Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bauglir]

In the interests of perhaps steering the course of the thread back toward the topic and away from what people did or did not say, which has never once done good things for a thread's health, how about this related question? Is a game's depiction of diversity a valid target for criticism?

[DJ]

LGBT people don't give a flying fuck about my problems, or problems of majority of other groups of people, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, if anyone actually could care about all the world's problems, the burden would probably drive them to promptly jump off the nearest bridge.

[Mindmaker]

I'm sorry but you need to reread my posts because a lot of this response shows you've misread them. Pay attention to qualifiers since my arguments tend to be far more narrow than you're reading into. I can't address something I never said.

The only thing that might actually address my arguments is the inherent defensiveness that arises but I've found that either way people dismiss our viewpoints when they aren't convenient for the person, so, like, I find it hard to care about the false promise of a productive dialogue anymore.

I'm believe I've understood them adequately. You could point out what you mean, but since you admitted that you're not interested in dialogue I guess that's pointless.

[nenjin]

Is a game's depiction of diversity a valid target for criticism?

It really depends on the game in question, the stated intent of the game, the genre and a lot of other things.

If you're making a game that claims to depict the whole world, like GTA or something, and you conveniently make no mention of homosexuals, people of color and what not....yeah I think it's a valid target for criticism.

When a 2d 8-bit retro platformer gets criticized for a lack of diversity because the main character isn't labeled as LGBT, isn't female or indeed doesn't show anything beyond a pixelated face....then I think that criticism is stupid and overbearing, and makes me at least start to lose patience with the crusade.

Like most things, context is important. Which is what I feel like is always slipping away in these debates. People on either side of the debate want one mode, one truth, to dominate even when it makes little to no fucking sense for it to.

[itisnotlogical]

It should be case-by-case as Nenjin said. A life simulation game should either have LGBT options, or omit sexuality altogether.

There's still a problem when minority/LGBT characters are removed in the development process specifically because of that. Juhani was originally supposed to be lesbian in Knights of the Old Republic, but that was cut in the planning phase specifically for market appeal. That's fair game for criticism IMO.

[LordSlowpoke]

The default perspective of somebody who isn't effected by discrimination in social structures is to not care about it. This comes in both ignorance of the realities of being a marginalized group and dismissing conflicts over something such as representation when they become inconvenient to your personal happiness. It's only by listening and understanding those who are effected that people begin to empathize and evidence of those elements is missing from a lot of the arguments I'm criticizing by saying that dominant group's opinion on this matter tends to be poorly considered or simply oriented towards their own sense of comfort above other moral considerations without being honest about it.

I find it predictable that you declared my statement to be a parody, a joke, and then grow defensive when I address the sense of ego which comes from a person who ignores minority perspectives. When you tell us that we're overreacting and that it's no big deal that we feel alienated by mass media you (in the general sense) talk down to us, when you declare any effort to increase representation politically motivated as if the opposite was somehow pure is talking down to us, and when you're finally called out on not being in a position to understand without first listening to others you think you're somehow the victim.

I've grown beyond tired of this line of thought on Bay12 and don't want to entertain it any longer. Among all the things which are necessary for marginalized groups to be considered fully human, I think getting dominant group people to understand that their opinion isn't automatically valid is the most important.

1. i identify as a genderfluid asexual and i do not give a shit, tell me about how privileged i am

2. cishets can and will understand the issues non-privileged people have if you don't scare them away by being confrontational and dismissing them as practically nonhuman the moment you start the conversation

3. your statement is a joke, you're the "vocal minority" that is the problem of the entire movement and i for one am writing this post to step up and say you're fucking shit up for the rest of us because we get associated with you

4. i'm glad you don't want to entertain it because i want you to go back to tumblr immediately

[Vector]

.

[UltraValican]

1. They certainly don't have any obligation to do so. Also I don't see how not being included is somehow "erasure". If you mean the Tomodachi thing, that was a glitch if I remember right. It was never intended to be in the original game.

2.The only obligation players have to anything is to play what they want to play. If you want to play a game because of message fine. Don't? Thats fine too.

3. It depends on the game, it can sometimes feel rather hamfisted. But I've seen some people blow it way out of fucking proportion at the other end of the spectrum(I've seen people say Black Flags inclusion of black pirates "historical revisionism"). If its done well, it can be really nice. But I feel like devs shouldn't deal with subjects and such they don't want to just because people feel like video games are supposed huge vehicle for social commentary.

[Tawa]

I'm going to wade in, throw two pennies at the thread, and leave.

-snip-
1. Do private corporations, like Blizzard and Nintendo, have any form of obligation (legal, financial, social, moral, etc.) to avoid the objectification of women and erasure of under-represented groups in their products, even when it is not in their direct monetary interest?
2. Do gamers - especially those who play games with subscription fees - have a responsibility to preferentially patronize game makers that follow the standards in #1?
3. Do you personally feel that an overt effort to be more "inclusive" or "diverse" harms the overall enjoyability of a game - or, alternatively, enhances it?
-snip-
So, let's get the frothing rage going.

1. Moral? Sure. It is, of course, oft ignored, but games with a female character who's a "friend" and not object or sole love interest tend to feel better than sexist games. Same kind of thing with homosexuals.
2. No way. Gamers shouldn't go out of their way to play "representative" games and ignore sexist but otherwise great games.
3. Heck yes. If you have ten characters, who are all along the lines of the gay Italian-Japanese guy or bisexual AA furry woman, then the game is horribly crappy. If you have something like the lines of the tough guy, the sassy girl, the gay guy, the French guy, and the quiet woman, the game feels better. Doubling minorities on character runs the feel, as does making every character a minority character.

[Redzephyr01]

Honestly, I think that whether or not characters in a video game are part of a minority or not is completely irrelevant to whether or not the game is actually a good game.

[Neonivek]

1. Do private corporations, like Blizzard and Nintendo, have any form of obligation (legal, financial, social, moral, etc.) to avoid the objectification of women and erasure of under-represented groups in their products, even when it is not in their direct monetary interest?

Not really. Companies don't really have "responsibilities".

2. Do gamers - especially those who play games with subscription fees - have a responsibility to preferentially patronize game makers that follow the standards in #1?

Ohh dear goodness NO!

In terms of representing a homosexual AND Bisexual relationship the best... It would probably be Phantasmagoria 2 (ignoring a strawberry shake scene... AND that it could be a metaphor for the fragmentation for the lead's mind)... But that is a terrible game.

3. Do you personally feel that an overt effort to be more "inclusive" or "diverse" harms the overall enjoyability of a game - or, alternatively, enhances it?

Yes... but mostly because you tend to get the hack "Tongue in cheek" version of inclusivity. On the other hand while this overt effort tends to be, dreadful... it does seem to genuinely pave the way for genuinely good forms of it in videogames.

[nenjin]

Yeah, I agree with itisnotlogical.

I think that there's also a perfectly valid case to be made for criticizing how female characters are portrayed, not just their being cut during development.

I don't mind in something like The Witcher that there's literally a "bone women to collect their trading cards" minigame. It seems appropriate to the feel--that you're Geralt of Rivia, gonna fuck some wenches! Yeah! And besides that, I felt that the female characters actually have distinct personalities and roles. They have an important role in the storyline and plot, and the TCG is more indicative of Geralt's attitude than it is of the game's point of view. There's loads of important sidequests involving lots of different women, all with different interesting things going on.

However, I recently played an adventure game in which the only lead female character (in a pretty large cast of four leads and a bunch of side characters, only one of whom so far is female) gets shot in the head as a plot twist to establish the evilness of the villain. Most of the games I find are more like that. There's female characters, but even when they're the main character they're marginalized in favor of male stories.

Let me put it this way: It's like 80% of the games you played were MGS2. ANCIENT HISTORY SPOILERS: You think you get to be Snake, but then it turns out that you're Raiden. And similarly, I keep on thinking I'm playing such and such a female lead, who is going to be pretty cool and all that, and then it gets turned around on me and I'm not playing a badass after all, I'm playing "someone I need to protect" or a dressup simulator or a plot development module there to get shot at the right time or someone who's going to inevitably get raped as part of their "character development" or a controllable pair of breasts.

I'm not so much criticizing, usually, as writing down my emotional reaction. "This is how this game made me feel while I was playing it." I don't think that there's any reason why a person shouldn't get to do that.

Just curious Vector. Was Aerias being killed in FF7 an example of sacrificing a woman for the sake of a man's storyline? Because to FF7 fans, it's a watershed moment, one of the biggest upsets in the game up to that point. Aerias was also a pretty decently represented female character. Just curious what your interpretation of that is, if you've played it or are at least familiar with the moment.

Also I think Witcher is a pretty good example of a game being offensive and in some ways discriminatory, while cleaving completely to its own theme and not being malicious in intent. The real question is, how should one react to it? Accept that some games will do some things we don't like, or hold it up as an example of the lines which should not ever be crossed/

[Gatleos]

I find it predictable that you declared my statement to be a parody, a joke, and then grow defensive when I address the sense of ego which comes from a person who ignores minority perspectives. When you tell us that we're overreacting and that it's no big deal that we feel alienated by mass media you (in the general sense) talk down to us, when you declare any effort to increase representation politically motivated as if the opposite was somehow pure is talking down to us, and when you're finally called out on not being in a position to understand without first listening to others you think you're somehow the victim.

I've grown beyond tired of this line of thought on Bay12 and don't want to entertain it any longer. Among all the things which are necessary for marginalized groups to be considered fully human, I think getting dominant group people to understand that their opinion isn't automatically valid is the most important.

I can't speak for Mindmaker, but I was unsure if what you said was a parody because you phrased it in a way that was generalizing and unnecessarily rude. It seems like you just said something inflammatory and then used the defensive reaction to it (that ANYONE can and should have) as justification for calling them (and everyone that disagrees with you) entitled babies who can't understand other perspectives.

I even think you make a good point otherwise, but your shitty attitude is not conducive to discussion.

[Neonivek]

Just curious Vector. Was Aerias being killed in FF7 an example of sacrificing a woman for the sake of a man's storyline? Because to FF7 fans, it's a watershed moment, one of the biggest upsets in the game up to that point. Aerias was also a pretty decently represented female character. Just curious what your interpretation of that is, if you've played it or are at least familiar with the moment

I think the problem Nenjin is not that sacrificing a female character for a male's story is inherently wrong.

It is how often it is done where the issue arises.

Also my personal opinion was that Aeris was sort of both. Her story didn't end with her death and actually wasn't contained in Cloud.

[nenjin]

Just curious Vector. Was Aerias being killed in FF7 an example of sacrificing a woman for the sake of a man's storyline? Because to FF7 fans, it's a watershed moment, one of the biggest upsets in the game up to that point. Aerias was also a pretty decently represented female character. Just curious what your interpretation of that is, if you've played it or are at least familiar with the moment

I think the problem Nenjin is not that sacrificing a female character for a male's story is inherently wrong.

It is how often it is done where the issue arises.

Also my personal opinion was that Aeris was sort of both. Her story didn't end with her death and actually wasn't contained in Cloud.

Partly why I asked. She shows up later and her point in the story is larger than just her relationship to the hero. But taken out of context, can prove useful to compare to other examples where something like that happens.