Poll: Should stories be praised for being progressive?

[Guitarmasterx7]

I think a game should be praised for having interesting characters. Sexuality or gender identity or race is not the be-all-end-all to that, but personality is and those can all be elements of it. One important thing to remember though is that interesting characters have flaws. I feel like the modern "tokenism" is to make the "diverse" character blandly reliable and respectable with no actual depth.

Also wow, a lot of back and forth going on about Cortez. Personal opinion on that is that yeah, if I recall the literal first conversation you have with him he says he lost his husband, which doesn't make sense to share with a total stranger you're supposed to have a professional relationship with. It was pretty much a "nice to meet you, I'm gay and single." BUT keep in mind he's the only gay romance in that game (I think?) so he kind of has to flag down the player with that info early.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

To use the Bioware examples above, which gay character is the more acceptable portrayal? Either Cortez is pandering because his sexuality is treated like a normal, unimportant thing, or Dorian is because his sexuality plays a major role in his arc and backstory. The correct answer is they're both perfectly fine (especially given their respective settings), but it doesn't stop some people from looking for things to be offended by. Either homosexuality isn't allowed to be treated as a normal thing (Cortez), or it isn't allowed to be explored in depth (Dorian).

Allow me to suggest another point of view.

I was absolutely not offended by Cortez in ME3 and I was certainly not offended by Dorian in DAI. The issue I have is that I forgot all about Cortez the second he stopped talking. When he was brought up in this thread, I legitimately didn't remember who he was, until someone linked to the conversation in the game.

Dorian, on the other hand, is memorable. He's a great character, he's well-performed, he's extremely likeable and that his sexual orientation is part of his character-arc only works to give him more layers and make him an even better character.

As I said, I don't really have a horse in this, because at no point did I form an opinion on either character based on their sexual orientation (and in regards to Cortez I formed no opinion of any kind whatsoever), but may I suggest that the poorer a character is, the more forced something as generally personal as one's orientation and/or family status becomes once thrown out there? This is especially true in games, where bonds between player and NPCs are formed through more than just story and dialogue. Cortez is just in the ship (as far as I recall, at least), whereas Dorian is by your side, in your party, throwing quips, having your back, joining you in the adventure.

By the by, on topic, no, stories shouldn't be praised as 'progressive'.

 

[Silvanus]

Yeah that sucks, true, but part of the Cortez problem is just poor writing. I had the same grievances whenever Thane's characteristics were centred around his heterosexual grieving.
It isn't natural for somebody in their first or second conversation with you to go into detail about their love life and get emotional about it, and Bioware is in the exact genre of videogames where the dilemma of time or interaction constraints traditionally found in the medium are nowhere to be found.

It can get frustrating when romance isn't of particular interest, and suddenly it's front-and-centre. The same happens with even greater frequency in film.

However, when it's straight, then the complaint centres on how it's unwanted romantic stuff. When it's not straight, then the complaint frequently morphs into being about the sexuality of the character. To me, this speaks volumes about the attitudes people have.

 

[Kingjackl]

Dorian's character was "perfectly fine", in the sense that I wasn't clutching my Bible and frothing with disgusted rage at the inclusion of homosexuality, nor was I "offended" by the fact that he was homosexual in a Fantasy universe. I just thought his character came across as stereotypically camp and his personal loyalty mission being summed up as "DON'T HATE YOUR GAY SONS STUFFY CONSERVATIVE DADS!" was eye-rollingly naff. Now, whether that response is on me as a viewer not having any homophobic tendencies and therefore not needing to be taught that trying to force a sexuality on offspring is super-mean, or on Bioware for trying to transplant real life social injustices into a Fantasy setting, is up for debate. I'll concede that the writers put in "sufficient" contextual explanations for Dorian's family problems - his father disapproves of homosexuality because it interferes with setting up marriage alliances, not because suddenly the Tevinter gods hate the gays - but it still came across as though it were the "Very special episode" of a sitcom where we all sit down and have a serious talk about bed-partners.

Not being accepted by their parents is still a very real problem a lot of gay people still have to deal with. Not all of them, but enough that Dorian's story still resonates with a lot of people. You can act all high and mighty saying "ooh, I don't need to be taught that", but nobody cares what you think. And no, there's nothing wrong with putting those stories in a fantasy setting, fantasy and sci fi have been used as allegories for real-life social issues in fiction for years.

Also wow, a lot of back and forth going on about Cortez. Personal opinion on that is that yeah, if I recall the literal first conversation you have with him he says he lost his husband, which doesn't make sense to share with a total stranger you're supposed to have a professional relationship with. It was pretty much a "nice to meet you, I'm gay and single." BUT keep in mind he's the only gay romance in that game (I think?) so he kind of has to flag down the player with that info early.

Go back and watch that scene. The husband conversation is the second conversation you have with him, the first being a standard "hey, I'm your new shuttle pilot let's have a chat" conversation. And the reason he brings it up is because your character catches him in the middle of openly crying about his loss. But no, why would a gay character bring up being gay unless it's a precursor to hitting on me, right?

This is what I mean, damned if you do, damned if you don't. Maybe it's just a problem with game audiences, or Bioware's audience in particular, but it's impossible to please people trying to depict gay characters.

 

[Josh123914]

snip

I've made my points very clear here, and your conclusions on my views appearing disingenuous is because you draw conclusions despite me repeatedly saying the opposite. There is no catch-22 here if the devs adequately allocated more time and resources to the character-- so that you'd actually give a shit that he's widowed instead of that being the reason you were expected to care, or consolidated more effort into existing characters.

The homophobes you take umbridge with over alleged double standards or being impossible to please? You're not talking to one of those people. You're talking to me. Listen to what I'm saying.

 

[Dragonlayer]

Dorian's character was "perfectly fine", in the sense that I wasn't clutching my Bible and frothing with disgusted rage at the inclusion of homosexuality, nor was I "offended" by the fact that he was homosexual in a Fantasy universe. I just thought his character came across as stereotypically camp and his personal loyalty mission being summed up as "DON'T HATE YOUR GAY SONS STUFFY CONSERVATIVE DADS!" was eye-rollingly naff. Now, whether that response is on me as a viewer not having any homophobic tendencies and therefore not needing to be taught that trying to force a sexuality on offspring is super-mean, or on Bioware for trying to transplant real life social injustices into a Fantasy setting, is up for debate. I'll concede that the writers put in "sufficient" contextual explanations for Dorian's family problems - his father disapproves of homosexuality because it interferes with setting up marriage alliances, not because suddenly the Tevinter gods hate the gays - but it still came across as though it were the "Very special episode" of a sitcom where we all sit down and have a serious talk about bed-partners.

Not being accepted by their parents is still a very real problem a lot of gay people still have to deal with. Not all of them, but enough that Dorian's story still resonates with a lot of people. You can act all high and mighty saying "ooh, I don't need to be taught that", but nobody cares what you think. And no, there's nothing wrong with putting those stories in a fantasy setting, fantasy and sci fi have been used as allegories for real-life social issues in fiction for years.

Firstly, there's no need to be so bloody rude to me, so I'd appreciate it if you dropped the attitude.

Secondly, I'm well aware of the unfortunate issues surrounding the acceptance of homosexuality by parents, that's exactly what I was referring to by Bioware's copy-and-paste. At no point did I say that Fantasy should always stay away from real-life controversy, nor that because I disliked a single instance of something, it should not exist in games; what I said was that with this particular instance of allegorical story-telling, I thought it fell flat. I liked the Holocaust parallels in Witcher 3's Novigrad witch-hunts because the atmosphere of dread and persecution is rife when you enter the city with a ghettoised and demonized minority, and only escalates, until you're interacting with civilians torn between their sympathies for magic-users they've hidden in their basements, and their own sense of self-preservation. I liked the allusions to the Arab-Israeli Conflicts with Mass Effect's Geth-Quarian wars because both factions have a reasonable claim to the same territory, but have only radicalised their positions as time has gone and each has committed what the other perceives to be an unforgivable atrocity (the Quarians trying to wipe the Geth out, the Geth siding with the Reapers). I liked the similarity to lone-wolf terrorism in Shadow of Mordow because applying modern concepts of warfare to Medieval/Fantasy settings is an intriguing idea to me. I didn't like Dorian's personal quest stuff because I thought it was heavy-handed, to the point where I half-expected Dr Phil to make a guest appearance and ask "Well how does that make you feel?" as dad and son tearfully reunite in front of a clapping audience.

 

[Fallow]

Some might consider the cultural and social value as the single measurement of how "good" art is.

Fair play to them, though I've never met anyone who's actually that myopic.

No? Lars Vilks and Salman Rushdie both seem to consider their art purely by how provocative it is, and that is something I'm seeing a lot of in many other ("respectable") venues too. Mapplethorpe could probably be added to that group as well, and anything to do with bleeding seems to fit the model too. It's not a rare occurrence, nor does it appear (in my view) to be an uncommon measurement.

To you maybe. Some consider it to be old pictures of horses, and they are just as correct.

---which was in reply to me saying Art reflects who and what we are; the past, the present, and the possible futures - it is a conduit for all these things. .

This is called sophistry. What you have said here is utterly meaningless and vapid. Art is no more capable of depicting the possible futures than anything ever put to print or painting or built or destroyed or what have you, nor does it "reflect who we are" anymore than anything we have ever created. My toilet paper says as much about who we are as the Mona Lisa, which means that it says "something" about us given the appropriate interpretation.

Yes, they are as subjectively correct as I am subjectively correct about preferring Joanna Newsom to [insert musical artist I don't like]. Pure taste and perception. But the totality of art throughout history? That is something else entirely. Why does 'art' exist? What does it achieve? Is it all just white noise? Does it have no broader relevance to existentialism through the ages?

The totality of art throughout history is not art, hence the different wordings. If that is what you wanted to discuss you should have said so. Ofcourse, that is even more ill-defined.

The creation reflects the creator, and ostensibly a creator creates to express, to understand themselves more, and to seek to understand the world and their place within it better. Even if there is no conscious intent in something, it reflects the creator and the era in which it was created. What can be discerned from that varies wildly, of course, but that's why art historians and critics exist (one could define art as a grand experiment in collective self-reflexivity).

Again with the sweeping generalizations. This comes off as you having 0 real life experience. You haven't a clue about why creators do anything, and adding in the Kafkaesque "Even if there is no conscious intent in something" just so that any disagreement can be brushed off is ridiculous. Do you know what some of the greatest creators in our history wanted? Money. So they could get drunk, or eat, or buy prostitutes. A picture of some fancy king was not created to "understand" us better it was created for money and for connections, probably also so the creator could get drunk and buy prostitutes.

To get no further than 'art means different things to different people' is to surely be blind to all the connective elements that stretch back through the ages, that reveal art has served specific functions from then to now.

Yes, different things serve different purposes. Well done.

Culture and era refashions it, but there is a universality of human experience that allows you or I to intimately and profoundly connect to a poem, a play, a painting, or a building from another culture and another time. Art functions as a means to explore the human condition.

Yes, things change with time.
No, universality does not mean that. If everyone could "intimately and profoundly" connect to these poems, plays, paintings, or buildings it would hold.
A pizza bagel functions as a means to explore the human condition, since it's all in the interpretation.

(btw, I use the term art to include high, low, middle, the whole lot. the new Star Wars film connects to the human experience just as a Terrence Malick film might - they simply approach universal themes and/or stories from wildly different angles, and escapism is clearly the greater bias of mainstream pop-culture. both are relative to each other, and their merit is 'equal' in the grand scheme of things as they service different needs)

High, low, middle, what? Does that include trees? They can be pretty artsy. Does it include a woman running a marathon without tampons? Does it include my finger clippings?

I'll try to clarify my usage: Google-flavoured synonyms are crucial, necessary, key, vital, indispensable, all-important, critical, etc. Art is not consciously necessary or vital to an individual - but it clearly is 'essential', as in of-the-essence, in human experience across thousands of years of history and culture. It is, quite demonstrably, a part of our species.

Only when you take the widest, most abstract definition of art available (you know, the one that makes the word pointless since it includes everything ever done ever). African tribes do not need Star Wars movies.
If by this you mean African tribes need to breathe and do stuff (which means art by the wide definition), then yes you are correct. If you mean African tribes need to write poetry, paint stuff, and go see the new Ghostbusters, then I would like to see a study on that.

Which was in response to me saying--- it exists out of a desire and willingness for diverse, inclusive expression and connection. Yes, and I reasonably and logically stand by the statement; a creator of art or culture that validates and justifies, say, persecution or some horrific social model is seeking to connect to like-minded souls in the world. That is their inclusive expression and connection. Birds of a feather flock together, would be a fairly blunt simplification of the idea. Very few creators create in or for a vacuum.

Again, this is a sweeping generalization regarding (broadly speaking) every creator thoughout history (which under the wide-defined 'art' means every human ever). You do not know the motivations of anyone but yourself.

But that is exactly the opposite of what you just said. You are handing out awards because "the heart was in the right place". And yes, it is damaging when you positively acknowledge something bad simply because it agrees with your own personal ideals. That's called bias.

Er, no? I explicitly didn't say 'derp, give official-actual industry awards for progressive values regardless of any other criteria!!'.

I never said anything about official-actual industry awards...

Me sentimentally feeling a work has its heart in the right place is very different from me trying to objectively critique a given work. Life Is Strange is progressive as fuck... but I feel it's also quite poorly written and bizarrely staged (why are 18-year-old's behaving and thinking like 11-year-olds?). Granted, I've still not got passed the first episode yet (I have the season pass, though), but even with that first episode I 'praise' LiS for its depiction of female leads and of what it is not (i.e. yet another inertly bland and regressive straight male narrative), whilst wanting to smack all the writers over the head with a rolled up newspaper. See also: crappy engine, and iffy mechanics.

How is this not praise for box-ticking?

The beauty of seeing beyond the "Is this in accordance with my ideology or should I hate it" perspective is that I can appreciate a good story even if it does not resonate with my views personally. I don't measure a movie's diversity, and so I am instead free to judge and appreciate the contribution of that diversity (assuming it's good). Looking beyond the core components you might say. I don't like the box ticking awards and I find them insulting.

Which is exactly what I do, so snap.

But you just said you did the opposite with LiS?

Re dem pesky SJW's:

...so, er, the acronym just refers to parody and unhelpful hyperbole? That's pretty much what I've always felt.

Yes, that's pretty much it. It's essentially the equivalent of the political satire image of republicans, but for online activists.

Also, a person looking critically at culture can be disagreed with and proven to be on shaky ground with absolutely no need for meaningless, destructively divisive terminology. SJW = battle lines in a self-created/defined culture war, so it's really not helpful. Anyone who does somehow manage to actually fit those three criteria is surely effortless to ignore. If you want to get into horrid specifics of the insecure BS that's plagued gaming over the past couple of years, PM me, as I won't step foot in the 'other' board on this site.

I think you will find it in far more areas than gaming these days.

 

[johnnyboy2537]

God no. Being "progressive" doesn't mean that it isn't a shit story. For example Sunset, Dragon Age II, Mass Effect 3(for the most part but its LGBT characters were shit). A good story is a good story and praising a story for agreeing with your politics is stupid.

 

[Silvanus]

This is called sophistry. What you have said here is utterly meaningless and vapid. Art is no more capable of depicting the possible futures than anything ever put to print or painting or built or destroyed or what have you, nor does it "reflect who we are" anymore than anything we have ever created. My toilet paper says as much about who we are as the Mona Lisa, which means that it says "something" about us given the appropriate interpretation.

This is such a very empty statement. You do not genuinely believe that the potential of art to communicate is no greater than that of toilet paper; in order to draw that tortured conclusion requires one to reduce art down to what can be claimed of it objectively. Objectively, yes, art is as meaningful as anything we do, but only a post or two ago you were decrying the idiocy of making objective statements about art.

Sophistry, in modern usage, refers to ostensibly intellectual arguments with very little of substance or relevance underneath. The above fits that to a tee.

Again with the sweeping generalizations. This comes off as you having 0 real life experience.

Please tell me you recognise the irony in this statement. Please. I'll lose all faith in humanity if you said this unironically.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

However, when it's straight, then the complaint centres on how it's unwanted romantic stuff. When it's not straight, then the complaint frequently morphs into being about the sexuality of the character. To me, this speaks volumes about the attitudes people have.

Of course, because the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters with any regularity, especially in videogames, is recent. There is a period of adjusting, which the intrusive gender politics from both the left and the right don't help. But this doesn't mean there is an undercurrent malice or genuine intolerance. A lot of it becomes reactionary, because nobody is given the time to adjust.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

You know what? After all the overdefensive, gatekeeping behaviour of some online communities about how any LGBT writing that falters ever so slightly should be scrapped so quickly, as if they are the true judge and jury of how to write real LGBT characters even though they have fuck all experience with them...i changed my mind. If people are really this pedantic and toxic any time a non white male is added, for they must be perfectly written or else thrown out...then yes, work should be praised for being brave enough to invite all this bullshit denial from people that don't like things they don't understand in their entertainment. It should be praised for that, as i sure as shit would not want hordes of angry, lonely males telling me they know how to do it better, without ever trying it themselves. People are incredibly different in real life than in sitcoms, some people blurt put their life stories, others never speak, some are compulsive liars, some have tourettes. People do not all act one and the same like some hive mind. Make your own worlds instead of splitting the hairs of others if they really bother you that much, entertainment is a vast pool which is constantly being added to. There are limitless options. Why so much self-denial?

 

[Silvanus]

Of course, because the inclusion of LGBTQ+ characters with any regularity, especially in videogames, is recent. There is a period of adjusting, which the intrusive gender politics from both the left and the right don't help. But this doesn't mean there is an undercurrent malice or genuine intolerance. A lot of it becomes reactionary, because nobody is given the time to adjust.

Sure, but if people are applying a double standard-- whether it's malice or merely discomfort motivating it-- then it's perfectly reasonable and rational to criticise that. We're talking about just portraying gay characters in much the same way straight characters are, after all, but that's considered "intrusive gender politics". I don't know how to be more even-minded than that.

97%+ of romance in media is already straight; people are bemoaning the last few tiny percent not being straight. If someone is not adjusting to one or two gay romances for every hundred straight ones, then frankly, they're dragging their feet.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

Sure, but if people are applying a double standard-- whether it's malice or merely discomfort motivating it-- then it's perfectly reasonable and rational to criticise that. We're talking about just portraying gay characters in much the same way straight characters are, after all, but that's considered "intrusive gender politics". I don't know how to be more even-minded than that.

97%+ of romance in media is already straight; people are bemoaning the last few tiny percent not being straight. If someone is not adjusting to one or two gay romances for every hundred straight ones, then frankly, they're dragging their feet.

But that's my point; the intrusive gender politics isn't LGBTQ characters being added in games by the developers themselves, it's the media making a fuss out of it either as a positive or a negative; and of course, that doesn't exist in a bubble either, so all the reactionary BS from the press creates reactionary responses from a sect of the community (and vice-versa) and the simple portrayal of gay characters in the same way straight characters are (which is the best approach, as far as I'm concerned) is put under the microscope and dissected as something with a hidden agenda or some added purpose.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

So you're saying the small backlash that writers get for including such characters from bigots is something that needs to be countered because of the very nature of the backlash? That seems like it'll lead to an undesired outcome given how the backlash those who obsess with identity politics create when those same characters aren't depicted perfectly in every way. No one gave a shit about the fact The 100 had gay and minority characters. Plenty of people lost their shit and harassed the show's staff after one character was written off due to the actress having to leave the show for other work.

 

[FillerDmon]

What was the phrase Yahtzee used in his Extra Punctuation for Bayonetta 2? Because I think it applies really well here, so Ima put my foot in my mouth and summarize it a bit:

In an ideal world, sexualied characters would walk in the door, hips swaggering and flaunting everything, and the rest of us would just roll our eyes and continue the orgy.

...I'm not 100% how that could be extrapolated to the idea that people of all races, positive creeds*, genders, sexualities, and such should just be seen as normal, but I feel like it could be.

*and by that, I mean so long as no one is being hurt and I can shake your hand without needing to wash mine afterwards, we're generally good.

 

[joshuaayt]

I really like that if a character's plot in any way revolves around the fact that they're gay, or trans, or black, or anything other than the "default", that's bad and pandering, because you should make interesting characters that don't only exist to be progressive!!!

But.

If a character simply has one or more of those aspects as a fact of life that isn't generally brought up or important to the plot, it's tokenism, and bad and pandering, because why are they different if it's not even important???

 

[Silvanus]

But that's my point; the intrusive gender politics isn't LGBTQ characters being added in games by the developers themselves, it's the media making a fuss out of it either as a positive or a negative; and of course, that doesn't exist in a bubble either, so all the reactionary BS from the press creates reactionary responses from a sect of the community (and vice-versa) and the simple portrayal of gay characters in the same way straight characters are (which is the best approach, as far as I'm concerned) is put under the microscope and dissected as something with a hidden agenda or some added purpose.

If people are getting riled up because other people are enjoying the inclusion, then that's ridiculous.

Representation or inclusivity can be a relatively rare thing, but meaningful for those being represented or included. That's why, when it happens, people are happy and point to it. If some people are then getting upset or annoyed that others are getting to enjoy something, then I don't have much sympathy for that.

 

[Stewie Plisken]

If people are getting riled up because other people are enjoying the inclusion, then that's ridiculous.

Representation or inclusivity can be a relatively rare thing, but meaningful for those being represented or included. That's why, when it happens, people are happy and point to it. If some people are then getting upset or annoyed that others are getting to enjoy something, then I don't have much sympathy for that.

What happens when a product gets preferential treatment because of the inclusion? What happens when a product is shunned, because of the lack of inclusion? What happens when there are massive over-generalizations made by people of authority (of some form) regarding not just the product, the material, but also the audience?

That's what causes the blow-back from a lot of these things. As I said, none of it exists in a vacuum and it's honestly irrelevant whether you or I have any sympathy for that. What's relevant is that it's painting a giant target on the back of both the creators and the material itself and ultimately misses the mark; that being making inclusion something that's common, ordinary and not worth any screaming over.

 

[Silvanus]

What happens when a product gets preferential treatment because of the inclusion? What happens when a product is shunned, because of the lack of inclusion?

What kind of preferential treatment? What does "shunning" entail? People talk about what they want to talk about, and this is no less a valid thing to talk about.

What happens when there are massive over-generalizations made by people of authority (of some form) regarding not just the product, the material, but also the audience?

Generalisations are silly whatever the situation. This doesn't reflect on whether or not a story can be praised for inclusivity in principle; this is not a tactic unique to any particular point of view.

That's what causes the blow-back from a lot of these things. As I said, none of it exists in a vacuum and it's honestly irrelevant whether you or I have any sympathy for that. What's relevant is that it's painting a giant target on the back of both the creators and the material itself and ultimately misses the mark; that being making inclusion something that's common, ordinary and not worth any screaming over.

That would be the ideal, yes, a situation in which it's just accepted. At present, however, that's simply not the case: inclusion is pretty rare, and those few times it does happen tend to provoke a back-lash. Why on earth should people stop talking about things they like, just because other people get angry when they like it?

 

[Stewie Plisken]

snip

I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about people with a platform, who are trusted figures or figures of authority of some form. For every "White male is the easiest difficulty setting" you get ten more people putting inclusionary themes under a microscope. What should be a simple creative choice and a reflection of life in art becomes heavily political and then people are going to react. Sure, there will always be bigots with irreconcilable prejudices, but a prejudice doesn't necessarily make someone intolerant. Even someone with prejudices can just look at something and go 'meeeh' and adhere to the 'live and let live' principle.

Besides, in practice, what's the benefit of praising a story as being progressive? It's confirmation bias; those that agree will take kindly to it, those that don't won't, those that don't care will just ignore it. All these groups are naturally allowed to react the way they wish (and most will, myself included), but from where I stand, it's a lot more useful to let things evolve to the point that nobody cares about these things. Celebrate it (or hate it), but don't define the material by it and, most importantly, don't define other people by their reactions to it (positive or negative).

If mediocre material is praised for inclusion (the material as a whole, not the inclusion in itself) and detractors of the material are labeled as something bad for not finding the material of good quality, whatever prejudices may exist will only be reinforced. Similarly, if material that is enjoyed by people is blasted for being exclusionary and/or harmful and there is an uproar, this also frames things in a political, binary divide. This in turn will create more backlash or at least put other material that falls within one side of these binary political camps under scrutiny and the cycle goes on and on.