Discrimination in gaming

[Riotguards]

maybe i'm just crazy or old fashioned but when i play games i don't look at people of gender / race / etc as being a character trait or a nessessity, good characters come from good writing and if they happen to be an all male white cast and they're the next shakespear of works i'm not going to dismiss it

 

[someguy1231]

I'm not gonna comment on "diversity" as far as gender/race/ethnicity goes. As long as their characters are well-written, by all means, include whoever who wish.

I will comment, however, on the demand for things like "body diversity" and more "unconventionally attractive" (ie ugly) characters. To that I say a firm "NO". Whether you like it or not, people like to look at attractive characters in games. I can honestly say I wouldn't mind if every single character in games looked like a 10/10.

 

[Silvanus]

Feminists and SJWs are bitching and moaning so loudly over games that they probably don't enjoy anyway

Does even wanting diversity qualify someone as an "SJW" now? The bar is getting dangerously low.

maybe i'm just crazy or old fashioned but when i play games i don't look at people of gender / race / etc as being a character trait or a nessessity, good characters come from good writing and if they happen to be an all male white cast and they're the next shakespear of works i'm not going to dismiss it

Neither is anybody else.

Would you say that writing can offer the same number of different perspectives/ experiences if it limits itself to certain demographics?

I will comment, however, on the demand for things like "body diversity" and more "unconventionally attractive" (ie ugly) characters. To that I say a firm "NO". Whether you like it or not, people like to look at attractive characters in games. I can honestly say I wouldn't mind if every single character in games looked like a 10/10.

Do you want the same for literature and film?

If so, you would be excluding a huge swathe of some of the greatest art there is.

 

[someguy1231]

Do you want the same for literature and film?

If so, you would be excluding a huge swathe of some of the greatest art there is.

Literature is a non-visual medium, so it's a moot point there. Words can never do justice to a character's attractiveness. Film? Sure. As Hollywood says, "Beauty is Money."

Everyone "excludes a huge swath" of media anyway, since no one but the most dedicated critics can possibly have enough time to watch/read it all (or even most of it). We all just have to pick the types that appeal to us, and what appeals to me is media with characters I find attractive.

 

[Bizzaro Stormy]

If you want something done, do it yourself. If you want to try different character types in games, start writing a few that you have both not seen before and that sound interesting. Then go to the various developers and pitch the character and story. Keep in mind that a game works best when it's interactive. So unless you can find a way to combine character development, with interaction the character's attributes are little more than window dressing. If after several tries you fail to get anyone to give your characters a go, than learn how to mod an existing game and go nuts! If you're more ambitious, determine what type of game you have the time and money to learn how to make and make it yourself. Just a warning, even with the best intentions and a good budget you may make the video game equivalent of a fan movie. I enjoyed the Atlas Shrugged movies. I know that only the first one had genuine theatrical merit. I do not pretend the other two should be easily enjoyed by anyone who hadn't already read the book. For another example consider the story of D.W. Griffith. After making a ton of money off The Birth of a Nation he was criticized for being racist. To combat this he made Intolerance. It was critically acclaimed and his detractors said that they were wrong about him. Too bad everyone else hated it and he had so little money left at the end that the sets couldn't be dismantled. They remained as a hazard to pedestrians for years afterwards.

So have fun and do it yourself! Unless of course you don't actually care/only want fiction to fit your pre-concieved notions of how the world should work. In which case you're a terrible person and should stop ruining everyone else's good time. Or at least you could admit that you're acting like a bigot and don't really care about diversity.

 

[Silvanus]

Literature is a non-visual medium, so it's a moot point there. Words can never do justice to a character's attractiveness. Film? Sure. As Hollywood says, "Beauty is Money."

Everyone "excludes a huge swath" of media anyway, since no one but the most dedicated critics can possibly have enough time to watch/read it all (or even most of it). We all just have to pick the types that appeal to us, and what appeals to me is media with characters I find attractive.

Well, if you're limiting your point to personal preference, that's absolutely fine. I find it a fairly awful measure to use, but I can hardly preach on matters of taste.

Y'did sound as if you were dismissing others for wanting something different, which is why I commented. If that's not the case, I'll be quiet.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

I don't really know how you managed to do this, but somehow you managed to miss me actually quoting the part where I immediately addressed it so you wouldn't miss it. Your rant here falls flat because you managed to miss me quoting myself so you wouldn't miss me showing you where I adressed it. The only thing I can do here is repeat myself, so maybe you should re-read my last post and reply to it so I don't have to repeat it.

As for literally all of those games, they've been addressed. If you want to then address the argument I put forward about them, you're avoiding it so far.

You quoted you're request of a larger list of triple A games that met you're criteria, that is not addressing in the slightest the fact that the game's you listed meet your "every once in a while" criteria, the only on avoid the point is you. Do those game not provide the "every once in a while" you asked for? Yes or now, it's as simple as that. I and John also DID give you a larger list like you asked, so I don't know how you came to conclusion I'm avoiding anything.

See above. And a request relating exactly to what I said is the complete opposite to an "unrelated request". Like, the complete opposite.

The above is claim based on you're lack of understanding of what the word acknowledge means. How exactly does asking for more triple a games after being told that 5 original ones you brought up related to your quote of "every once in a while"? Before you do anything else answer that question.

Minorities. My original statement hasn't been contradicted, nice try though but you're going to have to elaborate on things you say rather than just trying to pretend it has with no follow up information.

Oh the irony. Minorities is a vague term which can be applied to a lot of video game character's almost every regard. So a minority in what? profession? ideals? race ("whites" have the smallest population globally)ethnicity? Gender? (Males are the minority in that situation). So what do you mean by minority?

You're actually bouncing back and fourth here between things I've said and things you've said, yet you're equating them all to me. For example your "specific type of diversity" statement is something you've said, as I've repeatedly asked for all the diverse triple A games, and games that I apparently haven't bought. All. You "calling it" is just you calling something you made up.

Is English your first language? Because it seems like you have a foreign grasp of the language. I'm not bouncing back and forth between what you said and what I said. I'm illustrating the point that you changed what you originally asked for, and now you're asking for specific type of diversity, which I knew you would. I'm calling what I said you do and you did.

Big games only is yet another thing that you first put forward when you said "just games with hype" and "remove their hands from the side of their eyes and turn their head a few centimetres". That suggests you want me to ignore triple A games for literally no reason. No reason whatsoever. I even asked you what makes other games different, which takes us right back to you having to list the games I've apparently ignored.

What? I said people who complain about diversity have tunnel vision and only look at big games, which you are. I said if they'd looked at gaming as a whole they'd fine plenty of games with diversity. How in any was is that me putting forward the sentiment of "Big games only" Talk about making things up. It takes us back to the 3 lie you've made so far, I never said you ignored any game, besides Tomb raider, which you did. What I said was

The fact that people (like you) ignore/discount their diverse games.

The only thing you're really ignoring is 50% of that statement.

So again, the only thing you're calling is the thing you wanted me to ignore and didn't because hey, I'm going to need more than zero reasons to ignore something.

That's a lie, or ignorance. I stated that you can't judge the entire industry on a few games especially when you ignore smaller games, which you did, for no reason, so that statement that you won't ignore something for zero reasons is bunk.

Please, I "proved" your first point by ignoring your arbitrary and meaningless restrictions on what games I'm allowed to look at. Heavy emphasis on your. My goalposts are "Games they play", which shock horror includes triple A games, and "Every once in a while", which shock horror is any length of time I wish to define.

I gave you no restrictions, just suggested that you broaden your horizons when judging the entirety of the games industry, and you didn't. As for the games they play? It might include triple A for some, but considering you yourself didn't know much about a lot of the triple A game's brought up, I wouldn't hold my breath that a significant amount of those people play the games the complain about. D-Did you latterly just say "every once in a while" is predicated solely on what you define it as?

I actually never defined it, instead I repeatedly gave you the option of doing so by listing games, but you've repeatedly refused. So here I'll define it for you, "Every once in a while" means every 5 games. There we go, no longer vaguely defined.

Actually you did, the moment you gave me your list. Presented 5 games 2 of those 5 have diversity in them, every once in a while would be if 1 of those 5 had diversity in them. Even if you didn't define it, you would still have a 9/11 ratio.

Spoiler Alert What you're going to do here is try to say that the thing I said, every 5 games, doesn't count.

I'm not going to said that, as I never did, but you might misread it as such as you've done this entire time. [/quote]That somehow my statement of"Every once in a while" is subject to what you want it to be, and not what I, the person who said it, says it is.[/quote] "Every once in a while" means not often, not what you want it to mean. And as shown, diversity is put in games quite often.

Then I'll ask you to make a list like you've been too scared to do for the past few posts, then you'll refuse to do so (again). Also you're not going to address my argument for the dismissal of those other games because you can't.

But you have your list. You want me to list the 11 games again? the 5 games you brought up, the one I brought up and the 5 John brought up, there is your list, again. You mean your accusation that I said you ignored a bunch of triple A games? But you can quote me on saying you only ignored Tomb Raider. Or the fact that You actually dismissed Bloodborne Monster hunter, Dynasty Warriors, and Life is strange, plus the smaller games industry as a whole? Or are you going to continue to be delusional?

You don't want to tackle why the western gaming industry is different, you want to avoid and ignore it.

Its really not, especially considering you're only looking at the triple A games, and completely ignoring the double A market. Even then 9/11 games are pretty diverse.

 

[GladiatorUA]

There are reports of multiple publishers wanting to change the main character to male though, which shows how bad the industry is at representation and diversity that publishers actively fight against it.

But they are not fighting against diversity. They are fighting for profit margins. And that includes "safe" protagonist. And white male is safe. You can even make him an asshole, abuse him in any way or include any kind of bad writing, and no one will protest. And this stereotypical protagonist is not simply white male, it's much more rigid than that. Changing the genitals or color of protagonist's skin changes almost nothing. Until protagonist mold and chain of tropes plot get broken, writing in games will stay stale. Sexuality is an entirely different matter.

Diversity for the sake of diversity is stupid.

Errr yes there is. You name me a hollywood action movie with a female protagonist and I'll name you five (hell maybe ten or fifteen) hollywood action movies with a male protagonist. Your premise is falling apart.

There's more diversity than 50% of Earth, and our comparison wasn't Hollywood with Hollywood, it was Hollywood with low budget or far eastern movies. The only difference tends to be budget, all 3 movie industries tend to have quite good diversity, in stark contrast to games where even you admit that people need to look towards the far eastern or indie industry if they want diversity in them.

But games and movies are different. Games very rarely allow for more than one protagonist, movies can handle more. And if you only consider main protagonist as the only one in movies, diversity becomes significantly less apparent. At the same if you upgrade the status of inner circle of support cast in games, suddenly, there is much more diversity.

 

[Silvanus]

Diversity for the sake of diversity is stupid.

How is it worse than genericism for the sake of genericism?

Diversification will at least lead to a wider range of perspectives, experimentation, and a higher likelihood of innovation.

But games and movies are different. Games very rarely allow for more than one protagonist, movies can handle more. And if you only consider main protagonist as the only one in movies, diversity becomes significantly less apparent. At the same if you upgrade the status of inner circle of support cast in games, suddenly, there is much more diversity.

Except in sexuality. There's still just the single example, then, AFAIK.

 

[Callate]

A friend of mine once noted that the prettiest girl in your high school would be the "plain Jane friend" who got three lines in many a movie or television drama.

We like to look at pretty people. This is universal. Being physically attractive makes your life easier in many ways. It makes people more likely to help you, more likely to do what you want, more likely to want them to like you, whether or not there's any sort of sexual attraction.

Like many things, we can kindasorta culturally counterbalance this, to a degree. We can say that it's what the inside that counts. We can highlight people's academic achievements, or their business achievements, or the struggles they've overcome.

We can say that physical beauty doesn't matter.

But it's a lie.

Perhaps a lie that it is beneficial to tell, sometimes. (Human society is like that.) But a lie, nevertheless.

Video games are not going change the course of that river, and it's not particularly fair to burden them with that expectation. You're not likely to get a game whose cover heroine is twenty pounds overweight and has a skin problem, any more than you'll see a man who looks like Steve Buscemi on the cover of a romance novel.

This is not to say we couldn't do with more diversity in our games. The character creation flexibility in games like Saints Row, Skyrim, Mass Effect, and many MMORPGs offers one route, but it comes at a cost- by allowing the player to make any character, you remove some of the ability to create a story geared towards a particular character.

I do not doubt- indeed, I hope- that we will see more video game characters who are female, or non-Caucasian. And there will probably be more modest dress for female characters in some games, as well.

But to be blunt, we don't want to embody unattractive characters. We might make characters in Saints Row 4 who look like us, or we might make obese, blue-skinned asexuals who talk like zombies and run around without pants on a lark. But we don't generally want to play unattractive people for much the same reasons we play characters who can lead armies, or do triple somersault flips, or fire sub-machine guns in each hand unerringly with a flagrant disregard for recoil and ammunition. The games that millions of people play are games more interesting than our lives, as people more remarkable than us.

 

[Dizchu]

The point about female characters being universally pretty in video games is an awkward one. Because... I like pretty characters. Pretty male characters too. If I had the choice between playing a good-looking character or an ugly looking one or even a generic-looking one, I'd choose the pretty one. It's weird because I know that this isn't a great attitude, but at the same time... I just like playing attractive characters.

So I'm torn because even in the games I've worked on, that have had mostly female characters, I've made an effort to make them good-looking. Not sexualised or exaggeratedly attractive, just, ya know... good looking, realistic-ish characters. Like the sort you could find in real life (not in magazines, in real life). But still, I made the effort to make them pretty.

I guess what differentiates me from many developers is that I apply this bias to male characters too. It's odd, very odd. Because I often consider video game characters to be my self-insertion into that world. And like many others, I'd like to be good-looking. That's why I make my Skyrim characters super-pretty rather than play as Argonians or Khajits (sorry furries).

I find it hard to comment on this because I fall into the same trap myself when it comes to pretty characters and I'm actually aware of it, and if I were pressured into changing my game because of this I'd be pretty upset about it too. But at the same time, I know that it's kinda sexist to have exclusively pretty female characters and male characters of various levels of attractiveness.

I need a drink.

 

[Islandbuffilo]

snip

Jesus Christ you see why I snip?
Ok, you picked to be delusiional
1. All we have been doing thus far is addressing the big game industry since you outright refuse to talk about anything else. So that statement that I'm not is total bull. Still not answering my question, if you addressed it that means you admitted, there isn't a problem correct? as the 9 of the 11 (Triple A only) games have diversity.
2. You're failure to read is derailing this entire thing, I asked for a explanation, you go on about how I was equating something I said when clearly explained I did not
3. There it is, your specific "diversity", no ethnicity, nationality, or anything else, just race and sexual orientation. Go ahead and lie about that too. We were not specific at all, first it was about games as a whole, then you changed it to the triple A industry, then you changed it to the western triple A industry (might as well take MGS5 off the list), then it went about general representation of different groups to racial and sexual orientation representation only. So strictly talking about the western gaming industry you have: Tomb Raider, protagonist that, may or may not be a lesbian. Halo 5, featuring one white Asexual (All Spartans are Asexual its cannon) and another Asexual of an unknown race, GTA 5, 2 white guys and a black guy, all implied to be straight, the witcher, (might not count, because its made in Poland) two protagonist, one is straight, the other might asexual. Batman Arkam knight, batman's sexuality depended on the writer, could be straight could be Asexual, Then you have evolved, extremely diverse racially. So we're more or less at the same spot as before 3 asexuals, 3 blacks, 1 Asian, 3 straight guys , 4 white guys and 16 N/A.
4.Oh look another lie, in no way is the statement "You're only looking a big games." considered ignoring them. As for the list, I gave it to you multiple times, you've been ignoring that.
5. I called that you would only talk about the big game industry and ignore the smaller game industry all together, which you did, I tried to get us to talk about both, you refused, because if we did you're argument would dissolve like paper in water, which it did any, so much so you had to limit it to big western games only, race and sexual orientation only. That's text book tunnel vision.
6. See that downs right intellectually dishonest. You know that's not would I said.
7.No I didn't, you said every once in a while, and with the list you provided I merely pointed out that that list meets your every once in while criteria.
8. Engrish. Actually how much of the game is made up by each character is depended on the player.
9. Well you should inform everyone where you live they mean the same thing: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/every+once+in+a+while
10. Well shit, beat you to the list, but of course you're going to ignore it, like the other one.
11. You just quoted one of the list you asked for.
12. I like how you're blind to the word "only" and the sentence "Even then 9/11 games are pretty diverse"
Let me know if you're going to continue to be delusional, I've countered all your points, ask you to elaborate, and all you did was lie and move the goal post, despite even that I still met your new criteria. I've said all that needs to be said and you've proven that you don't care about diversity, at all.

 

[Someone Depressing]

In society, women everywhere are first judged by their physical appearance. Until more body diversity is introduced to gaming - and mainstream society - then we'll always have the stereotype of pretty women being better. Not that the opposite is true, but it's less common.

I'm not personally happy with how things are in gaming and I think we need more female representation and general diversity, but what can you do?

 

[Islandbuffilo]

I'm not personally happy with how things are in gaming and I think we need more female representation and general diversity, but what can you do?

Can listen to Drake, support the smaller games that meet your desires (They're out there) and start from the bottom and work your way to the top.

 

[CritialGaming]

Good thoughts.

As a pc gamer the games i played were never about saving some girl. I had to destroy my enemies capture opbjectives complete quests. This damsel in distress is old and the funny thing that certain women you reffer who is a conartist and everyone knows it, is an actual damsel in distress despite believing her to be a strong independent woman. I saw the video on positive female cahracters and what she said was basicly to make characters that are blank and dont appear like women but generic characters. Due to those certain groups being ANNOYING online, having a female character is a no no for devs to avoid the critisim and shaming. Also how can games talk about complicated issues if every time they do people get OFFENDED and demand those things to be removed from them? These "progressiveness" starts to appear more like puritanism or people who run so far away from their parents that became them. This is not progressive, it is being afraid of having your views challenged and your feelins hurt so you lock yourself in a "safe space" It is pathetic.

As to why most games have strong male characters? In the past games had more imagination due to be sold to kids, now they are usually modern games in which you have a spec ops dude or something along those line, so more or less the kind of characters you will have will be the same. Say what you wish about me, but running around in the next cod as a transgender asian fat guy who identifies as a pony doesnt make any sense. You got saints row for that. All those individuals that want to be "represented" have issues with their identity and gender politics, personally i could be playing as a robot for all i care, it is about the gameplay not the character you play. How many games the last few years actually had good characters? Did remember me had a good character? Was ajay from far cry 4 a good character? Would sniper elite v3 be better if you played as a lesbian radical femminst? What if someone told you the character of velvet assasin is just that, would it change your opinion on the game? Hey guess what? one of the new characters in re6 was gay, did that change anything? One of the older ghost recon games had a gay character, did that change anything?

Finally in conclusion you have to ask yourself who buys those games? I know very well who buys the gtas and the halos and cods, so do the devs and publishers. If those certain groups want to be represented in gaming, they first need to prove that there is a market for it and instead of whinning, they should go and make games. I want specific kind of games, but they dont happen because there isnt a market for it. Infact look at mass effect, only 14% play as women despite how much effort and time and money bioware has put. Look at cod ghosts, it had female characters and despite that the game sucked.

So what is the point in conclusion?

This is the very essence in what I've been trying to bring to light with this topic. Diversity exists where it makes sense to have it. And people demanding more of it simply are trying to force it into places where it shouldn't be, simply for the sake of forcing it in somewhere. All the metaphors and offensive humor I put into my posts where simply trying to illustrate that.

Play what catches your interests. If Call of Duty doesn't suit your tastes, don't try and force your tastes into Call of Duty because you'll only get one kind of Dooty out of it.

 

[Dendrik]

Why this diversity in gaming stuff is kinda stupid

1) Lack of inclusion =/= bigotry

2) Gaming is primarily fantasy as a result ALL characters are going to be over the top especially in physical attractiveness.This means EVERYONE is going to be objectified regardless of background. We only see this more in AAA games because men are there target demographic and these game are heavily advertised.

3) Game development cost is high at the moment, taking risks would be disadvantageous right now. As a result you are going to see lead characters that are primarily from a particular background.

4) Lead characters are often written very bland in order to allow the player be more familiar with the environment.

5) Following number four, the best characters ever written have been ally NPC's who often come from very diverse back grounds because they help us become familiar with the plot and story. (Wynne from Dragon Age is a great example)

6) There is no pleasing some people attempting to do so is just a waste of time. Look at the current drama going on around Tekken 7 and there new Filipino character. She tested well with Filipino's and fans of Tekken, yet a handful of people complain and now they are considering removing her. Ironic how the advocacy for including more women in gaming is leading to the removal of women in gaming.

7) The average person pushing for more inclusion in video games often neglect to look at other genera's of games that have a plethora of females/LGBTQ/etc in them and then ignorantly proclaim there is not enough xyz in gaming. This is a gross and misleading stance as this not only sends a false message to non-gamers/inexperienced gamers about gaming culture it also does not acknowledge the great deal of diversity in gaming.

8) Why should a developer change or consider changing there own vision just because some people are complaining. Let people create what they want to create and allow the free market to decide what is successful.

9) How much is enough. 50%, 60% how much are we talking about. People pushing for more diversity don't ever give developers tangible goals as a result we end up with token characters that have the depth of a kiddy pool.

10)Just because the lead characters a primarily from one group doesn't mean the game is catering to that group. For example Final Fantasy 15 has an all male cast but it is made with female tastes in mind.(i mean come on there is a guy with perfect abs that walks around with his shirt open you think this is what your average male gamer is looking for).

11) AAA =/= gaming and doesnt represent all games. The games people complain about the most for not being inclusive are often AAA and suffer from problems listed in 3) and 4). Instead of rallying the towns people and getting your pitch forks out just try some games from different genera's. I mean how many people that complain about Gears of War or Uncharted have ever played Persona. (this is just an example and should not apply to all cases).

12) Its offensive. Its offensive to straight white men to suggest they are bigots and have this unrelenting iron grip over the games industry when in truth most development companies bend over backwards to get women/LGBTQ/etc in gaming. Its offensive to gamers as a whole because it suggests we lack the empathy to understand another persons struggle regardless of what background they are from. Its offensive to women/LGBTQ/etc, too often in these advocacy campaigns the ones marginalized the must are the people who are from these groups but are shouted down because they are ok with how things are at the moment. These people are told they have some form of internalized-bigotry and are quickly ignored in favor of paying lip-service to the most extreme elements in said group.

13) Art imitates life. The "inequalities" we see gaming are in our society as a whole and can speak volumes about said inequality. white washing the issue by just planting women/LGBTQ/etc in gaming wont fix the true problem.

14) What good has come from all this. I mean really. More and more it feels like gaming has become divided on an issue that frankly was never a big problem to begin with.