I agree that that is what a lot of people seem to be afraid will happen if they don't fight the supposed 'Social Justice Warriors'.hentropy said:I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention. In other words, it stops becoming about how good someone's game is, but rather about how many external issues that game tries to push on the player. I'm all for more inclusion in games, but I don't want "checklists" that the "progressive" gaming media tries to push.
And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.
Sorry, but is it somehow more 'evolved' to court gloom-and-doom thoughts about radical progressives overthrowing the game industry and imposing some sort of devious 'affirmative action' on the game-making process, as if that's even remotely possible while profit-seeking capitalism is the name of the game. If more minorities and women end up in games, it won't be because of reviews as much as the million-and-one ways that products get focus-tested and tweaked to match a theoretically-maximal audience before release. In the end, it's as cold-and-calculating as the decision to stick Samuel L. Jackson in Star Wars or to make Zoe Saldana's character more important to the plot of the newest Star Trek (a smarter, more competent female character rather than the crappy side character she used to be). The way I see it, it's less forcing progress on people than it is attempts to mirror the potential market, which is what capitalism does.hentropy said:And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.
They were never lied to, in the English language "he" can be used interchangeably for either gender if the gender of the person is unknown.BigTuk said:Just a slight correction there Bob... the reason the Samus reveal was such a surprise says less about the state of gender issues and more about the fact that the player was essentially lied to. You see in box, blurb, the manual and quite a few hint guides Samus was referred to as 'He'. The game was deliberately deceptive from every angle heck you only got the reveal if you finished the game in a certain time.
It's why I don not consider the first true female protagonist of video games... that honor goes to Alys from Phantasy Star.
Otherwise yeah.. spot on
Of course no one is arguing directly for "checklists" using that terminology. I think there is a lot more common ground on this issue than people will admit. There aren't very many people who want to purge all women from games or close off games from being inclusive. I've argued over and over that more inclusion is, if nothing else, a good business move.NinjaDeathSlap said:I agree that that is what a lot of people seem to be afraid will happen if they don't fight the supposed 'Social Justice Warriors'.hentropy said:I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention. In other words, it stops becoming about how good someone's game is, but rather about how many external issues that game tries to push on the player. I'm all for more inclusion in games, but I don't want "checklists" that the "progressive" gaming media tries to push.
And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.
My next question would than be, why? Why do they think that this will happen when it's not what anyone who thinks gaming matters enough in the first place to care wants to see? I've heard (and I go looking for this stuff a lot more than most) precisely no-one ever argue in favour of a progressiveness checklist or anything of the sort. As far as the vast, vast majority goes, all people want is for the people in charge of the industry to realise that there is actually a market for more diversity in characters and for the themes explored through them, and so we cheer on games that dare to give us something different when they get good press, because there's a chance that if we cheer loud enough, a publisher might notice and think "Hey, we could get in on this!". Gaming is now the biggest entertainment industry in the world. Do people really believe that there isn't enough shelf space to accommodate a broader range of tastes?
Nothing about what I (and, as far as I can tell, everyone like me) am 'fighting' for, will result in any kind of embargo on musclebound, straight or seemingly asexual white dudes being video game protagonists from now on. I guarantee that, even if we 'win' those guys will still be around in abundance for a lot time yet, and I for one won't begrudge that in the slightest. What's more, all the hundreds and hundreds of games like that that have been made previously will still be around to enjoy by anyone who wishes to play them, and that will be just fine. All it comes down to, is wanting to see a few more games on the shelves beside them that look to be catering to other tastes, in accordance with the increasing numbers of women, racial minorities, open homosexuals and other non-straight sexualities and/or genders wanting to play games these days, but currently doing so in the face of an industry that barely seems to be aware that they exist.
That's what baffles me when I try to deconstruct this whole maelstrom. When you get right down to it, nothing about the status quo is really being 'threatened' here. Not every change has to be a revolution.
The reason, at least personally, for why people think that this discussion would lead to a "progressive checklist" is because most of the discussion about this is negative. Very few articles/videos/blog posts about representation in video games uses a positive perspective. For the most part when someone talks about representation in video games it's all about how this or that is bad. That you should feel bad for enjoying it, and it should be removed completely. So people worry about games becoming a grey sludge of inoffensiveness. Hell if the damsel in distress trope was removed from video games there might not be anymore games in the Zelda series because a female will likely need help/rescuing at some point in the game.NinjaDeathSlap said:I agree that that is what a lot of people seem to be afraid will happen if they don't fight the supposed 'Social Justice Warriors'.hentropy said:I think what people are primarily afraid of is that possibility of games needing a "checklist" of ethnic or social minorities that you HAVE to include in your game in order for your game to be considered "progressive", and if it's not "progressive" then it won't get good scores or attention. In other words, it stops becoming about how good someone's game is, but rather about how many external issues that game tries to push on the player. I'm all for more inclusion in games, but I don't want "checklists" that the "progressive" gaming media tries to push.
And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.
My next question would than be, why? Why do they think that this will happen when it's not what anyone who thinks gaming matters enough in the first place to care wants to see? I've heard (and I go looking for this stuff a lot more than most) precisely no-one ever argue in favour of a progressiveness checklist or anything of the sort. As far as the vast, vast majority goes, all people want is for the people in charge of the industry to realise that there is actually a market for more diversity in characters and for the themes explored through them, and so we cheer on games that dare to give us something different when they get good press, because there's a chance that if we cheer loud enough, a publisher might notice and think "Hey, we could get in on this!". Gaming is now the biggest entertainment industry in the world. Do people really believe that there isn't enough shelf space to accommodate a broader range of tastes?
Nothing about what I (and, as far as I can tell, everyone like me) am 'fighting' for, will result in any kind of embargo on musclebound, straight or seemingly asexual white dudes being video game protagonists from now on. I guarantee that, even if we 'win' those guys will still be around in abundance for a lot time yet, and I for one won't begrudge that in the slightest. What's more, all the hundreds and hundreds of games like that that have been made previously will still be around to enjoy by anyone who wishes to play them, and that will be just fine. All it comes down to, is wanting to see a few more games on the shelves beside them that look to be catering to other tastes, in accordance with the increasing numbers of women, racial minorities, open homosexuals and other non-straight sexualities and/or genders wanting to play games these days, but currently doing so in the face of an industry that barely seems to be aware that they exist.
That's what baffles me when I try to deconstruct this whole maelstrom. When you get right down to it, nothing about the status quo is really being 'threatened' here. Not every change has to be a revolution.
I'm not entirely sure what your point is with all those words, however it seems like we agree on most of your points. I said myself that more inclusiveness is a good business decision.Caostotale said:Sorry, but is it somehow more 'evolved' to court gloom-and-doom thoughts about radical progressives overthrowing the game industry and imposing some sort of devious 'affirmative action' on the game-making process, as if that's even remotely possible while profit-seeking capitalism is the name of the game. If more minorities and women end up in games, it won't be because of reviews as much as the million-and-one ways that products get focus-tested and tweaked to match a theoretically-maximal audience before release. In the end, it's as cold-and-calculating as the decision to stick Samuel L. Jackson in Star Wars or to make Zoe Saldana's character more important to the plot of the newest Star Trek (a smarter, more competent female character rather than the crappy side character she used to be). The way I see it, it's less forcing progress on people than it is attempts to mirror the potential market, which is what capitalism does.hentropy said:And yes, I realize my use of scarequotes might come off as trying to say that progressivism is a bad thing, which it's not, I just think what it means is debatable and that many people who call themselves progressives cling on only to the oldest/intellectually non-evolved version of it and then pretend like that is the only possible right version.
I would argue that the anti-progressive conservative 'movements' of late, thinly built as they are around an old-fashioned sentimentality for a 'gamer culture' that's never represented the majority of spending power on the gaming market (maybe in the PC-gaming realm, but not elsewhere), are acting more radical than any progressive movement, since their entire agenda would have to be built on an assumption that (a.) the capitalism of the gaming industry is somehow in danger of ceasing proper functionality and therefore that (b.) it needs to be set right by some means or another (I'm reminded of the sci-fi idealists in the political realm who think that electing Rand Paul or some other such John-Galt-like figure would magically set the country back on a truer path, viewpoints that, while noble in a vacuum, tend to ignore a lot of dark truths about humanity, the history of civilization, and the true nature of capitalism).
fithian said:After all why should I be allowed to speak I am "crazy".