Why Straight White Guys Shouldn't Always Play Games As Themselves

[Single Shot]

First of all no, nobody in group 1 really dislikes games based on their protagonists minority status. That was the whole point I was trying to make. It's the people in group 2 that you have to convince. As for 'where are these games?' well the most recent examples would be something like remember me. It was a mediocre 3rd person adventure game that failed to like up to the same sales standards of other mediocre 3rd person adventure sims.

because it was medicore...not because its protagonist was female


[quote/]Compare that to well written games that appeal primarily to the first group and the protagonist doesn't matter as much so long as they're believable. Yes, there is a massive skew in there, but it's not because of racism or sexism. It's because, as I have already said, group 1 does note care about the protagonists minority status and groups 2 can be best catered for by a protagonist that reflect the bro-gamer demographic.

its because *other* charachters are seen as risks from a busness perspective....if they really didn't care all fine and dandy...excpet the way people freak out over it (eg: that srtawman argument I've seen a million times) it makes me wonder


[quote/]What do I stand to gain? I get to keep my hobby from becoming a cess-pit of crap games forced into existence so the large companies don't seem offensive to anyone. I get to avoid censorship (enforced externally or internally) in games companies.[/quote]
...c'mon....priorites?

except thats already happening for different reasons.....I mean we all the know the problems right now...particuallry rediculous development cost which scares publsihers away from anything remotly "different"...that "anything" includes different types of charachters alongside gameplay and specticle and all that

point is as far as games go it should be the least of ANYONE's worrys

[quote/]Actually, I'm published so fuck off with your 'you can't write' ad hominem there. Do you really think that forcing writers to change protagonist characters into minorities wouldn't effect their work quality? Forcing them to cater to marketing and gameplay demands already diminishes games story's more often than not so another demand would be even worse.[/quote]
then you should know no one would write that...


[quote/]But thanks for answering the final, and most important part. How would you cope with showing periods of history like those mentioned if games had to include minority characters? And where do you draw the line on what is and isn't a time period?[/quote]

uummm.....didn't you actually read what I said? this part:

[quote/]Now, if you have an actual argument instead of personal attacks and calling everything 'utter FANTASY' in capitals and bold letters please use that next time.[/quote]

let me explain it again

the commitee of the PC thourght police who a powerful force hell bent on forcing people to change things to confirm to a checklist?

they don't exist

they will never exist

because its rediculous

a fantasy....OR if you don't like that word..a Strawman....see what I mean?[/quote]

Yes, it was mediocre. Are you even readying what I write? would caps help you? you do seem to like using them. GOOD GAMES ARE GOOD GAMES REGARDLESS OF THEIR PROTAGONISTS MINORITY SATUS. MEDIOCRE GAMES CAN SCOOT BY BECAUSE THEY APPEAL TO BRO-GAMERS. GOOD GAMES THAT ALSO APPEAL TO BRO-GAMERS SELL BEST AND OTHER MINORITIES ARE TOO SMALL TO ATTRACT THE SECOND TYPE OF PLAYER WHO NEEDS TO IDENTIFY WITH THE PROTAGONIST PERSONALLY.

Does that help you?

Yes, and they are risks. As I said above mediocre games with protagonists that appeal to the straight white male crowd still do alright because of players who can't deal with different viewpoints. Mediocre games from minority viewpoints don't have a player base large enough to support their development.

Censorship shouldn't be a worry? Taking risks on games types that historically haven't done well right before an expected crash shouldn't be a worry? How about we strive for innovation to break the stale state of gaming and watch as minority writers who are only just getting into games in recent years work their way into companies to write games from their own point of view properly?

No, nobody should write that, but if you start forcing them to write characters they may not be totally familiar with or don't fully understand what you get is somewhere between a caricature and a stereotype. Let the writers write without standing over the backs the whole time and you get a far better outcome rather like telling Da Vinci to make the Mona Lisa black / Asian / mixed race for minorities would force him to paint from outside his own experience and produce something far different to the masterpiece we have today

I read your post, you never mentioned how you'd manage historical accuracy in themed or period games. And you can't expect censorship to end there because how do you define a themed or period setting in a virtual world that can take from multiple time periods at once, or by jumping between them?

 

[Vault101]

Yes, and they are risks. As I said above mediocre games with protagonists that appeal to the straight white male crowd still do alright because of players who can't deal with different viewpoints. Mediocre games from minority viewpoints don't have a player base large enough to support their development.

I think some medicore games don't do well because theyre medicre games, others like Titanfall/Watch dogs are helped by their hype and marketing

I don't think games fail because of the gender of their protagonists...Transistor did well because it was critically acclaimed

[wuote/]Censorship shouldn't be a worry? Taking risks on games types that historically haven't done well right before an expected crash shouldn't be a worry?[/quote]
again I'm willing to bet this is because they weren't promoted much/were medicore

[quote/]How about we strive for innovation to break the stale state of gaming and watch as minority writers who are only just getting into games in recent years work their way into companies to write games from their own point of view properly?[/quote]

yes innovation is lovley...and part of that would be boradening things a bit...no one is being forced to do anything, they'll do it when they want to do it...when they have the freedom should they so choose, people have aready praised games like saints row 2 for giving the option, and borderlands for being inclusive

[quote/]No, nobody should write that, but if you start forcing them to write characters they may not be totally familiar with or don't fully understand what you get is somewhere between a caricature and a stereotype. Let the writers write without standing over the backs the whole time and you get a far better outcome rather like telling Da Vinci to make the Mona Lisa black / Asian / mixed race for minorities would force him to paint from outside his own experience and produce something far different to the masterpiece we have today[/quote]
lets be honest for a second though...Watch_Dogs was not an inspried labour of love...Watch_Dogs was a paint by numbers videogame prtagost/story...you want to see something that was actually a labour of love? Bioshock Infinite...were it not for the brand name and its long development such a thing could never be made, you pitch something like that to a publsiher they won't like it

again your priorites are completly out of whack


[quote/]I read your post, you never mentioned how you'd manage historical accuracy in themed or period games.them?[/quote]
*siiiiiggghhhh*

ok for the third time

I don't need to answer that question, because that question was based on a strawman argument which did not resemble my own

its like asking [i/]"ok if you want to paint the entire world pink how will you manage sand and large bodies of water?"[/i] I don't want to paint the world pink.... ya get it?

 

[Single Shot]

Yes, and they are risks. As I said above mediocre games with protagonists that appeal to the straight white male crowd still do alright because of players who can't deal with different viewpoints. Mediocre games from minority viewpoints don't have a player base large enough to support their development.

I think some medicore games don't do well because theyre medicre games, others like Titanfall/Watch dogs are helped by their hype and marketing

I don't think games fail because of the gender of their protagonists...Transistor did well because it was critically acclaimed

[quote/] Censorship shouldn't be a worry? Taking risks on games types that historically haven't done well right before an expected crash shouldn't be a worry?

again I'm willing to bet this is because they weren't promoted much/were medicore

[quote/] How about we strive for innovation to break the stale state of gaming and watch as minority writers who are only just getting into games in recent years work their way into companies to write games from their own point of view properly?[/quote]

yes innovation is lovley...and part of that would be boradening things a bit...no one is being forced to do anything, they'll do it when they want to do it...when they have the freedom should they so choose, people have aready praised games like saints row 2 for giving the option, and borderlands for being inclusive

[quote/]No, nobody should write that, but if you start forcing them to write characters they may not be totally familiar with or don't fully understand what you get is somewhere between a caricature and a stereotype. Let the writers write without standing over the backs the whole time and you get a far better outcome rather like telling Da Vinci to make the Mona Lisa black / Asian / mixed race for minorities would force him to paint from outside his own experience and produce something far different to the masterpiece we have today[/quote]
lets be honest for a second though...Watch_Dogs was not an inspried labour of love...Watch_Dogs was a paint by numbers videogame prtagost/story...you want to see something that was actually a labour of love? Bioshock Infinite...were it not for the brand name and its long development such a thing could never be made, you pitch something like that to a publsiher they won't like it

again your priorites are completly out of whack


[quote/]I read your post, you never mentioned how you'd manage historical accuracy in themed or period games.them?[/quote]
*siiiiiggghhhh*

ok for the third time

I don't need to answer that question, because that question was based on a strawman argument which did not resemble my own

its like asking [i/]"ok if you want to paint the entire world pink how will you manage sand and large bodies of water?"[/i] I don't want to paint the world pink.... ya get it?
[/quote]

Transistor didn't do that well. It was an indie game with fairly low sales and a tiny cost allowing it to make a profit. Look at something like Dante's Inferno (a mediocre 3rd person action-adventure with a medium advertising presence) and compare it Remember me (a mediocre 3rd person action-adventure game with a medium advertising presence). Dante sold well and scored an average rating of 7.6 while Remember me scored 7.4 and failed. For the fourth time, this is only relevant to mediocre and bad games because I HAVE ALREADY SAID IT DOESN'T EFFECT WELL MADE GAMES AS MUCH.

Nobody is being forced to do anything, and you're unwilling to financially support games which attempt to make that leap, yet you expect large game publishers putting millions of dollars into a single project to see your hesitancy to support smaller games as "Well they're just waiting for a AAA game first". That's not how the world works. If you want that change you are going to have to suffer through a few mediocre games to show those games can be supported by the market.

Yeah, Watch_Doge was a paint by numbers endeavour. Doesn't that just reinforce that forcing them to make such a change would be done in the most lazy way possible? Bioshock, I agree wouldn't have been made on that time scale and budget if it's predecessor wasn't a success, much like games with minority protagonists sometimes need to see lower skill/budget/time games succeed before the AAA version is green lighted.

Okay, I see your point. I was assuming you were expecting self-censorship from the game developers to cater to your demands while in reality you were making demands with no idea or plan to actually achieve them. You want change, but you don't want to be a part of that change. As I said in post #2, bitching on the internet is the least effective way of getting this change. Go out there and spread the word when games do take a chance. Go and but games that make the leap. If companies see those games as profitable they're capitalist ventures and will jump right in and try to claim some of the profit-pie no matter how inherently sexist/racist ect you thing they are.

 

[Vault101]

Transistor didn't do that well. It was an indie game with fairly low sales and a tiny cost allowing it to make a profit.

well I assume it would have done well enough for an indie game given that it had the hype of bastion attached to it and was a critical darling

[quote/]
Nobody is being forced to do anything, and you're unwilling to financially support games which attempt to make that leap, yet you expect large game publishers putting millions of dollars into a single project to see your hesitancy to support smaller games as "Well they're just waiting for a AAA game first". That's not how the world works. If you want that change you are going to have to suffer through a few mediocre games to show those games can be supported by the market.[/quote]
when have I ever indicated THAT? I buy the games I think I will enjoy based on many factors...

[quote/]Yeah, Watch_Doge was a paint by numbers endeavour. Doesn't that just reinforce that forcing them to make such a change would be done in the most lazy way possible? Bioshock, I agree wouldn't have been made on that time scale and budget if it's predecessor wasn't a success, much like games with minority protagonists sometimes need to see lower skill/budget/time games succeed before the AAA version is green lighted.[/quote]
and when exactly is it thr "right" time for it too happen? why just different protagonists? why not another genmre of game or gameplay? y I don't see any reason why we couldn't have saaay....a female lead Assasins creed game...thats almost as safe as you're gonna get (yes liberation was a thing, and while people generally liked it it was relegated to a handheld)

[quote/]Okay, I see your point. I was assuming you were expecting self-censorship from the game developers to cater to your demands while in reality you were making demands with no idea or plan to actually achieve them.[/quote]
oh for fucks sake....

[quote/]You want change, but you don't want to be a part of that change. As I said in post #2, bitching on the internet is the least effective way of getting this change. Go out there and spread the word when games do take a chance. Go and but games that make the leap. If companies see those games as profitable they're capitalist ventures and will jump right in and try to claim some of the profit-pie no matter how inherently sexist/racist ect you thing they are.[/quote]
yeah yeah how many times have I heard this? you wouldn't be telling me that were it anything else...like...you know "innovation" or whatever

your saying "bitching on the internet" is pointless and ineffectual yet you're scared of the strawman feminist comitee

that said bitching on the internet actually isn't a bad idea....it got the ending to ME3 changed, if I recall it got us female avatars for (I think) colonial marines (though in retrospect..yeah) it gave Ubisoft bad PR for saying stupid things, the PC police won't stay silent

 

[Auron225]

I only have 1 save-file in Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas, but in both games I played as black females. Note: I'm pretty fly for a white guy.

I mean, it made little difference (especially in Skyrim). Fallout had a handful of acknowledgements; the Black Widow perk, the way staff at The Tops casino addressed me, the attitudes of the Legion, but still not a whole lot. It was mostly for option sake - I would certainly like to see more varied protagonists.

 

[Single Shot]

Transistor didn't do that well. It was an indie game with fairly low sales and a tiny cost allowing it to make a profit.

well I assume it would have done well enough for an indie game given that it had the hype of bastion attached to it and was a critical darling

[quote/]
Nobody is being forced to do anything, and you're unwilling to financially support games which attempt to make that leap, yet you expect large game publishers putting millions of dollars into a single project to see your hesitancy to support smaller games as "Well they're just waiting for a AAA game first". That's not how the world works. If you want that change you are going to have to suffer through a few mediocre games to show those games can be supported by the market.

when have I ever indicated THAT? I buy the games I think I will enjoy based on many factors...

[quote/]Yeah, Watch_Doge was a paint by numbers endeavour. Doesn't that just reinforce that forcing them to make such a change would be done in the most lazy way possible? Bioshock, I agree wouldn't have been made on that time scale and budget if it's predecessor wasn't a success, much like games with minority protagonists sometimes need to see lower skill/budget/time games succeed before the AAA version is green lighted.[/quote]
and when exactly is it thr "right" time for it too happen? why just different protagonists? why not another genmre of game or gameplay? y I don't see any reason why we couldn't have saaay....a female lead Assasins creed game...thats almost as safe as you're gonna get (yes liberation was a thing, and while people generally liked it it was relegated to a handheld)

[quote/]Okay, I see your point. I was assuming you were expecting self-censorship from the game developers to cater to your demands while in reality you were making demands with no idea or plan to actually achieve them.[/quote]
oh for fucks sake....

[quote/]You want change, but you don't want to be a part of that change. As I said in post #2, bitching on the internet is the least effective way of getting this change. Go out there and spread the word when games do take a chance. Go and but games that make the leap. If companies see those games as profitable they're capitalist ventures and will jump right in and try to claim some of the profit-pie no matter how inherently sexist/racist ect you thing they are.[/quote]
yeah yeah how many times have I heard this? you wouldn't be telling me that were it anything else...like...you know "innovation" or whatever

your saying "bitching on the internet" is pointless and ineffectual yet you're scared of the strawman feminist comitee

that said bitching on the internet actually isn't a bad idea....it got the ending to ME3 changed, if I recall it got us female avatars for (I think) colonial marines (though in retrospect..yeah) it gave Ubisoft bad PR for saying stupid things, the PC police won't stay silent[/quote]

You might not have suggested anything, that's half of my problem, but I was explaining that given how capitalism works you need to provide companies incentive to change. If you don't they will keep doing what they do now. Come on, argue against capitalism with me.

A female led Ass creed would be a safe venture, but why would they take even that small risk when A) there is nothing to gain and B) There are literally millions at stake. You need to show these companies that the risk is worth investment and the places you'll get to show that are not AAA games but smaller indie developments which have slowly been making that point.

"Oh for fucks sake" is your answer even when asked specifically you don't actually have a plan to get this change that doesn't revolve around bitching on the internet.
Innovation is change. Innovation in games are constantly needed and strived towards by the majority of game producers because without innovation you're growing stale. Changing the protagonists gender or race is not innovation because the entertainment industry can continue for decades more attracting it's statistically largest demographics as it does now, through good writing that appeals to RPers and demographic similarity with their largest markets.

As I said, I'm not scared, and the fact your using that strawman is ironic given as how you keep strawmanning my arguments into a twisted form of "MALE STRAIGHT WHITE PROTAGONSITS ONLY!" when everything I've said was "you're going about chance the wrong way, change will happen when the companies see it as profitable because companies exist to make profit!". I also dislike censorship in all forms and most of this debate comes down to A) force them to write more X games or B) Hate them for putting Y in a game.

A new ending to ME3 was cheap and simple (and didn't really fix much). You can't really compare it to the full development cycle for a AAA game.
Colonial marines was crap, I could easily argue that was just a PR stunt. I could also argue that not having female characters was the first sign of trouble given the key and iconic roles of Ripley and Vasquez in the films.

 

[Archer666]

I never really gave a damn about what gender I play or color. If it's a fun game, great. If someone discriminates against me because of my character's whatever, I just shrug and move on. Then again, I'm not a straight, white guy so I can be allowed not to care.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

I only have 1 save-file in Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas, but in both games I played as black females. Note: I'm pretty fly for a white guy.

I mean, it made little difference (especially in Skyrim). Fallout had a handful of acknowledgements; the Black Widow perk, the way staff at The Tops casino addressed me, the attitudes of the Legion, but still not a whole lot. It was mostly for option sake - I would certainly like to see more varied protagonists.

To be fair, in both those games race doesn't exactly mean the same thing as it does in our world.
In Skyrim you're skin tone can be a sign of where you're from, but that's hardly concrete. The chief in Markarth even commented that people kept mistaking him for a local even though he was from a different place. As for Fallout, the only "racism" really left is for people who have been VERY mutated. Such as super mutants, or ghouls.

Rath mentioned in the article that his choice of race in Mass Effect changed the game just from his personal perspective. It wasn't noticed by the game, but it had meaning to him.

 

[RA92]

I usually enjoy your articles, Robert, but something feels wrong with this one. I'm not confident I can articulate what that wrongness is. Perhaps I feel that you are better able to internalize themes (imagined or real) and transplant them onto a medium where they do not exist than your average person, and you wrongly assumed everyone else can do as you do. For example, while playing The Walking Dead I never got the feeling that being black mattered. In fact, I felt that Lee could have been white and nothing about any of the dialogue would have been different. I expect your are more aware and concerned with social justice issues than I am, and that your background painted how you interpreted its subjective themes.

It didn't feel even a little off when Kenny assumed you could pick a lock because you were 'urban'?

 

[Crossborder]

How about you keep playing video games as a way to get yourself to treat other with respect, and I'll just keep having fun.

 

[90sgamer]

I usually enjoy your articles, Robert, but something feels wrong with this one. I'm not confident I can articulate what that wrongness is. Perhaps I feel that you are better able to internalize themes (imagined or real) and transplant them onto a medium where they do not exist than your average person, and you wrongly assumed everyone else can do as you do. For example, while playing The Walking Dead I never got the feeling that being black mattered. In fact, I felt that Lee could have been white and nothing about any of the dialogue would have been different. I expect your are more aware and concerned with social justice issues than I am, and that your background painted how you interpreted its subjective themes.

It didn't feel even a little off when Kenny assumed you could pick a lock because you were 'urban'?

No. I interpreted it as a joke put in by the writers. Judging by Lee's reaction, the game was self aware of the ridiculousness of the stereotype. Everyone knows black people bust open windows, not pick locks.

 

[Bombiz]

What am I?

A GDI Wolverine, apparently.

I'm glad that they're some people who still remember that series.

 

[RA92]

It's simply a matter of time before artciles such as this, which demonize and villify "straight white males" become common place. And I look forward to that day, as that will be the day when said people universally shun and ignore their accusers, who perpetually attempt to demonize them. No, a "straight white dude" playing a "straight white dude" IS NOT A FUCKING PROBLEM. And it never will be.

Good job victimizing yourself. Where does it say that straight white dudes playing straight white dues is a problem? All the article says is that playing as other minorities might bring in new perspectives, so the majority of gaming demography (straight white dudes) should sometimes play as characters of different demography.

This 'demonizing and vilifying' of straight white males sound like Fox News' 'War on Christmas'.

I usually enjoy your articles, Robert, but something feels wrong with this one. I'm not confident I can articulate what that wrongness is. Perhaps I feel that you are better able to internalize themes (imagined or real) and transplant them onto a medium where they do not exist than your average person, and you wrongly assumed everyone else can do as you do. For example, while playing The Walking Dead I never got the feeling that being black mattered. In fact, I felt that Lee could have been white and nothing about any of the dialogue would have been different. I expect your are more aware and concerned with social justice issues than I am, and that your background painted how you interpreted its subjective themes.

It didn't feel even a little off when Kenny assumed you could pick a lock because you were 'urban'?

No. I interpreted it as a joke put in by the writers. Judging by Lee's reaction, the game was self aware of the ridiculousness of the stereotype. Everyone knows black people bust open windows, not pick locks.

Then I think you missed the game's intent about Kenny's characterization. His comment was harmless and he himself isn't a bad person, but there was the underlying racism that came with him.

The game really didn't joke around during critical situations like that.

 

[90sgamer]

I usually enjoy your articles, Robert, but something feels wrong with this one. I'm not confident I can articulate what that wrongness is. Perhaps I feel that you are better able to internalize themes (imagined or real) and transplant them onto a medium where they do not exist than your average person, and you wrongly assumed everyone else can do as you do. For example, while playing The Walking Dead I never got the feeling that being black mattered. In fact, I felt that Lee could have been white and nothing about any of the dialogue would have been different. I expect your are more aware and concerned with social justice issues than I am, and that your background painted how you interpreted its subjective themes.

It didn't feel even a little off when Kenny assumed you could pick a lock because you were 'urban'?

No. I interpreted it as a joke put in by the writers. Judging by Lee's reaction, the game was self aware of the ridiculousness of the stereotype. Everyone knows black people bust open windows, not pick locks.

Then I think you missed the game's intent about Kenny's characterization. His comment was harmless and he himself isn't a bad person, but there was the underlying racism that came with him.

The game really didn't joke around during critical situations like that.

Maybe. I shrugged off your question so that I could make a funny. The real answer is "yes." Kenny's dialogue probably did imply racial stereotyping (not to be confused with racism). Would the dialogue have been the same if Lee was any other race? Maybe. Kenny did use the word urban, which means city dweller. Maybe he thinks people who live in populated cities are more likely be be criminals, because populated cities have more crime. But, I feel the racial connotation is more likely. Good point, either way.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Interesting article. From Robert's perspective, everyone who ISN'T a straight white male gets the greater benefit from video games as a while, because it allows them to explore diversity of protagonists unlike them. I'd have to agree with this.

I learned while playing Nathan Drake that I hate....white "wise" cracking guys?

Every Marvel movie ever made, then

 

[RA92]

I usually enjoy your articles, Robert, but something feels wrong with this one. I'm not confident I can articulate what that wrongness is. Perhaps I feel that you are better able to internalize themes (imagined or real) and transplant them onto a medium where they do not exist than your average person, and you wrongly assumed everyone else can do as you do. For example, while playing The Walking Dead I never got the feeling that being black mattered. In fact, I felt that Lee could have been white and nothing about any of the dialogue would have been different. I expect your are more aware and concerned with social justice issues than I am, and that your background painted how you interpreted its subjective themes.

It didn't feel even a little off when Kenny assumed you could pick a lock because you were 'urban'?

No. I interpreted it as a joke put in by the writers. Judging by Lee's reaction, the game was self aware of the ridiculousness of the stereotype. Everyone knows black people bust open windows, not pick locks.

Then I think you missed the game's intent about Kenny's characterization. His comment was harmless and he himself isn't a bad person, but there was the underlying racism that came with him.

The game really didn't joke around during critical situations like that.

Maybe. I shrugged off your question so that I could make a funny. The real answer is "yes." Kenny's dialogue probably did imply racial stereotyping (not to be confused with racism). Would the dialogue have been the same if Lee was any other race? Maybe. Kenny did use the word urban, which means city dweller. Maybe he thinks people who live in populated cities are more likely be be criminals, because populated cities have more crime. But, I feel the racial connotation is more likely. Good point, either way.

I think you are missing a bit of context here. 'Urban' African American culture [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_culture]. Kenny was explicitly referring to Lee's race.

Like I said, Kenny wasn't malicious, but I thought his remark was used to subtly highlight the racism in the Southern environment he came from, and how it affected his view of the protagonist.

 

[werewolfgold]

I usually just lurk on these forums, but I think I'll throw my hat into the ring slightly.

I actually did read everyone's posts, but/so I'm not going to try to reply to someone specifically. I'll just try to cover most of the bases with what I've been thinking.

Yes. Capitalist venture. Risks are out there. If companies will only have SWMs as protagonists in their games because they're afraid that it'll turn white people off of the game if it's not then...that's kind of unfortunate that these are the people that have to be catered to in the first place. It's kind of like they're screwing it up for everyone else who doesn't care and/or wants to see something different. What can we do? I'm not a huge fan of buying up a bunch of sucky games just because the lead is a minority of some type. I'm hoping that companies are actually engaging and seeing what people are saying about their games and would take some ideas that way. I, too, would be interested in an experiment to see if people would be turned off by a not SWM protagonist in their AAA games more often. Game sales see numbers fluctuate for any number of different reasons. I find it hard to believe that these companies would just go "it was because the MC wasn't white" and call it a day. I feel like enough people are saying that they don't care where the results would be interesting. I'd hope that good gameplay would outrank that uncomfortableness of the protag being different.

Speaking of seeing something different, isn't that idea of a not SWM protagonist, even if it's just cosmetic, something worth pursuing? Ideally, we'd want fleshed out characters bringing all these different experiences to the table. But, even in the absence of that, do we really want all of our protagonists to just look the same? How is that interesting? That collage of recent SWM protagonists floating around the internet comes to mind. I feel like it can't be all that great if there's nothing really differentiating your game's character from another game's else's character. How is your character supposed to be memorable? All this untapped potential, all these different ways that companies can branch out just to set themselves apart from the schlock of ham-fisted release after release, and they're not really using them. I'm thinking that companies should be realizing by this point that you can't just copy-paste Call of Duty and have instant success (hopefully consumers haven't degraded that far into sheeple). Since you can't guarantee success that way, your lead character might be a pretty good place to start. Like I said, it helps to have the inner workings there as well, definitely. But, just from looks, you have a good chance of people taking notice if you deviate from the norm at this point in time.

In regards to Remember Me, I do remember an article saying that 1. the publisher didn't want the woman in the first place (maybe obviously), and 2. because the devs were adamant that it HAD to be a woman, the marketing budget was cut in half basically due to the fact that they thought no one was going to care in the first place because it was a woman. Doesn't that sort of become some kind of dumb, self-fulfilling prophecy? I feel like a lot of things in regards to race and/or gender relations are just a collection of self-fulfilling prophecies and vicious circles. But, maybe that's for another time.

In regards to writer's freedom, I think that's always been limited by some aspects, especially in the video game business. Also, in every other business. But, in terms of "writing what you know", research for your story should always be happening because one writer is not going to be a field expert in everything that needs to be taken into account for a story to make sense in the long run to begin with. Sci-fi/fantasy is a big part of this because you at least have to make your world palatable and reasonable to your audience (yes, there have been failures). But, if all this research is going to happen regardless, do you mean to say that no writer would be capable of writing a decent character that's not a carbon copy of them? That can't possibly be true. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't crash and burn if a writer did more than pull a dumbass stereotype out of their nether regions. Humans have some pretty universal qualities when it comes down to it.

And writer's freedom also doesn't mean much because who's to say that writer's aren't trying to throw more inclusive ideas in only to be overridden by corporate suits? We've seen instances where movies have had parts originally intended for X non-white person from the baseline script, only to have a white person cast in the role regardless. I think it's possible that there are layers to this problem.

This was kind of rambly, so thanks to anyone who actually read it.

 

[Therumancer]

I have mixed opinions. For one I think this whole issue exists because various "minority" groups have already seen a decent amount of representation which is of course turning into demands for more of it for the feel good points it scores, when it's already present to roughly the extent where it should be at this point. It's there if you want to look, but not so omnipresent that it bothers the core audience or seems like it's getting in your face all the time.

That said I'll also say that the whole message of "wanting to show other cultures, and broaden perspectives" doesn't really work. The reason is simply that the people who push for that are the ones who tend to start screaming racism and bigotry when showing other people and cultures how they are happens. In these terms it's usually a cry for propaganda and pretty much showing you the best face of other peoples and cultures, basically the way they want to present themselves to the world, as opposed to who they actually are and the problems that causes. Basically trying to attach
a tourism brochure to video games and present it as the way things are there.

Half of the reason why nothing gets done, and we're continually shocked when we see the truth, is that we like to lock ourselves into a little "progressive" bubble where all people and cultures are equally valid and worthy, and if you don't see that, your in some way a mindless bigot. We will say go out of our way to depict India as a reasonable, well advanced, and highly civilized nation that is gradually growing into a leader in various tech sectors. That's the face India loves to put forward. Most of India however is full of extremely bigoted, ignorant, racist xenophobes, who write laws based on superstitions, and continue to practice what amounts to slavery while making pretensions of advancement. It's for example okay by this point of view to say have a doctor or scientist from India helping to lead with technology and doing research, or show the developing Bollywood film industry. It's not however considered acceptable to say talk about how India still apparently has a city where Monkeys are considered sacred and allowed to run free though the city and it's a crime to do anything to them, so they periodically wreck the infrastructure, get into government buildings, and everything else, because nobody is willing to control the problem. There is also apparently a "Temple Of The Rat" where Rats are similarly sacred and actually farmed and encouraged, causing the entire surrounding area to be infested with vermin and all kinds of other problems. This is to say nothing of how that same civilized seeming doctor or scientist is probably from a high caste family, and probably sees nothing wrong with keeping members of lower castes as borderline slaves (servants paid very little and kept on a tight leash of control) we recently had some culture shock with this when a high ranking diplomat from India's relationship with her servants was outed. The point I'm making is that desires for this kind of political correctness strive to get away from the image of say a few civilized white tourists in a sea of quirky, backwards, ignorant and potentially dangerous, brown people... yet throughout most of India that's actually a pretty good depiction of visiting those areas especially as an outsider. Your dealing with people who in some places can't be convinced that not letting a monkey run around in their house and wreck stuff is something they can stop, due to their spiritual beliefs and the laws reinforcing them. As a result you on one hand have the huge, modern, cities with the educated people, tourist traps, and every convenience of modern civilization, which happens to be where mostly the high caste people are. This is the image India puts forward for the world. Leave those areas though and it's like entering an entirely different place. A lot of nations are like this, China for example, where on one hand you've got huge, modern, cities and well groomed, healthy, highly educated people, but most of the country is impoverished, and you have factory workers sleeping in stacked dog crates, and people getting sick due to being forced to sleep alongside their livestock (which is how SARS got started).

On some levels I feel political correctness is a threat, because what some call "bigotry" actually acts as a mirror for self improvement. Basically if you don't like how you look, it's a good idea to change it. By being "nice" and simply accepting the face a lot of cultures want to put forward, we're more or less reinforcing the other problems through those countries, and validating the civilized elite through accepting them, and hand waving the rest of what those cultures are.

I use India as an example simply because the whole "servants" thing was in the news not too long ago, and shocked people in part because they had a far different opinion of the culture and where it is than is reality. Probably because of the way they have learned about India through things like Bollywood and careful portrayals through the media. At the most your typical person might think they are worldy for having watched say "Slumdog Millionaire".

Perhaps India isn't a good example in many people's minds, but the bottom line I'm getting at here is that I just do not think the US is currently in a position where it's ready to start seeing this kind of diversity, since the PC movement pretty much attacks anything that is considered to be negative, or takes the side of those who get uncomfortable when they see themselves in the mirror. By apologizing, claiming we're ignorant, and changing things we pretty much contribute to the problems, when really if anything I see the media as an ideal way of forcing reform in other cultures when they see themselves reflected.

America is actually one of the more honest countries in the world oddly enough, and I think that's half our problem. We air our dirty laundry, and we don't care when other people discuss it or point out our flaws, where other nations and cultures get very defensive. We pretty much acknowledge we've got our ghettos, crime problems, internal racial strife, economic divides, education issues, and tons of other things. We tend to be very critical of our top 1%. In other nations they put their top 1% forward to represent their entire nation, and try and keep everything else brushed
under the rug. Next time you see a show on TV for example covering miracles (or alleged miracles) and look at 10s of thousands of Hindus lined up to see some statue that allegedly drinks milk (priest holds the spoon of milk up, the milk gradually disappears... stage magicians can do similar things) ask yourself if someone portrayed something like that in a video game, TV shows, or most movies and showed those people as they are, would it not be called ignorant and racist? Ditto for say a country with a very wealthy 1% asking for famine relief... which might very well be in regions where the people are surrounded by "sacred herds" of cows they won't eat for religious reasons while they starve to death. Sure the USA has our religiously ignorant, and our callous 1%, but at the same time we aren't exactly demanding international aid, our hunger problems being on a relatively small scale, and mostly economic and distribution issues. If you say treat people from another country or culture like the US has been known to depict Rednecks and Hillbillies and those same people will scream bloody murder even if it's true to the same (or greater) extent.

 

[Something Amyss]

I thought he had a little more notoriety (and I'm rather surprised the Wikipedia entry is so small); apologies for obscure reference.

Eh. What I know and what is well known are often not in the same ballpark. They may be well known, but I don't personally remember encountering them.

 

[Zhukov]

My response to the article, and to every post here:

Who on earth cares?

Now shut up and go play some video games.

If you don't care, why do you want people to shut up about it?

The aggressive indifference stance fools nobody. It's just another way of saying, "I don't want people to talk about this for reasons I am unwilling or unable to express."