Zachary Amaranth said:
They're chickenshit because of their estimation of US, the consumer. They think we won't get behind minorities. Now, whether it's us or just their perception of us is a debate, though I think we largely demonstrate this.
And I agree, in a numerical sense. Most people feel comfortable with characters whose culture and appearance are similar to their own, and most people in this country are white, so the math tells folks that more people will buy "white things."
Also, most folks out there making games are white males. Maybe it's that they just default to this particular type of character, or maybe some of them just don't feel comfortable writing for a demographic group to which they don't belong... and maybe feel it'd be awkward to call up a black friend and say, "Hey, I'm trying to write a black guy. Tell me some black stuff..." (Or something more reasonable sounding. You get my point, I'm sure.)
I've NEVER seen a better outcome from asking "why not more gay characters/black characters?" So I don't think this is true.
And I have. So, I guess we can agree that purely anecdotal "evidence" doesn't really hold? You'll get more mileage out of asking for something specific than you will out of saying, "Anything but X." Why? Because the folks behind X feel that is an attack on them, and (as we've already agreed) they make up the majority.
I've already allowed that a vocal minority will
always perceive any such request as an "attack." They're to be ignored. However, I think you misunderstand a key to my point: simply saying "more gay characters" is not
specific.
In what ways should we indicate the character's sexuality? How "gay" should he be -- and what exactly does it mean for a character to "be gay?" (I mean, couldn't Admiral Ackbar be gay? We never see him in a romantic situation, so it's plausible.) What role should his sexuality play in the overall story, and in his characterization? How can we avoid making him a caricature of homosexuals, rather than a representation of a homosexual?
My point: People are
sort of asking for these things, but they're not being clear about what they want. Since this is the kind of question it's
very hard to answer without being offensive, the safest answer is often none.
Smith IS an exception. Not because he's not really black or anything, but because blacks don't get a lot of major leading roles, especially in serious roles. Hell, look at George Lucas talking about Red Tails. They had trouble getting that project off the ground because Hollywood really didn't want to fund a black-focused movie that wasn't a comedy.
You misunderstand. I know that Will Smith is an exception to the "most leading males are white" idea. I'm talking about those who feel he is an exception when he is cited as a
black leading male. Instead of saying, "Will Smith is a good example, but he's just one," there's too often this sense that, "Will Smith doesn't count," for some reason. (Usually some variation of him being the "wrong kind of black.")
Did you learn not to lead or distort discussions? Because that seems to be an issue here.
Since you provided no support for this statement, we'll just assume you typed it accidentally somehow. Now, on to the point you've made:
This has been the state of Hollywood for like, 3-4 decades. It's not a "good start" scenario. It's a stagnant one. Will Smith has kind of been the "token" in Hollywood for over a decade now. That alone should be telling. In 16 years of Smith as an actor (post Fresh Prince), what has really changed?
Samuel L. Jackson. Cuba Gooding, Jr. Antonio Banderas. Denzel Washington. Zoe Saldana. Jackie Chan. Jet Li. We've made just a hair more progress than you seem to be indicating. Again, I'm not saying, "Look! We're there!" I'm saying that when we don't at least recognize the progress being made, we appear impossible to please... and that leads folks to stop trying at all.
I hope you're not teaching your students that kind of false equivalence. At least, I'm assuming this is related to the topic at hand, despite the fact that neither Hollywood or the game industry are particularly doing anything particularly right.
False equivalence?
The attitude you've expressed is
exactly the problem I'm talking about: If you're going to fuss and fume that they've done
nothing right, they're not going to bother playing your little game.
The "false equivalence" here is that you clearly equate "not doing enough" with "doing nothing at all." I agree that we haven't done enough. But nothing at all? It's untrue, and it's a counterproductive line of discussion.
And just like this teacher-student dynamic, it's easy for both sides to wait for the other to make the first move.
False Equivalence count: 2.
"You keep using that word; I don't think it means what you think it means."
Unless you're talking about my teacher-student comparison, in which case you're failing to understand how the market works. We, the consumer, "teach" (through our spending habits) producers what to produce. If we teach them that we won't buy minority-focused products, they learn that (as they already have).
And if we teach them that small steps in the right direction are not enough, they're not going to risk a huge leap (in light of what we've already taught them about our preferences).
If you want another analogy, consider training an animal. How do you think a trainer teaches a parrot to spin around, hop twice, and put a coin in a cup? Does he just berate the parrot until it does all of those things? No. He goes through a process called "shaping," in which he rewards the parrot for each little step the parrot makes in the right direction. Each time, he moves the reward back a bit, waiting for the next "step" to occur, and then immediately rewarding it. Eventually, the bird learns a complex behavior despite an incredible difference in intelligence and language.
We have no unified message, to boot. Many people don't give a damn about diversity in games or movies or anything else. Many others will defend this practice, either because it's what they want or just because they don't like what they see as accusations of racism. Even if they are not accusations of racism.
Yeah, I already said that. And those people can't be reasoned with, so there's no point even letting them pretend they have a vote. Instead of standing and screaming at the wall, we should be looking for a door.
One of the big problems as a gaming community is that even when we do have specific affirmative requests (and they've appeared on here), people get hostile at the notion that things are anything but perfect in terms of games and women/minorities. You cannot mention or even allude to, unintentionally, racism/sexism without screaming fanatics.
The world is full of jerks. The internet is the last place they can play freely.
But again, I have yet to see
truly specific requests. People asking to see "more representation" for a particular group are making a few mistakes:
1. They assume every member of the group shares a common concept of the group itself.
2. They assume people in that group are currently in positions to make these products, or
3. They assume people outside that group automatically know how to handle the portrayal of that group in a way that pleases its members (see #1).
