Too much diversity.

[Mutant1988]

As a brown person, I've never had any complaints with playing as a white character, or the opposite sex for that matter, because I approach the game with the understanding that I am not the subject of the story.

The question is: Are you fine with you never being similar to the subject of the stories you take part in?

Similar how? Physically, yes, I'm fine with that. Similarity of mind is the only thing that really matters to me, and if the writing is good enough, I don't even really need that. Bottom line for me is that I want the game to be good; I don't really care about anything else.
[br/]
Personally, I would rather that activism not be an aspect of the hobby that I've invested over a decade into. In my experience, creating a narrative around a set of ideals, rather than letting it go in whatever direction its foundation and logic would imply that it should go in, lessens its quality. This would become an issue when creating a game with diversity as a core moral, because, should the plot touch on that subject, they'll be restricted to only presenting the side of the issue that the game is designed to support. Thats not just an issue with diversity either, any moral, when it becomes too sacred for the creators to criticize, will lessen the quality of the narrative. This sort of thing results in shallow characterizations, as the writer only tests the character with scenarios that support his cause, rather than thoroughly testing them with many varying scenarios so that the audience can see what they're made of. Alternatively, I've seen bias present in how the character responds, regardless of scenario, making them seem unresponsive and unintelligent.

So you want narratives that are completely non-committal to any sort of stance whatsoever? I'm sorry, but those don't exist.

Because every character has motivations - ie, ideals they strive towards. And every narrative has a moral to convey. If you have conflict, then you have morals, because one side is right and one is wrong. Or rather, one side has relate-able motivations and the other does not.

Or both are wrong and the game is an exploration of immorality, or both are right and it's an exploration of differing morality. But a moral stance is always present, except in the most basic kinds of games.

And I do believe the general idea is to have games with diversity that isn't explicitly about diversity.

And the medium - All mediusm - Have had activism since their inception. With video games, it has ranged from developers wanting to be recognized for the work they do, modern gamers wanting to cast off the stigma of video games being for kids and all the campaigns and attempts to censor and ban video games.

 

[loa]

Not being able to immerse yourself into a story because the protagonist doesn't reflect you seems like a pretty flimsy argument at best and thinly veiled bigotry at worst, given the context of "ohnoes, I am teh blacks now!".
I for once was perfectly fine playing as spyro, amaterasu, lara croft, bayonetta, marcus fenix, master chief, and random zombie dude with a halberd and I would give an equal amount of fucks if the main character was black but I can't think of any black game protagonists off the top of my head right now if we presume cynder the dragon doesn't count.

 

[Worgen]

I never understood the "can't get immersed because of MC's X": you play a vampire, riding unicorns in a fantasy land, wait, that vampire is WHITE?! IMMERSION GONE!

In the end it falls apart because it's a fucking video game with zombies and crafting, not some deep game that actually expands on it. Not to mention that a company doing a huge publicity stunt and then lamenting how they did it from the kindness of their hearts rather than boost awareness doesn't sound very truthful.

So... then you agree that we need more diversity? Because your point about "I never understood the "can't get immersed because of MC's X": you play a vampire, riding unicorns in a fantasy land, wait, that vampire is WHITE?! IMMERSION GONE!" means that having something other then a white guy as a main character is good.

Or am I missing your point?

If I understood correctly you're missing my sarcasm, the vast majority of games are fantastical in one way or another so it seems to me that if you can relate to a character despite him living jn a completely different world but consider that character not having the same sex/race what breaks your immersion (not for example, giant worms) then it's extremely silly.

Also, I'll add the classic "if you want games with an X lead (X being a minority), than play a game from a country where X is the majority", why should american/european studios not go for most of the people in their countries?

Personally I don't get needing to look like a character to be able to be immersed, as I said earlier, I play what is as different as possible from myself irl.

The thing is that idea doesn't really work, if it did then we would have a lot more female and black leads. Keep in mind the population of the US is roughly 50% female and 15% black. Yet we see an overwhelming amount of game characters just being some variation of white dude.

 

[Fallow]

The argument that it doesn't matter what race, sexuality or gender a character has doesn't matter falls apart the moment you insist on it never being changed.

Good thing you are the only one making this argument then.

Vehemently opposing any attempts at improving diversity or even bringing up the issue of the lack of diversity being met with hostility is objecting to change - ie insisting that nothing is changed and that nothing is challenged.

Or are you saying that these people are fine with change, as long as no one actively says they want to change things? Because it seems like the moment that someone express an intent, their motives are questioned, their reasons derided, their attempts dismissed.

Oh goody - Please do explain the actual difference between those two things, in regards to representation in media.

Variety refers to frequency and options.
*If you create 100 male characters with skin colour ranging from pitch black to stark white and random body types, that is variety. Likewise, pointing out that you don't want all games to be homogeneous is a request for variety. Compare C&C with Starcraft, you will find them varied, i.e. not the same.

Diversity has multiple "private" definitions as it relates to media

Stop, stop! Didn't take you long to get it wrong.

You confuse diversity and inclusivity. Diversity is synonymous with variety.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diverse

If you interpret it any other way, then you're misunderstanding what the word actually means. If you have a human character, but only represent one kind of human character, that's neither varied nor diverse. Because those two things are synonymous.

You can say that having an alien protagonist is varied, but that's moving the goal posts. This is specifically about how humans are represented and how there is a lack in variety.

Or rather, the issue is that any attempt at improving variety/diversity is attacked.

Inclusivity on the other hand is putting into a game characters that anyone conceivably playing the game can identify with. Which is usually just not a realistic goal.

Again, norms and fear of change are to blame more so than any racist/homophobic/xenophobic sentiments. People have gotten so used to having their white male blank slate to project onto that they can't even imagine having the exact same thing, in the exact same game, with the exact same personality - Except female, black, asian, latino, native american, aborginial, martian etc.

warning! warning!
Saying norms and fear of change activates my ideology guard 2000(patent pending). As a result I now have to ask you to back up this sweeping statement with some factual data.

Read the article I linked about children's books and the issues those face in getting published and marketed. The publishers have a bias because they have a pre-conceived norm and because the majority of books published adhere to that norm then the people reading also end up considering it a norm and the default.

That it starts at an early age with children's books only aggravate the issue at a later age.

The issue is cyclical and won't change itself. Which is why it's so obnoxious to see people deride any active attempt at changing things or doing something different.

If it really, genuinely doesn't matter - Then why does the majority of characters fall into so few archetypes in regards to personality, race, sexuality and culture?

Not going to bother much with this, but I'll give it a quick rundown.

vehemently opposing.... hostility... strawman this... strawman that.... being dismissed...

seriously? No one is persecuting you. Noone is being hostile. Your attempts being dismissed is only because you make outrageous claims and strawman arguments.

Oh goody - Please do explain the actual difference between those two things, in regards to representation in media.

Stop, stop! Didn't take you long to get it wrong.

You confuse diversity and inclusivity. Diversity is synonymous with variety.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diverse

If you interpret it any other way, then you're misunderstanding what the word actually means. If you have a human character, but only represent one kind of human character, that's neither varied nor diverse. Because those two things are synonymous.

'Nough said.

Read editorial and you will see ...

Read it. Not a single one of your claims can be backed up by that editorial (and not a single attempt is made either, it's not even on the topic you use it for). Not to mention that it's an editorial, i.e. opinion piece. There's not a single word in there dedicated to explaining why children must be taught to appreciate diversity via childrens books.

 

[loa]

Personally I don't get needing to look like a character to be able to be immersed, as I said earlier, I play what is as different as possible from myself irl.

The thing is that idea doesn't really work, if it did then we would have a lot more female and black leads. Keep in mind the population of the US is roughly 50% female and 15% black. Yet we see an overwhelming amount of game characters just being some variation of white dude.

I don't think this is about what "works", if you look at portfolios of concept artists, you will most likely be able to tell their ethnicity by the amount of non-caucasian characters they display.
White ones tend to fall into the trap of making pretty much everyone white.

 

[djdomain]

The difference between real diversity and 'diversity' pushed by the PC pretentious is their version is similar to tokenism, only they need to bang on about ethnicity/sexuality in every character as though having every possible spectrum represented makes you more enlightened and smarter. True equality means nobody gives a damn about these, the only factors for judgement are competence and attitude, and there is no combination of race/gender that has a monopoly on either positive or negative attributes to these.

 

[Totenkreuz]

Didn't watch the video, but I would just like to say that a game can be good. But it can be "better" if there are more options. And, ofcourse I mean more options as in more things that fit the theme etc, not just more of something/anything.

I might have fun with a game, but I also might have more fun with a game with more options. But I mostly take this on a game to game basis so I can't just say "this is better.". In the end, I wouldn't use a dot or limit as a good thing. For me, I just feel like there never is enough of a good thing. I can't remember such a situation, but I'm not 100% sure as I'm writing this so take it as you will.

Cheers.

EDIT: changed ONE letter. And then left this whole row of letters from that little thing, don't know if this is some sort of likness to the topic, probably not, but hey, I'm still finding it amusing to write so.

 

[Dragonbums]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that it's bad that these people are worried about diversity. Heavens no! I'm wondering whether or not it's representative of the actual problem. Their opinions are valid, but what is their value?

I mean, every problem has as much value as the people behind it want to ascribe. It's hard to really make this a majority problem, when minorities complaining about such things are already a minority demographic to begin with. I mean, the games industry certainly doesn't lose out on much of anything if they heighten the percentage of minorities, women, and LGBTQ+. Unless of course your one of the people that INSIST these things don't matter and proceed to get oddly mad when Bioware or some other company add so much as two trans people in their videogames...you know, because it doesn't matter.

Maybe for every woman who has a problem with lack of female characters, there's a hundred who just don't care.

There will always be people of a minority group who don't care, and that's honestly their perogative. Hell we even have someone in this thread who is a black male and he stated he couldn't give two shits. I'm not calling him out. That's entirely his prerogative and there is nothing wrong with that.
Similarity you will have many women who don't care about women representation in games. For what reason we also don't know. Maybe they see games as such a benign little time waster that they can waste their energy on better things in regards to women representation. For instance I care about women being represented in videogames, but I'm not really going to care all that much about the lack of women in say- the dentistry industry. The same can apply vice versa.

In general this entire discussion can be described as that. Most people who play videogames legitimately don't give a shit about this discussion in the slightest. Whether it's for or against diversity. It takes a certain amount of investment in videogames to sign up to gaming centric forums to talk about videogames.
And if your someone who takes gaming seriously and see it something so much more than a timewaster hobby, then I personally believe that naturally you would be concerned when certain demographics, viewpoints, and sexualities are grossly under represented if at all because it deprives the medium as a whole of a breath of fresh air.

Or maybe it's the other way around. Are we talking about vocal minorities here, or does a large group of people actually feel left out by a lack of diversity? I just don't know, but I would like to know.

I mean, let's be quite honest here, if I really felt all that left out due to videogames poorly representing black female characters I certainly wouldn't be here talking about games, because videogames from the get-go never showed any appeal to me. When your someone like me, you just gotta learn to basically tune it to the background and deal with it. So naturally being told by others who are against this whole diversity thing to "deal with it" are pointless because since the moment I've picked up a controller at 6 years old I have been essentially chocking it down. It's only a problem now, because I have the means to express my dissatisfaction and it can actually gain traction as opposed to just shouting down into the void.

It makes my day just a little more brighter when I find out a popular AAA game allows me to make my own character. Because I get the once in a blue moon leisure to make someone who looks like me- the heroine of the story. It makes me super happy, when a AAA dev chooses, of their own will to make a main lead POC, a women, or someone who is on the LGBTQ+ spectrum because it shows that our representation really is worth that.
I wish I could have the luxury of stuff like this being so common as to not even matter anymore. Like most white gamers are with white, gruff dude with a stubble. So comfortable they are with the status quo that even the slightest change is a cause for alarm to beat down those controlling "Social Justice Googlers".

I mean, maybe we ARE a vocal minority, and it's impossible for us to not be because we are a minority demographic to begin with. But we are now a big enough minority that companies are seeing us a worthy asset to reign in. A demographic of 30% can still rake in another solid hundreds of thousands to a good million dollars of profit for a company. Why do you think EA is so willing to let Bioware add all the bisexuals, homosexual, and trans characters as they want? They practically have an uncompeted market for this minority demographic. Is it any wonder that they would even use that as marketing material? You get on the good side of a pro LGBTQ+ group, and they can go a long way of giving you good exposure for being inclusive of various undermined groups. And those that appreciate being included will go a long way of recommending it to others who may of been uninterested in the first place.

 

[TallanKhan]

For me it is very dependant on the game, if a game has a protagonist who is a character in their own right then it doesn't really bother me what their race or gender is, I'm no less comfortable playing Tomb Raider than Uncharted.

That said, if the game is an RPG with a character creator, or otherwise expects me to create or project a personality onto a protagonist, that is a different kettle of fish. In that situation I want to control who my character is, not necessarily because I want to play as "me" but I do want to be able to create a character as I imagined them.

 

[Dragonbums]

They already can be!

All you need to do is find (or create) a game on Kickstarter with this aim and fund it! Tadaa!

Because everybody has the skills, money, time, and dedication to kickstart a videogame right?...

Come on. Take this seriously. Don't basically make a shut down argument on me.

By that logic I can dismiss all those who didn't like Splatoon having no voice chat to just shut up and make a Kickstarter campaign to make another game about shooter squids WITH voice chat.

Or if you don't like how broken AssCreed Unity was, instead of complaining about it you should make a KS campaign to make a game just like AssCreed but not broken.

There are a bazillion reasons why this notion is a blatant fallacy, and it seems that you've been on discussions like this long enough to see this line of thinking trounced.

 

[Fallow]

Humans are extremely quick to both categorize an "other" and then dehumanize them. Sometimes, slightly. Sometimes, severely. But, it's a well documented fact. From just people who root for a different sports team than you, to people who have a darker skin tone than you. Fill in the blanks with whatever else. I trust that you have enough knowledge of, well, all of human history to just accept this and the consequences that can result.

Seems like a logical assessment. I will however say that you cannot draw consequences from this as the only causal factor as there are many many reasons that play into such things.

If someone is say, geographically isolated from people that aren't "them" so to speak, e.g. you live in a predominantly WASP, well-off, neighborhood, then media grants you access to people that aren't you. Thus people are granted more chances to empathize with the "other" and are less prone to dehumanize them. Now, likely, the best way to empathize is with face-to-face real people. But, ya know. Take it where you can get it. Humans can be laughably simple. And even challenging small, dumb opinions here and there, like black people are all criminals or women are all fragile, emotional wrecks, by giving you a way to put yourself in the shoes of that "other" as a more positive role model, leads to more harmonious relations all around. It also helps if you catch people young, before dumb opinions get hard coded in and seeing anything to the contrary just makes their brain implode and therefore less likely to change their opinions even evidence, which is also a documented thing. Stupid humans. How have they survived this long...?

This plays into a lot of different things. First, that we cannot understand (or subconsciously perceive) reality and fiction as distinctly different. The answer to this question (there are many many many studies on this) is 'YES', humans clearly perceive a difference between reality and fiction. Thus, this empathising with human beings does not align with empathising in a game. It also goes into terrible Thompson territory...
Second, this requires that games cause effects in our real-life behaviour. This ties in with Thompson (GTA causes violence etc), another person I don't want to mention (GTA causes sexism etc), and a very recent study (one amongst several) that concludes games do not cause violence/sexism (and probably not similar things either[footnote]speculation again[/footnote]). In short, games do not affect those positive outcomes you describe (Though I wonder how society would look today if media did have such impact).

Reading this, it seems as if you have great intentions, but the data doesn't support the conclusion. If you have other data I would like to see it though, as I am genuinely curious as to the arguments (the logic in particular) behind the benefits of video game diversity.

And that's why many people kind of facepalm at the notion of basically no one except gritty, white men allowed to be the heroes all the time. Because if that's all you ever see, and you have no data that states otherwise, your brain will take to that notion and hold onto it as how the world works. Maybe it's okay if you yourself are a gritty, white male. But, it's not so good for your self-esteem if you're not that. Hell, I'd say that even Japan needs a good slap to the face with the diversity stick.

So, diversity and more visibility can help in ways that are not just personal preference. One single game doesn't have to have all of the colors of the wind. But, it'd be nice to be able to take a sample size of 100 or so and not be forced to cringe.

This is the same as above, though also I will try to find a long-twitter thing by Adrian Chmielarz that answers this exact question very well.

 

[Ninjafire72]

The reason why so many protagonists are white males is simple, when you think about it: because the people making the games are also white males. If a writer wants to create a new main character to write about, they're going to utilise their own knowledge (i.e what's familiar / relatable to them) to do so. Of course we're going to end up with another Marcus Fenix if most designers and writers are from the 80s / 90s, where the steroid-jacked, one-liner-sputing action heroes of yesteryear like Arnie and were the norm in TV and cinema.

In fact, I can't think of a single prominent figure in the Games Industry who is a minority. People like Shinji Mikami and Suda51 do come to mind, but they've got their own influences with the weird Japanese filter on everything they touch.





Now do we really NEED diversity? Not really. it would be nice if it was there, but it's not a necessity. Lack of diversity is honestly a relatively minor barrier, and most people would have no trouble just ignoring the race / gender of their avatar and just engaging in that avatar's story.

That being said, I do agree with the video saying it's an interesting design choice; forcing a player to be black despite their actual race may very well open their eyes to the difference in treatment that black people receive. I don't think Rust's case is a 'look at us we're so inclusive and diverse!' thing, it's more of a social experiment to try and increase awareness / empathy towards others.

 

[OldNewNewOld]

I didn't watch the video yet, so can't comment about it. I'm leaving the post to "bookmark" the thread since I have to go on an exam right now.
But from the looks of OP's post, I don't see how people can not get into a game just because the protagonist isn't like them. I've played as an a fat plumber with an Italian accent, a blond cute elf that people keep calling the wrong name, a dog (is that what Crash is?), a dragon, a rat, a freaking glove (that's right, just a freaking glove, not even a living thing!) and many more things that aren't even human, especially not white males. I'm gay and I don't have absolutely any problems with playing a straight male character, or a female character.

I don't understand, do people really need to self-insert into a character to "get into the game"?

 

[Ishigami]

If you don't feel like watching it, I'll just mention one thing it says. In a certain game your race is randomly selected, some players had complaints about not being able to get into the game because they couldn't make a character who looked like them. The extra credits people then make the point that, what about all those gamers who aren't white and male, they might be having the same issues with games.

Anyway, thoughts?

I haven't watched the video since I don't want to support Extra Credits thru my views anymore so I'm now assuming you just told me the whole story.

My first thought: How does complaining not being able to choose your race automatically lead to the conclusion you're a white male?
I mean it could be an Afro-American man complaining he has to play as a Chinese girl for all I know.
In short: Does not compute.

Second thought: Only a moron would argue that worsening the situation for one group of people is equal to improving the situation for another group of people.
We should strive to improve the situation for people who are off worse and not drag everyone down.

Third thought: If you have all kinds of options in your game why not let players choose what they want? That way everyone wins.

 

[Gizen]

Not going to bother much with this, but I'll give it a quick rundown.

vehemently opposing.... hostility... strawman this... strawman that.... being dismissed...

seriously? No one is persecuting you. Noone is being hostile. Your attempts being dismissed is only because you make outrageous claims and strawman arguments.

Nobody is being hostile HERE, but people aren't just talking about here and this group of people on this message board right now. There are plenty of people who are hostile about this. You're also going about proving his statements aren't strawmen at all. You've said you're all for variety, and yet you're also demanding a reason why it's needed. When one is provided, you say 'oh, well that's just opinion. You don't need it, you want it'. Which is a dismissive attitude when referring to an industry that exists only as a series of wants and desires. You are literally just using semantics to degrade an argument. At the end of the day though, nothing related to video games qualifies as a need, it's all just wants, in which case, wanting it to be different is as valid a justification as one ever needs for demanding change.

 

[Worgen]

Personally I don't get needing to look like a character to be able to be immersed, as I said earlier, I play what is as different as possible from myself irl.

The thing is that idea doesn't really work, if it did then we would have a lot more female and black leads. Keep in mind the population of the US is roughly 50% female and 15% black. Yet we see an overwhelming amount of game characters just being some variation of white dude.

I don't think this is about what "works", if you look at portfolios of concept artists, you will most likely be able to tell their ethnicity by the amount of non-caucasian characters they display.
White ones tend to fall into the trap of making pretty much everyone white.

Perhaps, but you are forgetting that while most of them might be white, most of what they draw will also be women.

 

[Mutant1988]

seriously? No one is persecuting you. Noone is being hostile. Your attempts being dismissed is only because you make outrageous claims and strawman arguments.

You insist on those wanting diversity proving that it's warranted to have it (While you make an arbitrary distinction between diversity and variety) and when people express a wish to have it, you dismiss it as invalid because it's just "opinion".

Read it. Not a single one of your claims can be backed up by that editorial (and not a single attempt is made either, it's not even on the topic you use it for). Not to mention that it's an editorial, i.e. opinion piece. There's not a single word in there dedicated to explaining why children must be taught to appreciate diversity via childrens books.

It points out the issue of having a large part of the actual audience not represented in the media they engage with and how that skewers perceptions and expectations. Or rather, it points out how any attempt at challenging the norm, by wanting to put someone relate-able to a different (And sizeable) segment of the audience, is shut down. Why? Because it's not relate-able. So obviously someone thinks it matters, even if it's just the people deciding what books, movies and games are published.

One of the cited articles brings up the issues with lacking representation in media. I really wish I could find the original article I read on the subject (And another article about how the plots of nearly all movies showing black men and white women in relationships are about overcoming racism), but it's long gone from my search history.

As for the "vehement hostile opposition?" That's not referring to you. You're just being arrogantly dismissive, not hostile.

How about you provide me with a study that proves that there is a positive benefit to not change anything? Because as it is, you only seem opposed to change for the sake of it.

Do you believe diversity will hurt gaming? If so, how?

 

[Fallow]

They already can be!

All you need to do is find (or create) a game on Kickstarter with this aim and fund it! Tadaa!

Because everybody has the skills, money, time, and dedication to kickstart a videogame right?...

Come on. Take this seriously. Don't basically make a shut down argument on me.

By that logic I can dismiss all those who didn't like Splatoon having no voice chat to just shut up and make a Kickstarter campaign to make another game about shooter squids WITH voice chat.

Or if you don't like how broken AssCreed Unity was, instead of complaining about it you should make a KS campaign to make a game just like AssCreed but not broken.

There are a bazillion reasons why this notion is a blatant fallacy, and it seems that you've been on discussions like this long enough to see this line of thinking trounced.

Meh, maybe that was uncalled for. I apologise. I do get overly irate when I see anyone playing victim, and that is how I read the post I was replying to.

I didn't like how buggy AssCreed 1 was, and so I stopped playing that series.
I think Splatoon was that game where you can shadowstep in the colour you splurge everywhere, right? That seemed fun. Is it out on PC now?

Anyhoo, if I get a second chance on the ball, you do have economic power if nothing else, and there is now[footnote]speculaaaaaaating[/footnote] greater pressure than ever to represent X in gaming.
This is a golden opportunity to get together and fund games that aim specifically at representing X.

Big bidness is probably not going to jump on an unproven boat, so funding a few successful indies on the topic might be the ticket to getting mainstream support (by showing that it's a financially viable audience or at least doesn't negatively impact the current audience).
The more positive the message, the easier it will be to get across.

This isn't intended as a put up or shut up, but rather "here's an opportunity". It is unlikely you will find a better time to show viability, since the whole diversity train will eventually drift off when the next big thing catches on (and right now you have massive media support).

 

[Fallow]

Not going to bother much with this, but I'll give it a quick rundown.

vehemently opposing.... hostility... strawman this... strawman that.... being dismissed...

seriously? No one is persecuting you. Noone is being hostile. Your attempts being dismissed is only because you make outrageous claims and strawman arguments.

Nobody is being hostile HERE, but people aren't just talking about here and this group of people on this message board right now. There are plenty of people who are hostile about this. You're also going about proving his statements aren't strawmen at all. You've said you're all for variety, and yet you're also demanding a reason why it's needed.

Not variety, diversity. I want to know what the support is for diversity being needed in videogames, since that was taken as obvious. If someone wants diversity, that is one thing (reflecting personal desire). When someone claims diversity is needed (or necessary, or beneficial) that is not a personal preference. If you feel this is pure semantics, I think we should agree to disagree.

 

[Beliyal]

Why exactly is diversity good or necessary? I keep seeing posts about needing more diversity in games, but I've never seen any arguments for why we need more diversity in games (I've heard opinions, but not arguments).

Is it just "common sense", like "games causes sexism"?

Why is it "bad" with a game of all black/white/yellow people? Why must all colors (not to mention genders, disabilities, and body sizes) be included? What is the benefit?

Let me start by saying that I have no problems immersing myself in playing characters who don't look like me. I got used to it a long time ago, being a woman (and short. And not conventionally attractive. And not having a body of a model).

However, at one point I start feeling the saturation of the same-looking characters, which gets me thinking "Why use the look that's been featured in dozens of other games in a similar way and not use something else?" To ask you in the same manner: what is the benefit of NOT having diversity?

The benefit, to me, would be a fair representation due to the fact that there are many different people playing video games. Of course, personal preferences are also the reason. Let's take women as an example. The percentage of women in the year 2012 in the USA was 50.8% [http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL.FE.ZS/countries?display=default]. In the same year, according to one study [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_representation_in_video_games#Prevalence], the percentage of games with a female-only protagonist was 4%. That's weird. You might say that's because the percentage of women playing games is also very low, but I don't think it's as low as 4% and there's the interesting fact that many men actively choose to play as women whenever they can. So, the market is certainly there. But this discrepancy still exists. It's kinda unfair, don't you think? And not only that, it's just plain strange.

Now, I don't think that every game ever should include all the diversity. That's just stupid. There will always be homogeneous games for whatever reasons (for example, you won't put women or disabled people in an ancient Roman legion, though you can safely include non-white people). The issue is that when they are homogeneous, it's always in the same way. Perhaps I'm wrong, but there's infinitely more video games where the cast is entirely or majorly white-only (and also male) and not that many video games where the cast is entirely or majorly female or black or yellow or LGBT. I'm sure there are some, but I believe we can agree in the assessment that they are a tiny minority.

In this day and age, to me, it's a given that video games are played by a huge variety of people, so it would be fair for that to be reflected in video game characters. And the more this goes on (not having diversity), the stranger it becomes. At this point, people are wondering if there's something more behind it. So what's really the issue here?