're doing, by asserting that a dictionary definition defines reality.
Most of the world is able to comprehend that liberalism is the political philosophy that stem from the belief that an individual should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.
And yet liberals don't actually believe in this.
You have a medieval mindset because you believe this to be the case.
It has nothing to do with what I believe.
Do I have to explain to you what diversity means as well? It means things are 'diverse', that is that there are representations of several different races.
Nobody complains about a lack of diversity if something is populated by non-white people or characters.
Adventure games are not the only story driven games by a long shot. If anything games have become increasingly story driven of late.
Virtually all games are... game-driven. Adventure games might be called story-driven because I imagine most people play them for the story.
If you're trying to sell a Norwegian or Chinese man a game, sure, why not?
What if a developer wants to sell his game to white people?
Citing a handful of counter-examples does not a trend make.
Yes, because that list contained literally every game ever made that features non-white characters.
I never asked for every major character to be black. Run the numbers, they're under-represented.
Hence the term "ethnic minority."
At what point do people start reading "I'd like more of this" as "I demand you be legally enforced to produce this"?
Because the latter will always follow the former, even if nobody admits it.
I had a discussion about character appearance in Torchlight several months back that I'll recap here:
Part 1
One of the appealing things about Fate was that you could change the gender and appearance of your character which made it a more accessible game for my 7 year old daughter. Unfortunately the decision to create three classes and then to give them a specific look also creates and reinforces unnecessary gender stereotypes IMO. It looks like great update to Fate, otherwise, but if my daughter is limited to those three character archetypes/stereotypes, I probably won't get it for her. Seems a shame.
Quote: Don't every buy her a Disney movie to watch, those are full of these "features" you claim to be "unnecessary gender stereotypes." All the princesses are girls and stuff like that.
It's not that the girls are princesses, it's that the girls are helpless and waiting for the prince to rescue them. Or if they aren't helpless (e.g. the female character in Torchlight), they are all designed to appeal to a male viewer/gamer. Sure, some will say, "most gamers are male". But, then they'll complain that "there aren't female gamers". Chicken and egg. If it were just one game or one movie, I wouldn't be bothered. It's the continual reinforcement of those images and messages that causes me to be more vigilant than I would like. Heck, it's not like I am asking them to recode the game. I'd just like to have a feature that an older version had and that shouldn't be difficult to implement.
Quote: Okay, seriously though, there are such things that can be perceived as gender stereotypes everywhere, and I don't see how anyone can realistically raise a child while shielding them from every little thing. I mean, if it's overly sexist and offensive like the extreme examples you mention, then I understand, but with Torchlight... hell, you would be better off being worried about the violence in the game rather than the really mild gender stereotype.
It's not about shielding her from EVERY little thing. It's about providing a healthy balance. For everyone it's going to be something different. Of course in the US we're happy to let our kids watch all sorts of violent material, but show a nipple and everyone freaks - and in Europe, it's the other way around, or so I'm told. I'm well aware that as she grows older, she will see, read, hear, and eat things that I may not approve of. I will never be able to shield her from any influence that I feel is bad - nor do I want to. I do want to give her a good foundation for making her own decisions when those situations arise. As to this thread, I happen to have some background in media effects studies and I have a daughter, so issues like this are the sort of thing I think about. Sure the female character in Torchlight may be a "mild gender stereotype", but it's one that is used over and over in games and movies and reinforces a particular image/cultural message to the exclusion of other equally valid images.
Part 2
Quote: I'm curious though, if you had a son would you have similar concerns about other games where the male lead character is basically a body-builder? It's still a gender stereotype and equally as sexist.
Fair question. Similar concerns, yes. Not as strong though.
Partly, it's matter of options. At least (in Torchlight) a boy has the option of two different characters/body types to start with. That already sends a message to boys about what it is acceptable to look like as a male vs. what is expected of a female and whether they should expect to have a choice in the matter. (of course I am assuming that most boys will choose a male character and that most girls will choose a female character)
Partly it's a matter of power, or at least the perception of power. Kids can best relate to physical power (e.g. the biggest kid on the playground). So even if there is ultimately little difference in the game mechanics between male and female characters (for games in general), the perception for most kids is likely that the buff-looking male character has the power. That sends a message to girls that only boys get to be physically powerful.
(Like I said earlier, if it was just one game, I wouldn't be bothered. But, when those patterns are repeated over and over in games, books, movies, etc. - that makes me take a greater interest in finding media that offer an alternative message.)
Some will say, "but men and women are different, you can't expect them to look the same". Agreed, but those differences are often exaggerated to a silly extreme in most games. Frankly most men and women look more like each other than they resemble fantasy caricatures. (Frankly, most men and women look like out of shape lard-bags, but that's another topic)
-----
Also, we are talking about imaginary, fantasy worlds where anything is possible - there's no reason why the Destroyer couldn't be a female character and the Vanquisher a male character. There's no reason for them to be gendered or even human at all.
The cool thing about Spore is that it totally removes the gender issue. My daughter loves creating the biggest, baddest looking creatures she can come up with.
Portal (which she has played half of) and Half-Life (which she has not played) almost eliminate it as well. Sure, there are cues that remind you of the character's gender, but they aren't staring you in the face all the time and the character's gender has virtually no impact on the story or character development.
Neverwinter Nights (which I have played co-op with her - lot's of fun - she enjoys playing a female, elf, fighter) has some of the gender stereotype issues that I mention, in terms of female character models, but there are so many character race/class/gender combinations that I felt it was a pretty minor concern compared to the overall value of the game.
Part 3
Quote: ...couldn't stereotypes like these actually be turned around and to be used as a teaching tool? To basically train the child to recognize a stereotype when it sees one?
I don't know your daughters age and if this would be realistic for her level of maturity, but i would think that such an approach would better prepare someone to handle such imagery in situations where you, the parent are not in control...
Absolutely. I try to do that when it makes sense/seems appropriate. It's not like I try to prevent her from ever being exposed to anything I disapprove of nor do I try to over-analyze everything. She's read traditional fairy tales, but she has also been provided contemporary stories where the girl is the protagonist/hero. And we discuss the historical context of the stories and the time and place they were written.
Likewise for other media. We've watched Forbidden Planet and discussed (in addition to the concepts of ego and id) how the gender roles of the period in which the movie was created affected the way gender roles were portrayed in the future. We've done the same with Robin Hood, Captain Blood, the original King Kong and several others. We've read and watched the Lord of the Rings and discussed the lack of female protagonists in the novel and the decision to make Eowyn a heroic fighter in the films.
And it's not limited to gender - race, class, status - all are food for thought.
I might decide to let her play Torchlight as is. (Heck, I didn't start the thread bashing the game, just asking for a tweak) The problem is the slippery slope. Again, for one game it's probably not a big deal, but if I take issue with several games on this issue, letting her play them because they are otherwise good games is a tacit endorsement. I get to weigh the pros and cons and choose which ones are appropriate.
/sorry for the multiple deletions -blogger kept throwing errors, but I didn't realize it was posting anyways...
Ghost4
"That would actually be what you're doing, by asserting that a dictionary definition defines reality."
Dictionaries are defined by historic use and popular conception of a word. I told you the definition of Liberal that most of the world subscribes to. Just because you and a few other crazies think it means... well anything you think is bad, doesn't make it so.
"And yet liberals don't actually believe in this."
Again you believe you arbitrate reality. Let me put it this way, the definition of Liberal is the one I gave you. If someone claims to be liberal while believing otherwise they are mistaken in their terminology. Although more likely you are just wrong.
But come on, tell us, what do liberals believe? As a liberal myself I'd certainly be interested to know.
"Nobody complains about a lack of diversity if something is populated by non-white people or characters."
Because those examples are rather few and far between and usually have a good reason for being so. If you're doing a game set in ancient India (like Prince of Persia) it makes sense for there to be no whites, just like it makes sense for there to be no blacks in a game set in medieval europe. It's the ones where there isn't a reason we're concerned with.
"Virtually all games are... game-driven. Adventure games might be called story-driven because I imagine most people play them for the story." Nope, wrong. For instance the vast majority of the RPG genre is heavily story driven.
"What if a developer wants to sell his game to white people?"
Then perhaps he should consider reflecting the world said white person lives in. Which for most of us includes other races, and for all of us includes other genders.
"Yes, because that list contained literally every game ever made that features non-white characters."
Is there a point here? Or are you just trying to drive the argument into a circle?
If you're going to suggest that there are many games which feature ethnic minorities, give me numbers, not a handful of examples. Otherwise it's meaningless.
"Hence the term "ethnic minority."
'Under represented' meaning, less prominent than they are in real life. ie: a more minor minority.
"Because the latter will always follow the former, even if nobody admits it."
Because you are the universal keeper of truth? What am I supposed to say to this? Because whatever I say you're just going to say I'm not admitting it, right?
You're still wrong by the way. Astonishingly wrong. You've taken a philosophy that is all about maximising freedoms and declared that it seeks to take them away. There's no arguing with that, it's just madness.
Arch Stanton
Unfortunately the decision to create three classes and then to give them a specific look also creates and reinforces unnecessary gender stereotypes IMO.
Yes, your daughter will probably grow up to be the town slut if she plays as the Vanquisher.
That already sends a message to boys about what it is acceptable to look like as a male vs. what is expected of a female and whether they should expect to have a choice in the matter.
Yes, by playing Torchlight they will grow up to think that they can only look like the characters from the game. I know what's that like, because I couldn't stop dressing up as Link until five years of electroshock therapy!
I like how you don't even seem to recognize that Torchlight is, in fact, a video game. Did you know that the different classes all have different abilities and mechanics, and that kids aren't so stupid that they won't notice? Yeah, they're not just aesthetic choices meant to reinforce the patriarchal conspiracy to oppress women and brown people.
Partly it's a matter of power, or at least the perception of power. Kids can best relate to physical power (e.g. the biggest kid on the playground). So even if there is ultimately little difference in the game mechanics between male and female characters (for games in general), the perception for most kids is likely that the buff-looking male character has the power. That sends a message to girls that only boys get to be physically powerful.
Newsflash: no 7-year old kid is going to be thinking about shit like this. You, as an oversensitive liberal adult, are projecting your mentality onto children who have no understanding of any of this nonsense.
Also, nice job using video games as a substitute for parenting. I can already tell your daughter will grow up to be a winner.
Also, we are talking about imaginary, fantasy worlds where anything is possible - there's no reason why the Destroyer couldn't be a female character and the Vanquisher a male character. There's no reason for them to be gendered or even human at all.
Right, and there's no reason why the Vanquisher couldn't shoot radioactive carrots from his (her? Its?) ass while riding a talking penguin that wears a monocle and top hat. It's easier to relate to and understand fantasy worlds that resemble our own, and there's rarely anything to be gained by making everything arbitrarily topsy-turvy. Having the Destroyer be male and the Vanquisher be female makes the most amount of sense by far, since it corresponds to how reality works.
Tom
Dictionaries are defined by historic use and popular conception of a word.
And yet this definition doesn't correspond to reality.
Again you believe you arbitrate reality.
No, I'm just telling you like it is. I've never seen a liberal who believes in that.
Because those examples are rather few and far between and usually have a good reason for being so.
In other words: nobody complains about a lack of diversity if something is populated by non-white people or characters.
Nope, wrong. For instance the vast majority of the RPG genre is heavily story driven.
If you play a CRPG just for its story, you must be retarded.
Then perhaps he should consider reflecting the world said white person lives in. Which for most of us includes other races, and for all of us includes other genders.
Well what about white people who live in homogenous societies? Oh my!
Is there a point here?
Yes, and it is the following: you are wrong.
Because you are the universal keeper of truth?
Because I know how you people think, and because I've seen it many times before.
You've taken a philosophy that is all about maximising freedoms and declared that it seeks to take them away.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practise. In practise, there is. Look at what communism promises vs. what it actually delivers.
Okay, this has just gotten stupid now.
Ghost, you're a paranoid lunatic who believes only he knows the true secrets of the liberal conspiracy and refuses to participate in the same reality as the rest of us.
There's simply no point in talking to someone so far beyond reason.
If liberals believe in maximizing freedom, why are they always seeking to limit freedom of speech and erode the independence of nations? Why are they always looking for new ways for the government to get involved in everything?
If freedom is a-okay as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, why are liberals obsessed with ensuring that Muslims can do almost anything they want?
"If liberals believe in maximizing freedom, why are they always seeking to limit freedom of speech and erode the independence of nations?"
Your examples please?
"Why are they always looking for new ways for the government to get involved in everything?"
That would be socialism, not liberalism. The terms are not interchangeable, although both can be effectively combined.
The answer, by the way, is because predatory capitalism hurts people. Some things are better for everyone if they're nationalised.
"If freedom is a-okay as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, why are liberals obsessed with ensuring that Muslims can do almost anything they want?"
What the? How about because most Muslims never hurt anyone? They aren't hurting anyone, so they can do what they want. It certainly makes sense to me.
ghost4,
Did you actually read anything that I wrote or did you just scan the text for hooks to hang your rhetoric on? I'm sorry if it was a wall of text, but if you can't be bothered to respond to my post in context then you aren't worth engaging in a discussion.
Tom
Your examples please?
Various "hate speech" laws, and generally attacking and bullying anyone who says anything that isn't sufficiently PC.
The answer, by the way, is because predatory capitalism hurts people. Some things are better for everyone if they're nationalised.
A good example of lulz government intervention is in Norway where companies are required by law to have so and so many women on their boards. I think France might have had a similiar law. But that's of course just an advanced version of affirmative action.
What the? How about because most Muslims never hurt anyone? They aren't hurting anyone, so they can do what they want. It certainly makes sense to me.
Right, because the daily terrorist attacks don't hurt anyone, and the honor killings, genital mutilation, forced marriages and general violence against women and infidels don't hurt anyone. The violence and rioting in Islamic immigrant ghettos in Europe don't hurt anyone. Liberals have basically elevated Muslims to demi-God status, and will lash out against anyone who so much as criticizes them, let alone tries to rein them in. This hurt a lot of innocent people. An acceptable price to liberals.
ArchStanton
Did you actually read anything that I wrote or did you just scan the text for hooks to hang your rhetoric on? I'm sorry if it was a wall of text, but if you can't be bothered to respond to my post in context then you aren't worth engaging in a discussion.
This doesn't mean anything because you don't cite any examples or elaborate in any way.
"Various "hate speech" laws, and generally attacking and bullying anyone who says anything that isn't sufficiently PC."
Once again you fail to differentiate between your having the freedom to voice an opinion, and others not being able to criticise it. You are free to say as many 'un PC' things as you like and other are free to attack you for it, that's what free speech means.
By 'hate speech' laws I'm guessing you mean things like 'incitement to racial hatred' in the UK, a law passed by the Labour party. A historically socialist party that most agree has become rather conservative of late. It also only applies in cases where 'hate speech' is determined to be threatening someone.
Liberals (in the shape of the Liberal Democrat party) generally opposed this bill.
"Right, because the daily terrorist attacks don't hurt anyone, and the honor killings, genital mutilation, forced marriages and general violence against women and infidels don't hurt anyone. The violence and rioting in Islamic immigrant ghettos in Europe don't hurt anyone. Liberals have basically elevated Muslims to demi-God status, and will lash out against anyone who so much as criticizes them, let alone tries to rein them in. This hurt a lot of innocent people. An acceptable price to liberals."
Well this is wrong, nonsensical and pretty offensive, so I'll just answer simply. The reason liberals often end up defending Muslims is because the right likes to treat all Muslims the same. Most Muslims in western countries are decent people, just like you or me. The moderate majority should not be accused of acts committed by Islamic countries with which they have no affiliation or fundamentalists that they despise as much as we do.
I don't blame every Catholic for a few paedophilia Priests, nor would I blame any Christian for the actions of anti-abortion terrorists in the US, so why should I not extend Muslims that same courtesy?
Tom
Once again you fail to differentiate between your having the freedom to voice an opinion, and others not being able to criticise it. You are free to say as many 'un PC' things as you like and other are free to attack you for it, that's what free speech means.
Except liberals take it further by outright trying to shut people down through bullying and intimidation, and taking advantage of any and all laws that could be used to shut them up.
By 'hate speech' laws I'm guessing you mean things like 'incitement to racial hatred' in the UK, a law passed by the Labour party. A historically socialist party that most agree has become rather conservative of late. It also only applies in cases where 'hate speech' is determined to be threatening someone.
Hate speech laws have repeatedly been used in the Western world (and in at least one Eastern European country) to shut people down for expressing politically incorrect opinions. That's what they are for.
Liberals (in the shape of the Liberal Democrat party) generally opposed this bill.
Liberals love hate speech laws.
The reason liberals often end up defending Muslims is because the right likes to treat all Muslims the same.
They defend them because it's a part of their self-flaggelation process. They denigrate themselves and their own people while treating Muslims as demi-Gods. They also share the same enemy: Western civilization.
Most Muslims in western countries are decent people, just like you or me.
No, they aren't (and personally, I have never encountered one of those fabled "moderate Muslims." Not once).
The moderate majority should not be accused of acts committed by Islamic countries with which they have no affiliation or fundamentalists that they despise as much as we do.
"The moderate majority" either outright supports those acts or gives them their silent approval.
I don't blame every Catholic for a few paedophilia Priests, nor would I blame any Christian for the actions of anti-abortion terrorists in the US, so why should I not extend Muslims that same courtesy?
The scale is completely different. Islamic terrorism is a daily occurence, and quite frequent in the West as well. "Anti-abortion terrorists" are virtually non-existent, and enjoy no legal, religious or popular support.
Well I think it's time to call time on this one, because this:
"Except liberals take it further by outright trying to shut people down through bullying and intimidation, and taking advantage of any and all laws that could be used to shut them up."
This:
"Hate speech laws have repeatedly been used in the Western world (and in at least one Eastern European country) to shut people down for expressing politically incorrect opinions. That's what they are for."
This:
"Liberals love hate speech laws."
(You'd think the views of the Liberal Democrat party would be an indicator of Liberal positions, but apparently not)
And this:
"They defend them because it's a part of their self-flaggelation process. They denigrate themselves and their own people while treating Muslims as demi-Gods. They also share the same enemy: Western civilization."
All add up to one thing. You Simply don't live in the same world as the rest of us, instead you live in a world where 'Liberals' (by which you probably mean left wingers or socialists, but you are too dumb to understand that) and brown people seek to destroy you at every turn.
I pity you.
"No, they aren't (and personally, I have never encountered one of those fabled "moderate Muslims." Not once)."
I'm not surprised, they'd probably run screaming from the likes of you. Every single Muslim I've ever met (which is actually quite a lot) is a moderate. Extremists I only see on TV.
"The moderate majority" either outright supports those acts or gives them their silent approval."
Actually they give them their audible disapproval, but you are too ignorant to actually be paying attention when they do.
"The scale is completely different. Islamic terrorism is a daily occurence."
No it isn't, you don't honestly think that do you?
Just so you know, thirty years ago you'd have been saying that about the IRA.
Tom
This, this and this all add up to one thing. You Simply don't live in the same world as the rest of us.
Hur hur hur.
Instead you live in a world where 'Liberals' (by which you probably mean left wingers or socialists, but you are too dumb to understand that) and brown people seek to destroy you at every turn.
Islam is not a race. Like all liberals, you manage to make everything a race issue.
I'm not surprised, they'd probably run screaming from the likes of you.
This is illogical and makes no sense.
Every single Muslim I've ever met (which is actually quite a lot) is a moderate.
Some of them might coincidentally be moderate, but you can't know that without pushing them (which you will not do either because it would be politically incorrect or because you know them in real life and it would get awkward). Every self-styled "moderate" I've talked to has eventually said something very unmoderate like "yes, we should definitely dress women in sacks and stone them to death if they get out of line." I'm also pretty sure your definition of a moderate is so loose and/or misinformed that it doesn't really mean anything.
Actually they give them their audible disapproval.
No, they don't. The Islamic world doesn't make a peep when Islamic terrorism or some other atrocity occurs, but will go absolutely batshit crazy hysterical when someone makes fun of Islam. Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses was so offensive that an angry mob burned down a hotel in Turkey just to kill some guy who was associated with it. They didn't get him, but many people died. Assassination attempts were made against several other people associated with the book, and one or two died. There were also fire bombings, death threats, book burnings, riots and so forth. The fatwa against Salman Rushdie is still active, even after all these years. And let's not forget about the Mohammed Cartoons and what happened when the Pope quoted some long-dead emperor who once said something unflattering about Islam.
When something like 9/11 happens, there's only a deafening silence.
No it isn't, you don't honestly think that do you?
Right, because it doesn't count if it happens outside the Western world. You probably didn't even know that there's an Islamic insurgence in Thailand for example.
Just so you know, thirty years ago you'd have been saying that about the IRA.
The IRA had a specific political objective in a specific region for a limited duration of time. Meanwhile in Islam, every Muslim has a duty to wage jihad against infidels until they have all been converted, subjugated or murdered. This process has been ongoing for the past 1400 years or so.
"No, they don't. The Islamic world doesn't make a peep when Islamic terrorism or some other atrocity occurs"
Yes, they do, you just aren't listening.
As for the rest of this, it's pretty clear by now you're just a massive bigot, and there's no point listening to you because you're never going to let reality intrude upon your ridiculous fantasies.
"Yes, they do, you just aren't listening."
There is nothing to listen to.
"As for the rest of this, it's pretty clear by now you're just a massive bigot."
That word does not mean anything. Try again.
"There's no point listening to you because you're never going to let reality intrude upon your ridiculous fantasies."
Are you talking about yourself?
Am I doing this? I am doing this. Sorry everyone, I know this is tiresome, what can I say? I'm a bore.
"the unalovebomber
The publisher (Activision) forces the developer (Treyarch) to make major changes to the substance and content of their game, against the desire of the artists, but by not admitting this basic fact, either out of duplicity or ignorance, you can make a bunch of people whose only real power is calling marketplace BS into, well, fascists, natch. It's cool brother, incoherence is my bag too.
Were exactly have I refused to admit that Activision did that?"
Ah Ghost, what adorably petite pastiche! but your graceless pomo cut and paste eliding of my point only ended up proving it more. Trouble for you is that that is strictly preacher and his choir stuff, a demogogue and his imbeciles, and won't persuade anyone with an ounce of independent thought. What's more you usually have to put at least SOME distance between yourself and the source material, as anyone interested in any sort of meaningful context can just SCROLL UP THE PAGE AND LOOK AT THE PRECEDING SENTENCE. No, the point stands, it is not any PC school marming that is at fault here, only the usual boring market forces that are acting contrary to your early assertion that "Developers can make their characters whatever race they want to. It's called "living in a free society.'" Don't worry though, that this contradiction is direct and unambiguous is of no matter, you can just claim that "contradiction" has no meaning as well!
(Speaking of context, did you seriously manage to go this entire time without putting any of your scraps of "evidence" into any sort of meaningful context? Doffed cap, slow clap, and all that. I mean, fun fact, the average person in Norway, is freer than the average person in the US (http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm). Imagine a lulz government concerned with expanding the oppurtunities, perspectives, and possibilities of individuals, not faceless corporations, imagine a country where half its citizens did not act as human shields for market indifference. Fancy that.)
So keep mistaking free markets for freedom chum, keep defending Corporate Police State Cretins (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29373/Report_Updated_Infinity_Ward_Lawsuit_Alleges_Activision_Police_State.php), keep insisting that 2+2=5, and keep wondering why your claims to value liberty are disregarded.
Also this:
"...nice job using video games as a substitute for parenting. I can already tell your daughter will grow up to be a winner."
That is rank. You breath shit.
@Alex Wrench:
Of course you're free to, and it's valuable to, emphasize the formal properties of video games (kickin' it with Kandinsky!), but I just find this reductive mechanical thoughtless not fun at all. Micheal Abbot has a great post on subjectivity and fun going on right now that you might be interested in (and neither I nor the majority of the posters there are "casuals") http://www.brainygamer.com/.
@Tom:
"This is actually a recurring theme in these kind of debates, I honestly don't get it. At what point do people start reading "I'd like more of this" as "I demand you be legally enforced to produce this"?"
A culture war makes these things into zero-sum battlegrounds, but art, culture, the human soul, these are not finite, these are not zero-sum. There is no culture war, he is fighting phantoms with shadows, and in making this mistake, Ghost, know that while you are free to be a culture warrior, a culture warrior can never be free.
Also, Tom you've been doing yeomen's work here dude and I want you to know I appreciate it, but might I humbly suggest not feeding the troll? Squirt's posting less than twenty minutes after you so he obviously has no life/is a computer program/is 12/is effing with you/is all of the above. You've got truth on your side, he's not fooling anyone, get some rest.
Ah Ghost, what adorably petite pastiche! but your graceless pomo cut and paste eliding of my point only ended up proving it more. Trouble for you is that that is strictly preacher and his choir stuff, a demogogue and his imbeciles, and won't persuade anyone with an ounce of independent thought. What's more you usually have to put at least SOME distance between yourself and the source material, as anyone interested in any sort of meaningful context can just SCROLL UP THE PAGE AND LOOK AT THE PRECEDING SENTENCE.
Blah blah blah blah blah. Get to the point already.
No, the point stands, it is not any PC school marming that is at fault here, only the usual boring market forces that are acting contrary to your early assertion that "Developers can make their characters whatever race they want to. It's called "living in a free society.'" Don't worry though, that this contradiction is direct and unambiguous is of no matter, you can just claim that "contradiction" has no meaning as well!
So because one publisher meddled in one product, it somehow contradicts my assertion that developers should be allowed to make their characters whatever race they want to? That makes no sense at all.
I mean, fun fact, the average person in Norway, is freer than the average person in the US (http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm).
And yet Norway has a law requiring companies to have so and so many women as board members. Don't change the subject.
So keep mistaking free markets for freedom chum, keep defending Corporate Police State Cretins (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/29373/Report_Updated_Infinity_Ward_Lawsuit_Alleges_Activision_Police_State.php), keep insisting that 2+2=5, and keep wondering why your claims to value liberty are disregarded.
I still haven't talked about Activision at all.
That is rank. You breath shit.
Yes, it must be my fault that he uses video games as a substitute for parenting. Well done.
There is no culture war, he is fighting phantoms with shadows, and in making this mistake, Ghost, know that while you are free to be a culture warrior, a culture warrior can never be free.
This is nonsensical.
Also, Tom you've been doing yeomen's work here dude and I want you to know I appreciate it, but might I humbly suggest not feeding the troll?
People who accuse others of trolling for no reason are stupid, incompetent and desperate.
I apologize in advance for feeding the troll.
Ghost4: This doesn't mean anything because you don't cite any examples or elaborate in any way.
Yes, it must be my fault that he uses video games as a substitute for parenting. Well done.
I didn't cite or provide examples because I humbly submit my entire post as evidence that I am doing the parenting and not the video games.
Maybe you don't approve of my parenting style or what I choose to teach, but to say that being involved in the media she has access to is somehow abdicating my responsibilities as a parent is plain ignorant.
What is the alternative? Would you have me give my child open access to a steam account and let her play anything she likes? (how about cable tv or internet access?) That strikes me as using games as a substitute for parenting. Or perhaps I should just not let her have access to games or any other media - that hardly seems better.
So, yeah, I guess in some sense I use video games to help me parent - just as i use the books she reads, the movies she sees, the newspapers and news programs she has access to, the people she encounters - I guess I use everything I can to help me parent. (I thought I made that plain in my earlier post.) Still, I am not substituting anything for my role as a parent.
Ghost4: Newsflash: no 7-year old kid is going to be thinking about shit like this.
That is my point entirely. They don't think about it. They do however internalize the messages that media presents to them (whether the devs intended it or not). If you have kids you can park them in front of a screen and be as uninvolved and lassiez-faire as you want. I choose to be involved in my kids' media consumption. Just don't tell me I'm letting a video game do the parenting.
@ Unalovebomber
I barely even wanted to humor what you typed with a response. I actually felt kind of insulted, reading it. I mean seriously:
(kickin' it with Kandinsky!)
Oh my god what? Kandinsky was an abstract painter. We're talking about game mechanics. I really wish I could look farther into Kandinsky to see just how absurd this comment is, but that's in conflict with how little I care about anything he's ever done.
but I just find this reductive mechanical thoughtless not fun at all.
What the fuck are you saying. First you wrongly assume that we've somehow agreed that this way of thinking is "reductive" and "mechanical", which I don't even know where you're getting that from. Then you used "thoughtless" as a NOUN. I don't even care if that was a typo. And why should I care what you find fun? You aren't giving me any reasons, you're just spouting nonsense.
Micheal Abbot has a great post on subjectivity and fun going on right now
Withholding all of my feelings about brainygamer, I fail to see how Abbot's "fun factor project" (lol) has anything to do with the conversation. You just threw a link at me and assumed I'd make up your argument for you.
(and neither I nor the majority of the posters there are "casuals")
I have no reason to believe you even know the meaning of the word "casual".
And as a BONUS, a response to Tom from a while ago:
I'm sorry, but that's not what casual means. In fact most 'casual' games are gameplay heavy and story light, so it's practically the opposite.
Of course you think that. But you have no idea.
People who talk about writing in games are generally anything but casual, because in doing so they clearly thing deeply about gaming as a medium, what it is, where it's come from and where it's going.
If they are concerned mainly with game plots and "storytelling" I can assure you they have no clue where games have come from nor where they're going. And again with the "medium"! That's another word you don't know the meaning of.
Claiming nothing is relevant but fun gameplay? That sounds more like casual in my book.
Oh yes of course, because movies are hardcore, and like, Wii Sports has no story and it's casual, so, etc. Looks like someone's been reading too many Sean Malstrom essays, because earth to Tom: Street Fighter III, Monster Hunter, and Mars Matrix aren't casual games.
Do I fucking like anything? Did you miss the part where you slagged off western games and I praised them there?
I'm not asking which games you like. I'm asking what it is that you enjoy in games. Why video games for you, Tom? Why not movies or comics?
You did read the article right? The article that just said exactly that?
It's not that. You're assuming that somehow, the main character being an asian woman would have been at all important.
How about I take Bubsy 3D and sub in some cinema scenes about a black woman struggling through a white- and male-dominated office environment? It's still fucking Bubsy 3D, dude.
Why? Because you're not going to agree it's a bad thing unless I provide several examples of it happening? It's still a bad thing however often it happens.
No, because there are no other examples. We're giving you multiple examples of games featuring women and minorities and you're shrugging them off. You have ONE GAME to illustrate your point, and, need I say again: it wasn't even a good game.
So said you'd rather have a game with good gameplay than a black lead. I was questioning why you seem to think you have to choose between the two, can't we have both?
We do have both. I never said I hated minority characters. I dislike shit games, which apparently you love.
How terrible that most people do not accept you as the arbitrator of all that is good and true in the world. Obviously I think I'm right and you're wrong, but I'm grown up enough to know that everyone thinks that, so it's not much of an argument.
I can't even tell if I trolled you here, but I hope so.
It's very important that you voice your opinion that my opinion is wrong, yet not long ago you asserted that it was not important the Leigh voice her opinion that Activision is wrong. This seems rather inconsistent.
No inconsistency. Activision is not wrong. You are.
This is actually a recurring theme in these kind of debates, I honestly don't get it. At what point do people start reading "I'd like more of this" as "I demand you be legally enforced to produce this"?
Activision is not using the law to force their devs to follow their preference. They are using money. What you are doing and what Activision is doing are the same thing: you each are stating a preference. Activision just has the power to make their devs listen, whereas you do not.
ArchStanton
I didn't cite or provide examples because I humbly submit my entire post as evidence that I am doing the parenting and not the video games.
And yet you are terrified that your daughter will grow up all wrong as a result of playing a video game. Shouldn't be much of an issue with proper parenting.
That is my point entirely. They don't think about it. They do however internalize the messages that media presents to them (whether the devs intended it or not).
No, you just think they'll internalize it because your perception of reality is warped.
Yeesh, looking back it does seem my tone was a little contentious, and for that I apologize. I actually don't think we're that far apart! The Kandinsky thing was just a phrase that popped into my head, it wasn't really an insult. I freely admit that I need an editor for life. My point was that viewing games simply as a collection of mechanics is essentially the approach that abstract painters use when approaching their canvas, stripping the work of content, and meaning, emphasizing the form. This leaves me cold in all forms of art, including games. Also, thoughtless doesn't necessarily mean bad, and the point of the brainy gamer thing wasn't to rebuke, just to supplement. There's a lot of different ways to approach these things, the only way we'll find out even some of them is by constantly challenging the marketplace middle managers that think they know better. Walking back, apologies, etc.
The above was toward Alex Wrench, and before I forget again, I really, really like your name! Its on a loop in my head, is it real?
And yet you are terrified that your daughter will grow up all wrong as a result of playing a video game.
Terrified over a single game? No.
Concerned about continually reinforced media messages? Yes. Is the distinction too subtle for you?
Shouldn't be much of an issue with proper parenting.
Agreed. That is what I am trying to do. Again; even if we disagree about HOW to parent, you can't tell me that I am not parenting.
And by the way; I did decide to let her play Torchlight.
No, you just think they'll internalize it because your perception of reality is warped.
And yours is not? That's a riot.
I am bored with you now. Have the last word if it makes you feel better.
What is it with people who have some strange obsession with "the last word?" Hey, let's ban all discussion everywhere so nobody gets to have the "last word!" Hur hur!
The "media messages" are all in your head. You're so paranoid you think little kids will somehow be brainwashed by these messages while playing a video game. My guess is that your daughter will grow up to become a whiny, neurotic feminist.
Ignoring the comments on culture wars for obvious reasons... I think this is all really funny because we will look back on this kind of media message in games and television the same way you can look back now on old magazines. For example take a look back at old 1960's Life magazines. You would think the world was full of middle class white people where the men all drink scotch and the women all just want pre-made cooking products. My wife recently picked up an interesting issue with a whole article on MLK's presence in Selma and you wouldn't know there were black people in America if not for that article, since no one of color appears in any ad.
ghost4 said:
"If you don't like all those white characters in video games, start your development studio."
Indeed! Why is it that people here make these demands without applying the enormous effort it takes to be a good developer in our industry? (Some requirements: immense passion, technical ability, and a certain level of masochism to withstand the unhealthy lifestyle) I mean, lol, if I can move to a different country and learn a new language (English) with every friend and relative I had living in another country, to make games, you'd figure people here would have a vastly easier time doing it, especially since they are so upset about games not providing the kind of entertainment they want!
I asked this question in an older entry as a response to the people complaining about games not addressing social issues, yet Leigh and some of the protestants didn't address it. I mean, the only way you can get the change you want is if you GO OUT AND DO IT. Certainly bitching about it in a blog won't do much good now, will it? So what the fuck?
I guess the people that "want change" don't care about the "issue" as much to really put the effort and time it takes to make it happen, because they may know deep down there is really no worthy "issue" to address.
Also, Alex Wrench, thanks for the great responses.
"People who talk about writing in games are generally anything but casual, because in doing so they clearly thing deeply about gaming as a medium, what it is, where it's come from and where it's going. "
Well, is there any other way I can respond to that other than 'I disagree'? You really haven't yourself left open to debate, you've just stated your opinion as if it were definitive.
'Medium' by the way means 'an intervening agency, means, or instrument by which something is conveyed or accomplished'. It's also the singular of 'media' (although that word has changed a little over time).
"Oh yes of course, because movies are hardcore, and like, Wii Sports has no story and it's casual, so, etc. Looks like someone's been reading too many Sean Malstrom essays, because earth to Tom: Street Fighter III, Monster Hunter, and Mars Matrix aren't casual games."
I didn't say all casual games were mechanical, you can certainly get hardcore mechanics games. Wii Sports and the like however are a classic example of a gameplay focused, non-story game that is definitely casual.
"I'm not asking which games you like. I'm asking what it is that you enjoy in games. Why video games for you, Tom? Why not movies or comics?"
Well actually you didn't ask either of those things, but let's move on from that.
I do like movies, and books, and games. I appreciate more than one medium. Games are interesting in a storytelling sense because they add interactivity into the mix, but that doesn't mean they have to only be about interactivity any more than a film should only be about the motion visuals.
"It's not that. You're assuming that somehow, the main character being an asian woman would have been at all important."
And you're assuming that it wasn't. More importantly no-one ever has to justify why making their character a white male is 'important'.
"No, because there are no other examples. We're giving you multiple examples of games featuring women and minorities and you're shrugging them off. You have ONE GAME to illustrate your point, and, need I say again: it wasn't even a good game."
You want me to name every game with a predominantly white game, seriously? How about you take your examples and then subtract them from all the other games. It's what's left.
"We do have both. I never said I hated minority characters. I dislike shit games, which apparently you love."
I don't know why you've decided that. I like good games, that's why I like them. I just apparently have a different definition of good from you. Of course you think you're right and I'm wrong, but (Newsflash) I think the same thing.
When you can also accept that you will be able to argue like an adult, rather than a petulant child.
"No inconsistency. Activision is not wrong. You are."
You missed my point completely there. Care to take another shot?
"Activision is not using the law to force their devs to follow their preference. They are using money. What you are doing and what Activision is doing are the same thing: you each are stating a preference. Activision just has the power to make their devs listen, whereas you do not."
Again, point, missed. I'm voicing my opinion, something you've said you're all for. So why are you so outraged that I have?
We are not actually doing the same thing. Saying we are suggest that, if I had the power I would force others to change, which as I previously stated, I would not.
Most of us can see a disconnect between stating our preferences and demanding the world conform to it. However it is becoming rapidly apparent that you cannot. Perhaps you should work on that.
Why is it that people here make these demands without applying the enormous effort it takes to be a good developer in our industry?
Why do people demand that engineers make their cars safer instead of becoming engineers and starting their own companies? Why do people demand changes to software for aesthetic and functional reasons instead of learning to code and design GUIs for themselves? Why do people demand various changes and political reforms from politicians instead of becoming politicians themselves? Why do people demand a certain level of quality from chefs and waitstaff instead of learning to prepare and serve fancy cuisine?
I guess the people that "want change" don't care about the "issue" as much to really put the effort and time it takes to make it happen, because they may know deep down there is really no worthy "issue" to address.
Maybe it says more about the sort of people that are drawn to certain kinds of tasks. An engineer might enjoy solving a difficult engineering challenge, but may not recognize the need for airbags 'til it's pointed out. Someone who is good at coding AI or creating 3D models may not be good at writing compelling stories or scenarios to make use of them.
Sure, there are a few people who can do it all, but the number of people who can create a blockbuster movie by themselves or build a car from scratch are few and far between.
I think this is all really funny because we will look back on this kind of media message in games and television the same way you can look back now on old magazines.
Those things changed because enough people were motivated to take action to influence society. (And although a few people did start their own magazines, most people did not.)
There are plenty of people who look on those times longingly and wish that we still lived in that era instead of finding those cultural attitudes "funny" or quaint.
Archstanton
Why do people demand that engineers make their cars safer instead of becoming engineers and starting their own companies?
Because an unsafe car can cause accidents -- possibly fatal ones. Not that there's much need to demand safe cars when you consider what will happen to a manufacturer that starts selling defective vehicles. Look at what kind of trouble Toyota went through with their recent recalls.
Why do people demand various changes and political reforms from politicians instead of becoming politicians themselves?
Because that's what politicians are for. They are elected by the people to carry out the will of the people. At least that's how it's meant to work.
Why do people demand changes to software for aesthetic and functional reasons instead of learning to code and design GUIs for themselves?
Why do people demand a certain level of quality from chefs and waitstaff instead of learning to prepare and serve fancy cuisine?
Software developers and restaurants have clear economic incentives to listen to their customers. Game developers have no need to give a rat's ass about what some feminists want (in fact, not even television networks and movie studios need to care, economically speaking). Halo, Gears of War, Modern Warfare and many other such games are selling just fine with their white heterosexual oorah-oscar-mike super soldier protagonists. You're a small niche group whose wishes don't have any economic clout. If you think feminist gaming is some untapped gold mine, then clearly you're looking at the opporunity of a lifetime and should start a studio at once.
Right here, you will discover 18 coal rocks and three carts. As you mine the coal gamepartygogo.com, you are able to put it into the nearby carts after which retrieve it later in the cart station close to the bank in Seers' Village. The carts will generally hold 120 pieces of coal clothescos.com, but when you wear the Seers' Headband, they'll hold much more - up to 196 ores using the Seers' Headband 3.
Replacement windows Six offers established that hot weather is definitely the perfect buy windows 7 home premium computer system which in turn Microsoft windows individuals were pregnant via Microsoft for very long years and years.
It is one thing marvelous with respect to Xp clients not to mention Triumph XP lovers. Specially following the Windows Landscape expertise, a large number of Vista members tend to be let down with along with wasted their confidence inside Microsof company could buy windows 7 uae certainly take care of owning a considerably better operating system.
Post a Comment