Representation: it doesn't need to have a "point"

[Vault101]

How did that... i don't know how it got interpreted like that. Perhaps it's because that was from dismissive criticims of Tomb Raider The Last Revelation on how she turned from likable and even lightly flirting character from first game into character that has no character. Term was meant to be hyperbola of how she did everything in such extreme way in such extreme environments and with such forced means. Basically she didn't drink tea, she didn't even drink tea made of dirt, she directly chewed the dirty carpet.

I guess different times give different meanings to words. But I would never see it like that...

as I said...carpet chewing or "rug munching" is a derogatory term to (more oten than not) refer to lesbians (Oral sex and..well yeah)

sometimes female characters who show certain traits are questioned if their gay (not in a nice way eather)

t almost owuldn't surprise me....but mabye thats a too outdated/overt jab thease days

 

[carnex]

How did that... i don't know how it got interpreted like that. Perhaps it's because that was from dismissive criticims of Tomb Raider The Last Revelation on how she turned from likable and even lightly flirting character from first game into character that has no character. Term was meant to be hyperbola of how she did everything in such extreme way in such extreme environments and with such forced means. Basically she didn't drink tea, she didn't even drink tea made of dirt, she directly chewed the dirty carpet.

I guess different times give different meanings to words. But I would never see it like that...

as I said...carpet chewing or "rug munching" is a derogatory term to (more oten than not) refer to lesbians (Oral sex and..well yeah)

sometimes female characters who show certain traits are questioned if their gay (not in a nice way eather)

t almost owuldn't surprise me....but mabye thats a too outdated/overt jab thease days

OK, I didn't intend it in that way, nor do I believe author of original review meant it that way. I see how it can mean something like that tho. Damn, must stop using it than. FCK! At least that can't be misunderstood

P.S. I love "carpet munching". Does that make me a lesbian?

 

[The Lunatic]

I'd also say that there doesn't need to be an excuse to have a straight white male as the protagonist in the first place.

If the creator of a game, film, story, or whatever, wants to tell a story from the point of view of a straight white male, that shouldn't be treated as a bad thing.

I'd rather creators just create experiences and stories the way they want to, and not be hassled with such concerns.

 

[Vault101]

P.S. I love "carpet munching". Does that make me a lesbian?

[spoiler/][img/]http://www.jamspreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ummm-no.gif[/img][/spoiler]

I'd also say that there doesn't need to be an excuse to have a straight white male as the protagonist in the first place.

If the creator of a game, film, story, or whatever, wants to tell a story from the point of view of a straight white male, that shouldn't be treated as a bad thing.

I'd rather creators just create experiences and stories the way they want to, and not be hassled with such concerns.

I don't believe anything in my OP contradicts this

unless it comes across that way which isn't my intention (mostly)

My cat chews the carpet, but I'm pretty sure I could take him in a fight. I've never considered the phrase to suggest anything other than that someone is a lesbian. Certainly not that they're really tough - why carpet, why not girders?

yeah this is what I thourght...it doesn't really fit

 

[Nickolai77]

I agree that white, straight guys are largely 'default' characters you play as in games- and that's because these games are generally made by white, straight guys FOR white straight guys- if we're talking about your average AAA title like Assassins Creed, Battlefield or Skyrim say (yes, you can play as a female character, but the marketing of the game has always portrayed the Dovakhin as a male nord).


Games are reflective of the authors that created them and also reflective of the players they want to play the game. Hence there's a self-perpetuating circle of games being made by straight white guys which mainly appeal to other straight white guys who in turn become inclined to become game developers and make more games for other straight white guys. Note there's dozens of counter-examples I can think of, but I am talking about as a very general trend here.

If there were more female game developers say, you'd get more female oriented games with leading female characters, but to get those female developers in the first place you need to be making more inclusive games that appeal to that demographic. Hence there needs to be more of a concious attempt to make games more inclusive and appeal to wider audience- which I think is probably happening.

RPG games with customisable characters allow for plenty of opportunities to be as inclusive as possible, and there are a significant number of games out there were you don't play as a white male especially when it comes to DLC material coming to think about it... I should add though that you don't make games inclusive to women simply by having a female protagonist or leading character- the story and the characters need to interest female gamers as well.

The thing is though, short of radical cultural changes, females and males are going to be inclined towards certain genres of games. You're always going to get more guys playing military FPS, and it just so happens that those games tend to be AAA titles because of their popularity. I think though in other areas like adventure games and RPG's there's no reason not to try and reach the broadest possible audience with your games.

 

[GabeZhul]

aaaanyway

so we got a movie staring two women, both in high octane military fighting roles, they aren't romancing each other and there isn't some guy causing a triangle.

does this feel a bit odd?

No it doesn't. Does that render the rest of your (otherwise incredibly fun and amusing) post pointless or am I just a weird person?

 

[mecegirl]

I'd say the real kick to the groin with Edge of Tomorrow is that the fucking protagonist was originally an Asian man. Actually the whole cast in the novel was diverse. Just like to point out this is a novel, written in Japan. Yet someone in Hollywood just shouted "Nope, white-wash this *****!"

Anyway, ya don't need an excuse to include others. This argument can silence the people screaming that you need an excuse, but chances are most will ignore it and just keep shouting it. We've been surrounded by viscous cycles.

THIS THIS THIS! See that's part of my issue with the stance that Vault mentions in the OP. Even when something is actually diverse by design Hollywood messes it up. And no one wonders if it was really necessary for that role to go to a White man, no one asks for justification within the narrative.

 

[rgrekejin]

Objection!

The default videogame protagonist is not a straight white male. It is a white male who is too busy shooting/stabbing things to give us any indication at all of what his sexuality is. Sexuality is not a physically visible characteristic in the way that sex and ethnicity are. And very few games actually involve any exploration of the main character's sexuality at all, so your assumption that they're straight is really just that - your default assumption. And frankly, I think in this instance the "don't put it in the game unless it has a point" stance is correct. Unless you actually have some relevant reason for bringing it up, jamming sexuality into a game that otherwise doesn't involve it is, at best, irrelevant added baggage.

 

[Netrigan]

People ask "if they're just avatars why does it matter?" <-to me it matters, I can't speak for others though, but my point is I'm [b/]I'm being asked for justification[/b] if it doesn't mater then it doesn't matter, don't ask me why it matters to play as a female and I wont ask why it maters to play as a male

Still reading your post, but I wanted to comment on this before I got distracted by bright shiny objects.

In my youthful bomb-throwing days approximately 24 hours ago, I was looking around for the appropriate post to comment past, as is my custom. Don't judge me, it's my cultural heritage. Cultural relativism. Check and mate

Anyway, the point (in the least assholish wording I can muster) is that influence is like wealth or power. It doesn't mean much to the person who has lots of it, but it means everything to the people who have little of it.

And I think if people look deeply at their own attitudes, they'll find examples of it in their own life. If you don't get a lot of sex, that means something and you get resentful at people who treat hooking up with a random person like it's not a thing and it's your fault you can't get laid more because you obsess over it. This particular example will likely hit a lot of us fanboys close to home. But maybe you're a Southerner and get annoyed when the media treats you like a mouth-breathing, banjo-playing, Ned Beatty raping racist all the time. Maybe you have a mentally disabled family member and you go spare when people say "retard"... okay, I'm officially drifting from the point with that one.

Point being, we all have issues we're touchy as fuck about, yet we all manage to avoid seeing other people's issues as being valid.

If being represented in the media isn't a thing for you, then why not encourage devs and publishers to give other people a shot? They're not going to get stupid about it, they're not going to risk the farm if the market isn't there. Just say, you know, I realize this isn't super-important to me, so give it to someone who really wants it.

And if it is super-important to you, then feel free to speak up and say, "I like straight white male avatars and I'm not ashamed to admit it." Chances are if you're not a dick in how you say it, no one will be really be offended. They might argue that they need representation, too; but that's not the same thing.

Anywho, back to your post.

 

[Phasmal]

OK, I didn't intend it in that way, nor do I believe author of original review meant it that way. I see how it can mean something like that tho. Damn, must stop using it than. FCK! At least that can't be misunderstood

If you're talking about Yahtzee's review- it's pretty likely he did mean it as lesbian, because that's all carpet muncher means here (Britain). Besides, he was just being Yahtzee.

No, I think it is more used as an expression similiar to "tough as nails". Someone so tough that they chew carpets.

Pretty sure it's just lesbian. I dunno, might need some other British people to back me up.

OT: Also yes all of this. If deviation from white straight guy is political, then so is all the adherence to it. Despite what people may think, I have nothing against white straight guys. I just want more things for more people.

 

[Nimcha]

Cool thread! Indeed, there doesn't need to be an actual point to it. Just seeing a decent female character in a game is cool to me, and it's neutral for someone who doesn't care. So everybody wins really!

 

[Something Amyss]

I completely agree. Honestly I'm shocked that these people think that you need an excuse to be anything other than a white heterosexual male.

.....except if your a shark

seriously dude whats your excuse?

I am disappoint, Vault. Here you are talking about diversity, and you offer up such an icthyist statement. I'm boycotting your posts now!

But seriously, I agree. Women and minorities don't need a "point" to show up.

 

[Something Amyss]

And very few games actually involve any exploration of the main character's sexuality at all

Unless they mention a girlfriend/wife, or they're saving someone similar, or they hit on a member of the opposite sex...This is pretty common.

If gays showed up the way straight dudes showed up, people would complain that they were having their faces rubbed in their sexuality. But because it's heterosexuality and we're so accustomed, it "hardly ever shows up."

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm saying we need to drop this idea the *cough*straight white male*cough* is the "default" and that any variation from that is automatically "inclusion for the sake of it" <-whatever the hell that is

"Whatever the hell that is"
Inclusion purely for its own sake is just tokenism, and it seldom (if ever) amounts to anything above tepid mediocrity.

To use a nerdy metaphor, it's the difference in characterization between the main casts of Star Trek: Voyager, and Deep Space Nine.

Both shows place minorities/non-whites/non-males into their main cast and in positions of importance.
One is remembered more for its great character pieces and stories, while the other is remembered for being "that show with the techno-babble and the Borg chick" (and salamander sex, but some memories are best forgotten *shudders*).

Voyager promoted itself as progressive because it had A female captain, a "Native American*", a black Vulcan, and a female half-Klingon all in leading roles and/or on the command staff (plus Harry Kim, an Asian ensign; whose character is more of a human shaped magnet for tragedy than anything).

And yet, many of those roles aren't used or invoked intelligently.
[sub](*Chakotay in particular is a mess of Native American Stereotypes and platitudes for most episodes)[/sub]

Yet Voyagers token cast aren't very compelling because they're written poorly and underutilized.
That doesn't suggest "progressive", but rather: "Producers: There, we cast a bunch of minorities in all the important places. I hope you're happy with that, because we really don't really care."

Compared to DS9, where the main cast are allowed to be characters. Who work, act and develop beyond their established genders/race/position.

Sisko ALONE undergoes growth as...
...a single parent...a Starfleet Captain...a spiritual figure...a sportsman...

None of which had to really do with him being black, because that alone isn't something that a defines a nuanced character.
It was just an incidental trait of his person with implicit pros/cons.
Yet how much less would the audience think of Sisko if he was acting like a stereotype?
What if we saw him putting down buckets of fried chicken every week with no explanation?

The writing and performance ultimately matters more than any stated intention.

In the end:
Janeway was a poor character despite the producers pushing her as a progressive choice.
Sisko was an excellent character because he wasn't primarily defined by his race, but his nuance, history and behavior.

It was the efforts of good writers and great actors that made the memorable series; and not marketing statistics claiming the series would do better if it had another straight-white male lead or a cast of token minorities to prop up the show's apparent moral worth.

That tells me that (at least for fiction), casting and characterization should be more merit-oriented and less beholden to race or gender quotas regardless of whether said quotas are based on pleasing minorities or pandering to the majority..

A fact that probably doesn't make the marketers or suits happy, but marketers and suits don't know everything and I wish they would stop acting like they did.

 

[Erttheking]

I'd also say that there doesn't need to be an excuse to have a straight white male as the protagonist in the first place.

If the creator of a game, film, story, or whatever, wants to tell a story from the point of view of a straight white male, that shouldn't be treated as a bad thing.

I'd rather creators just create experiences and stories the way they want to, and not be hassled with such concerns.

Uh, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure when the majority of people are writing a story, they don't think "This story NEEDS to be told from the perspective of a heterosexual white man! that's part of my artistic vision" Frankly if they're not being mandated to do that, I think that they just jump to lazy defaults. I don't call that artistic vision, I call that not trying.

And frankly if you REALLY believe that argument, you can't criticize people ever. Twilight is a stupid nonsensical story? But Stephine Meyer told the story she wanted to. The twists in Iron Man 3 were really weak? They told the story they wanted to.

Why is gender and sexuality immune from criticism?

 

[carnex]

This might be out of place but it just hit me that I don't know this but I am interested in knowing. So if anyone knows please share

Anyway, people usually write what they know. As far as books go, my experience is this

White authors write white characters, genders somewhat inconsistent but mostly same gender.

Asian authors write Asian characters, never run into gender swapped main.

I can't remember any specific black, latino etc authors. How are they in that regard? Do they feel the need to whitewash their characters (although i don't see whitewashing as necessarily bad, it's stupid from practical reasons to me)?

 

[The Lunatic]

Uh, call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure when the majority of people are writing a story, they don't think "This story NEEDS to be told from the perspective of a heterosexual white man! that's part of my artistic vision" Frankly if they're not being mandated to do that, I think that they just jump to lazy defaults. I don't call that artistic vision, I call that not trying.

And frankly if you REALLY believe that argument, you can't criticize people ever. Twilight is a stupid nonsensical story? But Stephine Meyer told the story she wanted to. The twists in Iron Man 3 were really weak? They told the story they wanted to.

Why is gender and sexuality immune from criticism?

Why not?

What's wrong with the perspective of a heterosexual white man exactly? Why is that somehow stranger than "This story needs to be told from the perspective of a black male?".

Added to that, there's also simply a matter of knowledge. There are cultural differences between different groups of people. No ethnicity is completely indistinguishable from another. We can't even achieve that with gender. If a creator doesn't feel comfortable in telling a story from a perspective they know less about, then what's the issue there?

And as Carnex says, is there some expectation for Asian creators to make non-asian characters? Female writes to write stories from male perspectives? African film makes to make films about white people?

 

[carnex]

Why is gender and sexuality immune from criticism?

There is a difference between criticism and saying things like "misogynist", "regressive crap", "harm women", "reinforce damaging stereotypes" etc.

That is calling things as not only socially unacceptable but damaging. Unless one has proof of something like that, one should temper their language.

For example I can see how Dragon's crown art can make someone uncomfortable. That is legitimate thing to say. But to attack authors personality based on that is a bit sketchy to me. And to say that it's damaging women is something that really needs proof to be said publicly. Things like that can lead to severe consequences to authors of both the original work and the reviewer. If it's really damaging it should affect the first, but if it isn't, it should affect the second.