Should Diversity be an Obligation in Game Design?

[Lieju]

We could just pitch different game ideas. I do kind of think you can judge a game when it doesn't take a risk or do anything new. Begin diverse or taking a rarely see perspective helps improve a game in my eyes. You know because it's something new and not often seen.

I think it depends what it does with the diversity. If there's a black warrior in medieval France, it better have something interesting to say about his presence there - such as him being a soldier of fortune or a mercenary. If it's just him being a normal knight with nothing interesting to say about his race then it sucks.

There is a little bit of value in just the visual diversity, but ya you don't want it to be just skin deep. You want to explore what it means a little.

Yeah and if they can't make it mean anything, better to not do it at all.

That is not what I mean. I mean ideally you want to explore every aspect of your character, but that is not a requirement to include the character. You can just drop a female knight into medieval France and not explore what that means to any degree. You don't want to lock diversity behind extra requirements because then some people will use that as an excuse to not even try.

Ni, I disagree. If you drop an atypical character into a scenario where they don't "belong" per say, I think the game should explore that and come up with a justification for it, it only serves to add to the story.

For example, in the latest Dragon Age game, you can play various different races, however they aren't just model swaps to appease the masses. If you pick an elf, you'll approach the story in a different way, with different beliefs and prejudices leveled against you than a human character. That's really important and makes the whole game so much more special.

So it shouldn't be diversity for diversity's sake, it should have diversity for a reason and with suitable explanation and storyline behind it.

They should explore it, but you can't let that be used as a wall to keep you from deviating from the norm. It puts a burden on some kinds of characters and I don't think they need more burdens. Some times you just want to be a gay guy who fights monsters without getting too mired in to gender politics. It's about diversity in more ways then one.

It all depends on the context. In a historical context, there would obviously be some issues involved in having a gay character. However if you want to write a game about a gay monster slayer, that's cool as long as you set up your world with there being no prejudice about homosexuality like there is in the real world.

It's not like a lot of historical games and movies etc are that historically accurate. Especially when it comes to something like sexuality. But it's also very common to do stuff like make your female characters more attractive to modern audiences (clothing-vise, shaving, and body-type vise)

People just have these usually very limited or outright false images of what 'medieval Europe' for example should look like, based a lot on what kinda stuff was made to appeal to modern white dudes.

(Also if your gay character can kill dragons and wanders the land they're pretty likely to get away with behaviour a homosexual forced to live in a single village their whole life would not for example)

 

[theNater]

That's why games with absolutely appalling stories manage not only to sell well but get critical acclaim, because if the game is enjoyable to play and has great design, you can't really rag on it too much because it pretty much achieves what it sets out to do. It's something quite unique to video games. If a film has great special effects and cinematography but a completely terrible script, it's considered a bad film. If a game has good gameplay, graphics, audio, design but also has the cheesiest voice acting and storytelling imagineable, the former elements will usually overshadow the latter (the latter might even end up being endearing).

Mostly the trick here is lies with criticism, so that it is looking at the totality of the game experience and not just gameplay. And we've got a start on that, although there's an alarming amount of backlash when critics do that, largely among people who believe that such reviews are going to take away the games they like to play. It's ridiculous, of course; the Bay Transformers films are proof of that. They're the king of great special effects and cinematography with terrible script and acting, and they keep making money, despite being widely recognized as bad films.

...portal has 1 human character and it's a white person, that's hardly diversity but it aint exactly racist is it?

She's pretty tan for a white lady.

Fun fact: the woman after whom Chell was modeled has Brazilian and Japanese heritage.

 

[mecegirl]

They should explore it, but you can't let that be used as a wall to keep you from deviating from the norm. It puts a burden on some kinds of characters and I don't think they need more burdens. Some times you just want to be a gay guy who fights monsters without getting too mired in to gender politics. It's about diversity in more ways then one.

It all depends on the context. In a historical context, there would obviously be some issues involved in having a gay character. However if you want to write a game about a gay monster slayer, that's cool as long as you set up your world with there being no prejudice about homosexuality like there is in the real world.

I'm like thinking of all the at lest bisexual Greek monster slayers(like almost all of them) . So it really wouldn't be that hard to do in an historical context.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The only real obligation of Game Design is that the game should work as advertised.
Ie, not have any game-ending glitches or logic holes that render it unplayable, or possibly unbeatable (if it can be beaten; not all games have an end-state beyond "On/Off").

Everything else is a matter of creator intent and audience reception; which should vary enough on its own to say the least.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

We could just pitch different game ideas. I do kind of think you can judge a game when it doesn't take a risk or do anything new. Begin diverse or taking a rarely see perspective helps improve a game in my eyes. You know because it's something new and not often seen.

I think it depends what it does with the diversity. If there's a black warrior in medieval France, it better have something interesting to say about his presence there - such as him being a soldier of fortune or a mercenary. If it's just him being a normal knight with nothing interesting to say about his race then it sucks.

There is a little bit of value in just the visual diversity, but ya you don't want it to be just skin deep. You want to explore what it means a little.

Yeah and if they can't make it mean anything, better to not do it at all.

That is not what I mean. I mean ideally you want to explore every aspect of your character, but that is not a requirement to include the character. You can just drop a female knight into medieval France and not explore what that means to any degree. You don't want to lock diversity behind extra requirements because then some people will use that as an excuse to not even try.

Ni, I disagree. If you drop an atypical character into a scenario where they don't "belong" per say, I think the game should explore that and come up with a justification for it, it only serves to add to the story.

For example, in the latest Dragon Age game, you can play various different races, however they aren't just model swaps to appease the masses. If you pick an elf, you'll approach the story in a different way, with different beliefs and prejudices leveled against you than a human character. That's really important and makes the whole game so much more special.

So it shouldn't be diversity for diversity's sake, it should have diversity for a reason and with suitable explanation and storyline behind it.

They should explore it, but you can't let that be used as a wall to keep you from deviating from the norm. It puts a burden on some kinds of characters and I don't think they need more burdens. Some times you just want to be a gay guy who fights monsters without getting too mired in to gender politics. It's about diversity in more ways then one.

It all depends on the context. In a historical context, there would obviously be some issues involved in having a gay character. However if you want to write a game about a gay monster slayer, that's cool as long as you set up your world with there being no prejudice about homosexuality like there is in the real world.

Yes, No, Maybe? I am kind of sensitive to the idea that people some times use this argument to be bias vs some kinds of characters. There are a few elements in it.

People don't always apply realism equally. It's OK to include realistically strict gender roles, but including realistic healing mechanics would be too unfun.

History has a bias vs some people. Following along realistically with history brings out this bias and forces it on your players.

People tend follow the assumptions rather then explore them. Like you might get people who say you can't play a female because female never did anything in this time, but they never dig deeper and find out the exceptions or what else was going on.

 

[endtherapture]

They should explore it, but you can't let that be used as a wall to keep you from deviating from the norm. It puts a burden on some kinds of characters and I don't think they need more burdens. Some times you just want to be a gay guy who fights monsters without getting too mired in to gender politics. It's about diversity in more ways then one.

It all depends on the context. In a historical context, there would obviously be some issues involved in having a gay character. However if you want to write a game about a gay monster slayer, that's cool as long as you set up your world with there being no prejudice about homosexuality like there is in the real world.

I'm like thinking off all the at lest bisexual Greek monster slayers(like almost all of them) . So it really wouldn't be that hard to do in an historical context.

Dragon Age also does homosexuality in a fantasy setting well. The main religions don't outlaw it or anything, and given that religion is the main reason why homosexuality is not accepted in our own world, having a tolerant of homosexuality religion makes sense.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

They should explore it, but you can't let that be used as a wall to keep you from deviating from the norm. It puts a burden on some kinds of characters and I don't think they need more burdens. Some times you just want to be a gay guy who fights monsters without getting too mired in to gender politics. It's about diversity in more ways then one.

It all depends on the context. In a historical context, there would obviously be some issues involved in having a gay character. However if you want to write a game about a gay monster slayer, that's cool as long as you set up your world with there being no prejudice about homosexuality like there is in the real world.

I'm like thinking of all the at lest bisexual Greek monster slayers(like almost all of them) . So it really wouldn't be that hard to do in an historical context.

Now this I did not know. (History isn't my best subject.)

 

[endtherapture]

We could just pitch different game ideas. I do kind of think you can judge a game when it doesn't take a risk or do anything new. Begin diverse or taking a rarely see perspective helps improve a game in my eyes. You know because it's something new and not often seen.

I think it depends what it does with the diversity. If there's a black warrior in medieval France, it better have something interesting to say about his presence there - such as him being a soldier of fortune or a mercenary. If it's just him being a normal knight with nothing interesting to say about his race then it sucks.

There is a little bit of value in just the visual diversity, but ya you don't want it to be just skin deep. You want to explore what it means a little.

Yeah and if they can't make it mean anything, better to not do it at all.

That is not what I mean. I mean ideally you want to explore every aspect of your character, but that is not a requirement to include the character. You can just drop a female knight into medieval France and not explore what that means to any degree. You don't want to lock diversity behind extra requirements because then some people will use that as an excuse to not even try.

Ni, I disagree. If you drop an atypical character into a scenario where they don't "belong" per say, I think the game should explore that and come up with a justification for it, it only serves to add to the story.

For example, in the latest Dragon Age game, you can play various different races, however they aren't just model swaps to appease the masses. If you pick an elf, you'll approach the story in a different way, with different beliefs and prejudices leveled against you than a human character. That's really important and makes the whole game so much more special.

So it shouldn't be diversity for diversity's sake, it should have diversity for a reason and with suitable explanation and storyline behind it.

They should explore it, but you can't let that be used as a wall to keep you from deviating from the norm. It puts a burden on some kinds of characters and I don't think they need more burdens. Some times you just want to be a gay guy who fights monsters without getting too mired in to gender politics. It's about diversity in more ways then one.

It all depends on the context. In a historical context, there would obviously be some issues involved in having a gay character. However if you want to write a game about a gay monster slayer, that's cool as long as you set up your world with there being no prejudice about homosexuality like there is in the real world.

Yes, No, Maybe? I am kind of sensitive to the idea that people some times use this argument to be bias vs some kinds of characters. There are a few elements in it.

People don't always apply realism equally. It's OK to include realistically strict gender roles, but including realistic healing mechanics would be too unfun.

History has a bias vs some people. Following along realistically with history brings out this bias and forces it on your players.

People tend follow the idea rather then explore it. Like you might get people who say you can't play a female because female never did anything in this time, but they never dig deeper and find out the exceptions or what else was going on.

I'm not saying these things shouldn't happen, just they should have some context behind them. So if you decide to have a Muslim, or as a woman, fighting in your game about medieval France...give us a reason for it.

Like, oh that Muslim bloke is a Moorish mercenary come to fight for the highest bidder.

Or, oh woman in the army is Joan of Arc, or a warrior inspired to take up arms in the peasant army against the English due to Joan of Arc.

 

[mecegirl]

They should explore it, but you can't let that be used as a wall to keep you from deviating from the norm. It puts a burden on some kinds of characters and I don't think they need more burdens. Some times you just want to be a gay guy who fights monsters without getting too mired in to gender politics. It's about diversity in more ways then one.

It all depends on the context. In a historical context, there would obviously be some issues involved in having a gay character. However if you want to write a game about a gay monster slayer, that's cool as long as you set up your world with there being no prejudice about homosexuality like there is in the real world.

I'm like thinking off all the at lest bisexual Greek monster slayers(like almost all of them) . So it really wouldn't be that hard to do in an historical context.

Dragon Age also does homosexuality in a fantasy setting well. The main religions don't outlaw it or anything, and given that religion is the main reason why homosexuality is not accepted in our own world, having a tolerant of homosexuality religion makes sense.

More accurately within parts of the world that have been influenced, and in some cases dominated, by Western cultures. But I get your point. Either way I'd love to see a modern mainstream depiction of say Heracles that has no problem actually showing that he was also into dudes. Cuz the lack of such a depiction has nothing to do with trying to keep some visage of historical/cultural accuracy.

 

[mecegirl]

Now this I did not know. (History isn't my best subject.)

A bit of history, a bit of world mythology. Even Zeus had a male lover.

 

[visiblenoise]

Well, the way you phrased the question sort of suggests the answer that any reasonable person should have. Buuut, there's no better way to put it. Yet, people are inexplicably getting all worked up over it...

Complaining about the lack of diversity in AAA games makes as much sense to me as going to the Grammy foundation and demanding better representation for metal. These things can't be forced.

 

[Dogstile]

Thing is, the audience, or a portion of the audience, isn't obliged to stop making criticisms, complaints or requests to the contrary. Even demands, although I personally think that's a bit rude.

First reply, brilliant, lets get this said.

Yes, they can say what they want. However it rarely stops at them going "it sucks you don't have a black/female/gay/trans/otherkin/whateverthefuck". They usually try and shame the devs into including a character they want (and then yelling at them for not doing it right) or recently, try and get them fired.

So no, devs aren't obliged, but people sure like to try and make them do it anyway.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Me personally.

I don't care. If the game is good, I'll play it. Almost nothing, save time, will keep me from playing a game I consider good, no matter its content or who made it.

I don't want more of any type of group, religion, race, gender, blah blah blah as long as it was what the creators intended in the beggining, and the game they wanted to make.

So if they happen to be black, white, Asian, an alien, female, transgendered, fine. It wouldn't be a better game because of those attributes, but if the game is good, then fine. If the game is misogyny racism simulator. I'll even play it if it looks like it will be fun.

 

[Pyrian]

Diversity would be the natural result of removing the current "obligation" for the main characters to be (almost entirely) straight white men (insofar as they're specified humans, anyway).

 

[mecegirl]

We could just pitch different game ideas. I do kind of think you can judge a game when it doesn't take a risk or do anything new. Begin diverse or taking a rarely see perspective helps improve a game in my eyes. You know because it's something new and not often seen.

I think it depends what it does with the diversity. If there's a black warrior in medieval France, it better have something interesting to say about his presence there - such as him being a soldier of fortune or a mercenary. If it's just him being a normal knight with nothing interesting to say about his race then it sucks.

There is a little bit of value in just the visual diversity, but ya you don't want it to be just skin deep. You want to explore what it means a little.

Yeah and if they can't make it mean anything, better to not do it at all.

That is not what I mean. I mean ideally you want to explore every aspect of your character, but that is not a requirement to include the character. You can just drop a female knight into medieval France and not explore what that means to any degree. You don't want to lock diversity behind extra requirements because then some people will use that as an excuse to not even try.

Ni, I disagree. If you drop an atypical character into a scenario where they don't "belong" per say, I think the game should explore that and come up with a justification for it, it only serves to add to the story.

For example, in the latest Dragon Age game, you can play various different races, however they aren't just model swaps to appease the masses. If you pick an elf, you'll approach the story in a different way, with different beliefs and prejudices leveled against you than a human character. That's really important and makes the whole game so much more special.

So it shouldn't be diversity for diversity's sake, it should have diversity for a reason and with suitable explanation and storyline behind it.

They should explore it, but you can't let that be used as a wall to keep you from deviating from the norm. It puts a burden on some kinds of characters and I don't think they need more burdens. Some times you just want to be a gay guy who fights monsters without getting too mired in to gender politics. It's about diversity in more ways then one.

It all depends on the context. In a historical context, there would obviously be some issues involved in having a gay character. However if you want to write a game about a gay monster slayer, that's cool as long as you set up your world with there being no prejudice about homosexuality like there is in the real world.

Yes, No, Maybe? I am kind of sensitive to the idea that people some times use this argument to be bias vs some kinds of characters. There are a few elements in it.

People don't always apply realism equally. It's OK to include realistically strict gender roles, but including realistic healing mechanics would be too unfun.

History has a bias vs some people. Following along realistically with history brings out this bias and forces it on your players.

People tend follow the idea rather then explore it. Like you might get people who say you can't play a female because female never did anything in this time, but they never dig deeper and find out the exceptions or what else was going on.

I'm not saying these things shouldn't happen, just they should have some context behind them. So if you decide to have a Muslim, or as a woman, fighting in your game about medieval France...give us a reason for it.

Like, oh that Muslim bloke is a Moorish mercenary come to fight for the highest bidder.

Or, oh woman in the army is Joan of Arc, or a warrior inspired to take up arms in the peasant army against the English due to Joan of Arc.

You gave two basic, and somewhat well known, examples of why a female or Muslim person would be a solider in Medieval France based on from what we know of history. So why can't players just use that knowledge to fill in the blanks for themselves then like they would a male or White chracter? Why do we need to set aside time to add in/explain/explore context for something that already has a place?

 

[endtherapture]

You gave two basic, and somewhat well known, examples of why a female or Muslim person would be a solider in Medieval France based on from what we know of history. So why can't players just use that knowledge to fill in the blanks for themselves then like they would a male or White chracter? Why do we need to set aside time to add in/explain/explore context for something that already has a place?

Why not? Learning and education yourself via games is a good thing. Why are you so opposed to context being placed in games to educate others less knowledgeable than yourself? A lot of people might not know these things.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I see no reason for Activision to change the CoD formula, because most people in the military on the front lines are straight white mandudes and they sell the game to straight white teenage boys.

The bold part is not just unimportant, but borderline false. I'm not up-to-date on US-military numbers, but I do know that there has always been a quite significant number of non-white men fighting on your (?) frontlines and that the number of homosexual soldiers is unknown, for unfortunately obvious reasons.
That said, the first CoD that puts me in the boots of a black female soldier on the frontline will be the first one since Modern Warfare 2 that I will actually look at. But I see your point. They're riding a great wave, and every change to that is a risk to lose that.

Sorry, but he's correct (well, except there's no way to know who's actually, truly straight or not).

You are correct, in the Military (the US Military at least) minority groups are generally over-represented amongst the entire Military. However, amongst Infantry, Armor, Special Forces, and basically any "front line" unit, minorities are actually generally UNDER-represented.

Likewise, he didn't say that there weren't 'significant numbers', he simply said that most are straight white men. Considering whites are about 63% of the population, and men make up basically all combat arms personnel, his statement is true.

 

[Westaway]

It shouldn't be an obligation anywhere. Diversity is not virtuous or ethical, it is diversity. It's ultimately meaningless. I go to school in Vancouver, literally one of the most diverse cities on Earth. After a week it means nothing. Human beings are human beings. They do not become more interesting because they're from Yemen or Singapore.