Equality in video games (Not sure what to call this topic honestly)

[M107]

Also if you look at the world as a whole, the straight white people are the minority.

No.. no they're not. They're represented practially everywhere and people don't complain about the inclusion of "whiteness" or straight people as being "forced". It only feels forced to reactionaries that suddenly have think about people who are different than they are.

 

[Turo602]

I don't really understand the issue.

If more minority characters are included in different mediums of art, what's the issue? Why is the alternative--the straight white male/female--considered to be the default? How is a story hampered by the inclusion of minority characters? Furthermore, what are the symptoms of a minority character being forced into a story versus one that is "organically" introduced?

No one is saying that white straight males are the default. The point is, to say there is a problem with equality in video games because some people may feel a certain race, gender, or sexuality is underrepresented, is a problem within itself. If white developers create white characters, what is the problem? Should they not be allowed to create characters that are essentially an extension of their own mind and represent what the "default" or "norm" is to them? Is it wrong for male developers to sexualize women to cater to male gamers? Definitely not. People may feel this is the standard practice for every video game, but that's far from true. But at the same time, if you're watching a movie made in Japan, then maybe expect to see, I don't know, a lot of Japanese actors. Not everyone needs to be represented nor should anyone feel pressured to represent every single person in the world, because chances are, someone is going to be left out anyway and honestly, who cares?

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Equality of opportunity is always better than equality of outcome.
It's always better to have a developer put all options on the table and choose the ones that best suit the vision and direction of the game. Being forced to choose certain options just to meet diversity quotas as an outcome in the final finished product is wrong.

Also if you look at the world as a whole, the straight white people are the minority. There is a lot more people of asain and african decent in the world. Your default is actually catering to a minority on a global scale. The better question to ask is why do people (yourself included) consider the white minority to be the go to default?

The best way to look at this is to have all options on the table and choose the ones that best fit what the game will be. In the majority of cases this will lead to better games and whatever the characters in game look like and act like will be totally fine. Some games have more of one racial group or gender or religious group than another. But it fits within the context of the game and it's fine. Good developers understand this. Set a game in Egypt and you'll have more Egyptians and other north african people in the game. However set a game in the USA and you'll have people more repesentatiive of what the US population looks like. it all makes sense based on where the game is set and what the game is trying to be. Nothing is being forced, there is no diversity quotas. Just intelligent choices made by the developers. Well by good developers, that is.

But what makes those inclusions forced? Why is the idea that developers are including minority characters of their own free will such a foregone conclusion? While talk of including minorities in media has certainly escalated, we haven't seen many (or any, but I'm not claiming to know everything on the internet) studios claiming that an influential financial body is pushing for the inclusion of certain characters.

No one is saying that white straight males are the default. The point is, to say there is a problem with equality in video games because some people may feel a certain race, gender, or sexuality is underrepresented, is a problem within itself. If white developers create white characters, what is the problem? Should they not be allowed to create characters that are essentially an extension of their own mind and represent what the "default" or "norm" is to them? Is it wrong for male developers to sexualize women to cater to male gamers? Definitely not. People may feel this is the standard practice for every video game, but that's far from true. But at the same time, if you're watching a movie made in Japan, then maybe expect to see, I don't know, a lot of Japanese actors. Not everyone needs to be represented nor should anyone feel pressured to represent every single person in the world, because chances are, someone is going to be left out anyway and honestly, who cares?

I feel this is again operating under the false assumption that creators are being forced to include minority characters, rather than doing so of their own volition in an attempt inspire more progressive social ideals. It's hardly the first time media has sought to inspire. Anyone remember this cast?

A Russian, a Scotsman, an alien, and a black woman were part of the ensemble cast of Star Trek: The Original Series, and the show aired at a time when Jim Crow was a household name and the McCarthy Hearings were still fresh in the minds of red-fearing Americans. At one point, Nichelle Nichols, the actress portraying Lieutenant Uhura, considered quitting, because of the racist attention the role brought her. Gene Roddenberry, the father of Star Trek, wasn't able to talk her out of it. Do you know who did?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

He saw the role of Lieutenant Uhura on Star Trek as a symbol just as powerful as the piece marches being led around the same time. When Nichelle Nichols expressed her desire to him on the phone to be marching instead of acting, he said, ‘No, no, no. No, you don’t understand. We don’t need you to march. You are marching. You are reflecting what we are fighting for.'”

I'm willing to bet there were a few folks in the 60s who looked at Nichelle Nichols' casting and said, "Oh, there's the token black character. Why is Star Trek forcing its ideas on me?"

Video games (and all the other things) don't have to maintain the status quo. They're at their best when they aren't, and limiting character cast based on conceptions about what is and isn't normal in our world is, at best, silly.

 

[Turo602]

I feel this is again operating under the false assumption that creators are being forced to include minority characters, rather than doing so of their own volition in an attempt inspire more progressive social ideals. It's hardly the first time media has sought to inspire. Anyone remember this cast?

A Russian, a Scotsman, an alien, and a black woman were part of the ensemble cast of Star Trek: The Original Series, and the show aired at a time when Jim Crow was a household name. At one point, Nichelle Nichols, the actress portraying Lieutenant Uhura, considered quitting, because of the racist attention the role brought her. Gene Roddenberry, the father of Star Trek, wasn't able to talk her out of it. Do you know who did?

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

He saw the role of Lieutenant Uhura on Star Trek as a symbol just as powerful as the piece marches being led around the same time. When Nichelle Nichols expressed her desire to him on the phone to be marching instead of acting, he said, ‘No, no, no. No, you don’t understand. We don’t need you to march. You are marching. You are reflecting what we are fighting for.'”

I'm willing to bet there were a few folks in the 60s who looked at Nichelle Nichols' casting and said, "Oh, there's the token black character. Why is Star Trek forcing its ideas on me?"

Video games (and all the other things) don't have to maintain the status quo. They're at their best when they aren't, and limiting character cast based on conceptions about what is and isn't normal in our world is, at best, silly.

What assumption? You're assuming too much into what people are saying. No one is saying that developers can't include minorities and must resort to some bull**** status quo unless they do it "organically to the story." They're free to express whatever the **** they want for whatever reason they want. However, there's a huge difference in doing it because it's normal, historically accurate, or want to inspire, and doing it because otherwise, it wouldn't be PC enough.

Capcom got bull**** for Resident Evil 5 because Chris Redfield was a white man killing black enemies. So what did Capcom do? They shoehorned in Sheva into a story she had no business being in. Then you have morons who say Josh should have been the star for no other reason than because he's black. Developers and creators in general, should not feel pressured to change their vision and characters for the sake of being PC.

Is Bayonetta any less of a strong female character for being sexy? Hell no. Was that Star Trek cast portraying racial stereotypes and bringing attention to their race? Now I don't know much about Star Trek, but I highly doubt it.

People pay too much attention to stupid details and create false narratives based on those trivial details and falsely accuse game developers of racism and sexism. Hell, I'm still pissed that Nintendo caved into the stupid and irrelevant concerns of SJWs and removed sombrero Mario from the cover of Mario Odyssey.

 

[Alita the Pun]

It’s important to remember that while having diversity can be a good thing. It’s pointless to have X minority just for the sake of having X minority support the game. I think that having diversity is good but if you add a minority/ethnicity into the game just to gain the support of a certain minority, you compromise the integrity of the franchise

 

[M107]

Hell, I'm still pissed that Nintendo caved into the stupid and irrelevant concerns of SJWs and removed sombrero Mario from the cover of Mario Odyssey.

Right because **** people who get offended by clearly racially and culturally insensitive content. It's only irrelevant if doesn't impact you.

It’s important to remember that while having diversity can be a good thing. It’s pointless to have X minority just for the sake of having X minority support the game. I think that having diversity is good but if you add a minority/ethnicity into the game just to gain the support of a certain minority, you compromise the integrity of the franchise

Of course this is what @Wombat Veteran is trying to figure out. When exactly is someone adding a minority for the sake of adding a minority versus when someone adds a minority for any other reason? How exactly do you define "integrity" in this sense?

 

[Turo602]

Right because **** people who get offended by clearly racially and culturally insensitive content. It's only irrelevant if doesn't impact you.

Yes, **** all those people who don't have the right to be offended. I've seen nothing but support for that outfit from Mexicans after people started speaking out on it. And speaking as a Mexican who would clearly be "impacted" by this, I see nothing wrong with the outfit and couldn't wait to use it myself when it was first revealed.

 

[M107]

Yes, **** all those people who don't have the right to be offended. I've seen nothing but support for that outfit from Mexicans after people started speaking out on it. And speaking as a Mexican who would clearly be "impacted" by this, I see nothing wrong with the outfit and couldn't wait to use it myself when it was first revealed.

Or we could just create content that doesn't appropriate culture of marginalized groups or if you want to exchange culture then actually know the culture you're wanting to exchange with. Adding culturally inspired content because it's fun for the developer and players while real people catch **** for actually being immersed in said culture is the problem. It's no different than blackface or non African-Americans using AAVE while real African-Americans catch **** for both of those things in real life.

 

[Turo602]

Or we could just create content that doesn't appropriate culture of marginalized groups or if you want to exchange culture then actually know the culture you're wanting to exchange with. Adding culturally inspired content because it's fun for the developer and players while real people catch **** for actually being immersed in said culture is the problem. It's no different than blackface or non African-Americans using AAVE while real African-Americans catch **** for both of those things in real life.

Or people could just take their thumbs out of their asses and not get offended by stupid harmless **** like an innocent outfit.

 

[the8thark]

But what makes those inclusions forced?

Usually percieved or actual public outcry. They don't want the negative PR.

Why is the idea that developers are including minority characters of their own free will such a foregone conclusion?

It's not, nor every developer is the same.

While talk of including minorities in media has certainly escalated, we haven't seen many (or any, but I'm not claiming to know everything on the internet) studios claiming that an influential financial body is pushing for the inclusion of certain characters.

If that was happening, no developer would admit it. I believe it's happening at times but indirectly. Bad PR hurts game sales. To get good PR, the developers have to consider where that bad PR will come from. Some of that is people complainnig that their own specific minority (or majority at times) group should be oncluded in all games. I blame us, the customers for this. We should just like good games for being good games. Not every game has to feature the groups in society we individually belong to.

Or people could just take their thumbs out of their asses and not get offended by stupid harmless **** like an innocent outfit.

I think you might be asking for a little too much from some people.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

What assumption? You're assuming too much into what people are saying. No one is saying that developers can't include minorities and must resort to some bull**** status quo unless they do it "organically to the story." They're free to express whatever the **** they want for whatever reason they want. However, there's a huge difference in doing it because it's normal, historically accurate, or want to inspire, and doing it because otherwise, it wouldn't be PC enough.

No, no there is not.

So far, no one in this thread has answered the questions I put forth during my initial post:

I don't really understand the issue.

If more minority characters are included in different mediums of art, what's the issue? Why is the alternative--the straight white male/female--considered to be the default? How is a story hampered by the inclusion of minority characters? Furthermore, what are the symptoms of a minority character being forced into a story versus one that is "organically" introduced?

So far as I can tell, "forced" inclusion of minority characters just means introducing a minority that someone doesn't like.

People continue to bring up this idea that minority characters are being introduced for the sake of including minority characters, but even if we accept that to be true (and if we do, it's far from a bad thing), then what is the supposed difference between a forced and organic inclusion of minority representation in media?

If that was happening, no developer would admit it. I believe it's happening at times but indirectly. Bad PR hurts game sales. To get good PR, the developers have to consider where that bad PR will come from. Some of that is people complainnig that their own specific minority (or majority at times) group should be oncluded in all games. I blame us, the customers for this. We should just like good games for being good games. Not every game has to feature the groups in society we individually belong to.

Then why are you bringing it up? You might as well be claiming that the proof is that there is no proof.

 

[Turo602]

No, no there is not.

So far, no one in this thread has answered the questions I put forth during my initial post:



So far as I can tell, "forced" inclusion of minority characters just means introducing a minority that someone doesn't like.

People continue to bring up this idea that minority characters are being introduced for the sake of including minority characters, but even if we accept that to be true (and if we do, it's far from a bad thing), then what is the supposed difference between a forced and organic inclusion of minority representation in media?

I've already answered your question. You can be delusional and selective of what you read all you want, but I'm not gonna go back and forth with you like an idiot, seeing as you're just going to keep asking the same question regardless.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

I've already answered your question. You can be delusional and selective of what you read all you want, but I'm not gonna go back and forth with you like an idiot, seeing as you're just going to keep asking the same question regardless.

Calm down with the hostility, man. You do yourself no favors when you lose your temper in a thread.

All I'm looking for are some clear examples of what forced an organic introductions of minority characters in media are. So far I've just seen people exposite on why they think companies might be introducing them.

 

[the8thark]

Then why are you bringing it up? You might as well be claiming that the proof is that there is no proof.

That's not saying there is no proof. That's saying that the proof is harder to find than most people first think. Without discussions like this on various topics, people don't find about issues. This spurs people on to do their own research to find the truth about the issue they are researching.

Note well proof is scientific. If can prove something or disprove something. The evidence does that, not our opinions.

Secondly it's always a good idea to acklowledge the elephant in the room on any subject.

***************

My opinions on this

I don't think its as simple as looking for game development documents to find instances where certain character ideas were shot down. I believe this is more an evolution of how games are developed. When the developers sit down at the design table to share their ideas. Much of the time their ideas are designed around what sells well and what gives the company good PR. Game sales and company PR is 100% directly influenced by the public. If a developer has an idea that in his mind is what will sell, and the company gives it the greenlight, we don't know if that's just good business sense or of the opinion that pandering to the public's prejudices
is a batter way to have the final game generate more sales. Well both in a way are good business sense though the later is quite immoral. As an industry the developers should be trying to shatter discrimination within our modern society, not comform to it.

However with more research determining this might just be possible.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

That's not saying there is no proof. That's saying that the proof is harder to find than most people first think. Without discussions like this on various topics, people don't find about issues. This spurs people on to do their own research to find the truth about the issue they are researching.

Note well proof is scientific. If can prove something or disprove something. The evidence does that, not our opinions.

Secondly it's always a good idea to acklowledge the elephant in the room on any subject.

***************

My opinions on this

I don't think its as simple as looking for game development documents to find instances where certain character ideas were shot down. I believe this is more an evolution of how games are developed. When the developers sit down at the design table to share their ideas. Much of the time their ideas are designed around what sells well and what gives the company good PR. Game sales and company PR is 100% directly influenced by the public. If a developer has an idea that in his mind is what will sell, and the company gives it the greenlight, we don't know if that's just good business sense or of the opinion that pandering to the public's prejudices
is a batter way to have the final game generate more sales. Well both in a way are good business sense though the later is quite immoral. As an industry the developers should be trying to shatter discrimination within our modern society, not comform to it.

However with more research determining this might just be possible.

There's nothing wrong with discussion, but it just doesn't seem productive to carry on a discussion with conjecture. If we're going to talk about studios being forced to include minority characters in their creations, then some examples would help cement the point.