All Channels
Popular
“Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, when one only remembers to turn on the light.”

WizzroSupreme

Contributor
CRank: 23Score: 198040

What Equals Equality in Our Games?

How far have video-games come in fostering equality? Or rather, is equality being approached the right way?

The current state of diversity in video-games can hardly be talked about without first describing the nature of art-forms. The greatest quality that art can display is that it often doesn’t care not for what its viewers want, but what it needs. In principle, it expresses it for the lone purpose of communicating an established idea, based solely on that idea’s own virtues and necessities. As a collective we treasure specific pieces of art and entertainment for successfully portraying something in a way that presents an admirable degree of intuition and ability. It’s that same thing that attracts us to video-games as a similar medium.

Great games aren’t created from nothing. The majority of developers that created stories and experiences worthy of our remembering them knew exactly what they were doing and did so it in amazing ways. Most of their mechanics and features worked because they planned them with a well-reasoned purpose. Regardless, many players advocate a change in games that adheres to their individual preferences. In short, minorities, whether they be racial, sexual, or gender-based, feel underrepresented in the art-form, and rightly so. However, many too often claim that games should consider their position regardless of it would benefiting from such consideration. Arguably, inclusion of such diversity is something that that needs to be both addressed and implemented, yet in a valued sense.

I can apply the same to the deviously good game I’ve been playing as of late: Double Fine’s Psychonauts. In it, players’ character of Razputin physically explores the consciousness of Lake Oblongata’s hulking lungfish, “Linda.” In this monster’s brain, you assume the role of a giant, menacing Raz, who unwittingly terrorizes the metropolitan city of Lungfishopolis, home to naive, law-abiding lungfish. It’s a genuine expression of the teribble insecurities that a fear-inspiring creature like Linda feels amidst a world of “normal” people. Such is the case with the rest of the game -- there’s a distinct, repressed flood of emotion reflected through the symbols of each character’s subconscious. The monstrous experience of Lungfishopolis exists as a symbolic correlation to the brilliance of Psychonauts’ entirety. It has a purpose all its own -- subtle, yet genius. Having this stage for no other point than “monster films are cool” does no real justice to such a great game. It just ends up being there, off to the side, and contributing nothing to the overall narrative. The same can be said of minorities that are better seen than heard, off to the side as nameless bank robbers or silent pedestrians.

We often project ourselves onto the games we play. Some individuals, however, now expect the medium to project onto them. The push for greater gender and racial equality of the gaming industry has moved from the very real world of game company employment to our very games themselves. The most popular point, and most accurate one, is that of around 80% of protagonists being white, male, buff, gruff, etc. The simplest solution to this dilemma is “We need more (insert minority name here ) in video-games because there aren’t enough of them,” but would that solve anything?

This is assuming that the placement of something in a place it’s otherwise not increases its importance by merely being included. This sentiment is also based on the conclusion that minority status is the sole thing that makes us who we are. As an Asian, it’s been clear to me that the only Asian characters I ever see in video-games are the ones slaying things with swords or jumping off roof-tops. Not the worst stereotype in my opinion (I wish that I could do that) but not exactly truthful or all-inclusive to most stories or real-life application. Persona 4 might’ve gotten a bit warmer in its characters’ “cram” study sessions and scrambling to get good grades in between killing demons, and Okami nailed its storytelling of ancient Asian mythology, but even as much as I jest, there certainly has been no “normal” Asians I play. Ultimately though, I don’t require the cultural idiosyncrasies of my heritage unless it compliments the overall story or gameplay experience I’m invested in. Still, it comes down to it being nice to hear that someone cared.

The push for minority groups being featured in video-games is a matter of personal representation. I understand this of other people 110% as one of the fastest growing minorities in the United States, but shouldn’t representation come with a sense of devotion to the source material and not obligation out of peer pressure? Capturing someone’s cultural, biological, and perhaps spiritual identities is a goal that seeks to invokes a human connection, not to fill some quota for fan-service or a checklist for diversity. The entire reason for its existence is to provide a form of escapism that actively distances us from the real-world crap we endure. A desire for video-games to adhere to your personal sensibilities and preferences is to actively meld reality with fantasy. In that regard, many would argue that you’re failing to suspend your disbelief.

It’s deeply unsettling that many individuals regard games as nothing more than tools to satisfy their personal delights. Yes, the same developers who strive for the medium to be seen as an “art-form” don’t often bother to truly understand just what makes the most cherished art so relevant to us. Everything is negotiable: gender, race, culture, graphical style, themes, etiquette, language … just like toppings on a pizza. It seems that the consumer market has fooled gamers into thinking that these “works of art” are here to serve as store-bought snacks but never as homemade meals baked especially for us, as a personalized story than a corporate license. Fortunately, art is and has always been self-serving. Its true value lies in its personal identity -- sometimes derived from its creator’s mind. Of course, every developer’s aspiration is to successfully connect with a market, but a game’s creation process is often based solely on its own needs and, most importantly, the knowledge, skill, and experiences of those creating the piece.

Designers never think to themselves what I would want. They don’t care because I don’t matter in this particular process. Maybe that’s simply because the game is theirs to do with as they please. Those like Rockstar and Suda 51‘s team have sure cared little about the controversial stories they’ve told. Developers want their work to be good in its own right, but their might be an argument for a bit more fresh blood in the industry. Artists are everywhere, in all of us, and more thinking heads has always meant more, broader ideas. Stepping outside the norm is inherent to our species’ DNA it seems. Yet “New” does not necessarily equal quality.

It's true: implementing ideas is ultimately in the hands of artists. They’re the ones doing the work, enduring deadlines, and furthering the medium. There is must be a fundamental balance that must be maintained between the needs and wants of the producer and consumer, however. I’m deeply tired of the false assumptions from developers, directors, and designers alike that my age, gender, or racial demographic is only pleased by a specific experience. They don’t know that. It’s only the grip of a stagnant, tired market formula that tells them I don’t like playing girls, or cute smiling animals, or a thoughtful character bent on finding answers instead of blood. Playing art “by the book” is no art at all, but an assembly line strategy that’s grown tiresome in light of all that our game engines can portray in the beauty of their HD. A sincere and personal attempt at communicating a relevant experience would speak volumes. Why not play a minority character with a story that's relevant to their culture, their experience?

I'll honestly admit that it’s a fantastic experience having the opportunity to step into other people’s skins to have adventures in. It’s been a privilege to take on the role of a Native American Assassin, or a black man protecting a girl named Clementine, or even an Italian Plumber in a bee suit. The industry has grown by leaps and bounds and several diverse protagonists stand out, but not too many. My fondest gaming memories retained intuitive controls, sharp writing, fascinating puzzles, addictive gameplay, and great art direction … all of which had nothing to do with the identity of my character. Yet sometimes I’ve wanted a person to connect to, and those tailored to the players that experience them are all the better. We celebrate today as a day when one man told us about his dream of a world where all are created equal. We live in a world of all kinds, so why can’t we bring that diversity with us into the dreams of our video-games?

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

What kind of gaming diversity do you want to see in gaming? And what diversity has gaming already brought to the table this generation? Write your thoughts down below and again, thanks for reading.

DragonKnight4421d ago

Diversity is overrated, at least in the way it's being discussed and used as a platform these days.

Diversity of cultures, in the modern world, was a way to supplement low birth rates so that the population of any given Western nation could maintain the replacement rate.

Diversity in games is just a talking point now and has little to do with enhancing or progressing art or ideas and really is just about how one person, or a group of people, want to feel better about themselves or about being a part of that group.

That sounds harsh, but you can just look at every single article made about sexist this, and racist that in games to know I'm telling the truth. People aren't interested in diversity for the sake of the medium, they are interested in diversity for the sake of themselves, just like you said.

staticdash224421d ago

Thank You!!!

"Diversity in games is just a talking point now and has little to do with enhancing or progressing art or ideas"

This part is 100% agreed. I want to know why the game industry cares so much about being recognized by others as being art or not. The industry has this obsession with wanting acceptance as a bigger part of culture. It seems to me that is by way of controversy. I'm struggling to realize why we cannot move past this obsession and try to improve our own medium, if others recognize gaming then that's fine, it will happen naturally. All it makes us look, is very desperate and attention craving.

agonism4421d ago (Edited 4421d ago )

So art should be dominated by straight white dudes then? I honestly don't think the majority of video games can be categorized as art rather than a preventative power mechanism, a tactical polyvalence of discursive practices, an interactive spectacle that mediates social relations, and a commodity in an industry, like all others, where profit accumulation is most generally the primary concern which consequently tends to influence ethically bankrupt consumer values as determined by market relations. Video games function more effectively as an apparatus as described above as one becomes more invested in them while participating in a subjectification process that often tends to rely heavily on aspects of social reality, and even more so when many have their perceptions informed mostly by that of popular media.

So yeah, maybe you're just a reactionary with an agenda which isn't at all disinterested? I surely don't entertain the notion that any liberatory practices will ever be circulated by affirming an identity to be attenuated by means of its inclusion into media depictions, but that doesn't mean that video games, just like any other media, are free of the effects of power relations or don't, in fact, transmit and reinforce them.

DragonKnight4421d ago

Who, in the entirety of this site and its history with this subject, ever said that "art should be dominated by straight white dudes?"

In your attempt at a university dissertation on paradigm of art vs. marketing, all you did was to stroke your vocabulary based ego. Trust me when I say your verbosity does nothing to ingratiate you, or your point, to or with anyone interested in this subject.

To answer the one and only question you bothered to ask, the point I was making is that diversity as it is being discussed for video games has nothing to do with the advancement or improvement of the medium and everything to do with the continued, emotionally driven, advancement agenda of social justice and social conscious.

Unless someone specifically decides to create a game about a social issue, or feels that a diverse cast would be beneficial to the game based on its story or character development, then diversity is a non-issue in a medium of pure interactive entertainment.

In brass tacks, none of the vocal individuals crying about diversity want it for its own sake or for the improvement of the medium. They want it to feel better about themselves because they transfer themselves into everything they do. Once they feel under, or even unrepresented, the personality they have drives them to shout out loud about it, spoiling everyone's fun just so they can be catered to.

thorstein4420d ago

That's because you read the entire blog and understood it, as did I. Just like how I read your entire response, and understood it.

It is sad that we cannot engage in civil discourse about such topics without it denigrating to an xbox live Call of Duty level whine fest wherein the people cry about their privilege and mock the author's diction rather than develop a well thought out counterargument.

Gazondaily4420d ago

I agree with that you said although it was a bit harsh on agonism! No offence agonism, I just think you misread DK's intentions with the post.

agonism4420d ago (Edited 4420d ago )

My criticism of the vast majority of game narratives, depictions of imagery and identities, and the industry in general still withstands, even as you dishonestly attempt to reduce it to a decontextualized academic discourse entirely unrelated to experience. I've been around N4G for awhile now and I think that it's probably common sense for many that wherever your posts pop up there's going to be a reactionary diatribe against any perceived 'social justice warriors' (as if social 'justice' was in and of itself a negative concept or practice) who, like many other critical theorists interested in popular media, rightfully critique the dominant forms of representation in video games and push for more varied and inclusive experiences, which doesn't in any way detract from enjoyability or the possibility of consumer entertainment transgressing into more artistic forms or what it is that I'm most concerned with, subversive discourses in a format with a significant impact that's almost entirely devoid of them.

Like I implied before, a variety of concrete practices of freedom realized through lived experiences cannot be substituted with their opposites, i.e. representation and projection, but that also doesn't mean that micro and collective resistances to the dominant narratives relayed through media apparatuses are entirely invalid either regardless of recuperative practices so as to better sell you shit, as these narratives tend to influence how it is that we relate to ourselves and others and should be situated within both broader and manifold cultural, political, economic and ad nauseum force relationships.

And besides, who are you to determine what constitutes the improvement of the medium for everyone else? Instead of seeing these resistances as a tendency towards homogenization and something to affirm your ressentiment towards, which this industry is largely saturated with, perhaps you should be more willing to support them? This shit isn't art, it's money.

DragonKnight4419d ago (Edited 4419d ago )

Once again you bust out the dictionary and once again I have to tell you that talking big does nothing to help your case. Funnily enough, you tried to argue both sides in your dissertation and likely don't even realize it, so I'm going to point out the flaws for both the art, and the money, side.

If games are art, they aren't subject to the whims and desires of special interest groups. In fact they'd probably be more immune. Games as art are an expression of the artists and should be taken as such. None have the right to try and force the artist to conform to what they think is needed or acceptable in art.

If games are nothing but money, then sales dictate all and cold numbers will always be used. In this case, what sells best will always be made. If a game with a black, lesbian protagonist doesn't sell, then guess how many games with black, lesbian protagonists there will be.

Then we get to your point where you ask who am I to say what constitutes improvement or not. I'm a gamer, and a person who can observe, just like everyone here. A game that has to be built upon a specific interest group is being made just for that reason, but shoehorning that special interest group into other games isn't an improvement. To imply that it is is to imply also that it is correct to treat people differently based on their gender or sexual orientation because it creates a situation where that knowledge is somehow important.

When you have to focus on those details, then you're saying that something is different, that these people are different. Isn't that the current problem? That people who don't want to be treated differently than anyone else ARE being treated differently based on gender or sexual orientation? So where then is the necessity to accommodate differences that, in the real world are constantly being fought against, but are supposedly needed in video games?

Where is the improvement? Does a person's gender improve the story of the game, or would the story be the same regardless? Does a person's sexual orientation matter to the gameplay, or would a bisexual protagonist fight, run, jump, climb, or perform any activity in the same manner as a heterosexual person?

Diversity in games as an improvement in some fashion is never discussed. It is a talking point that exists for its own sake. People will claim that diverse characters are necessary as they will provide some kind of new context, but they won't say why. If Kratos acted like a true Greek warrior, then there's the real likelihood that he would be bisexual, as sexuality in Greece was very free that way. It was common for men of power to have wives, and homosexual relationships with other men. But ask yourself this question. If God of War were literally identical in every way, but Kratos were gay, would the game be better because of that fact, or would it be exactly the same?

coolbeans4419d ago (Edited 4419d ago )

@DK

"If games are art, they aren't subject to the whims and desires of special interest groups. In fact they'd probably be more immune. Games as art are an expression of the artists and should be taken as such. None have the right to try and force the artist to conform to what they think is needed or acceptable in art."

Depending on which instances this is taking place, I figure you'd align with the very people you're speaking against. Consider a certain portion of the industry, specific AAA publishers, that are probably still making it feel like some sort of uphill climb if an artist just wants to have a female protagonist or experience censorship when they'd like to give that protagonist a typical relationship, such as with Remember Me's dev. (That's just speaking from last-year intel so I can't for certain if there's some transitional phases since then going on.)

"If games are nothing but money, then sales dictate all and cold numbers will always be used. In this case, what sells best will always be made. If a game with a black, lesbian protagonist doesn't sell, then guess how many games with black, lesbian protagonists there will be."

I figured that was part of the frustration behind the diversity push: certain publishers seeming very quick in rejecting those kinds of proposals (limit it to a female lead) when there's hardly any justification since close to half of the market is female gamers. It's like they're unreasonably afraid to test the waters due to cop-out marketing tactics.

DragonKnight4419d ago (Edited 4419d ago )

@coolbeans: "Consider a certain portion of the industry, specific AAA publishers, that are probably still making it feel like some sort of uphill climb if an artist just wants to have a female protagonist or experience censorship when they'd like to give that protagonist a typical relationship, such as with Remember Me's dev."

There is an exception to every rule, and you just described the second argument of games being only about money.

What I'm saying is that no one ever comes up with an actual reason as to why this alleged diversity is necessary for gaming as a medium or shows how it would improve it.

If a developer wants a certain type of protagonist, that's perfectly up to them. Obviously they would want the game to be built up around that kind of protagonist. BUT that isn't the same thing as NEEDING to do that. You take a game like Remember Me and you make the protagonist a guy and there's no difference UNLESS there are themes specific to being a woman, which is again a choice but not an improvement. Nothing about the character's gender is something that should be pointed out.

I'm saying that fostering differences in games and yet fighting against them in real life is a double standard and hypocritical.

Diversity in games is nice, it might cater to some people. But all in all, no one has been successful in explaining how it is NECESSARY. How it would improve gaming. Because everything that you could do with a black, bisexual, otherkin character is something you could do with a typical dudebro white guy. And I'm not saying that because of that fact that all games should feature the same character, I'm saying that trying to imply that games are bad due to some supposed lack of diversity isn't being honest.

I'm saying that people that are clamoring for diversity, not for the improvement of the medium but for their own feelings.

I mean take a look at any discussion about diversity and then ask the author why they think it would improve the medium. They will never be able to give you an answer that isn't subjective. Objectively, improvements to the medium have nothing to do with the character's gender or race. Subjectively, listening to these people would create games of androgynous characters with a light brown skin tone who are bisexual and slightly overweight just to accommodate all the people who say women are being portrayed too unrealistically and there aren't enough protagonists of non-Caucasian ethnicity.

But would that be an improvement? There a comes a point where you'd have to say that a person's gender, sexuality, and race are important. And haven't we been told for decades that they aren't? That all people are the same regardless of those factors? This is what I'm talking about. It's a situation where people are trying to have their feelings catered to in one way, and wanting not to be different in another.

coolbeans4418d ago (Edited 4418d ago )

@DK

"What I'm saying is that no one ever comes up with an actual reason as to why this alleged diversity is necessary for gaming as a medium or shows how it would improve it."

You'll have to forgive me if I think you're really not that willing to find anyone actually presents reasons, given that it's not that tough to find others arguing for it. Looking at it from wide-eyed perspective, I can see a lot of others seeing gaming as a beneficial platform for the social benefits and fostering of common understanding it's able to accomplish. There's no other way to walk in another person's shoes quite like this medium enables.

What makes it strange for me to see you state "you're never given reasons" is because the biggest one hits you square in the teeth whenever scouring through all the big releases: the homogenization of the average game. While it's certainly improving (considering what I've now played in '13), there's no doubt in my mind the industry has often dreadfully limited itself. There's so many stories with unique perspectives to be told, so many experiences that have been hindered just because of the inability to craft, or even attempt to craft, meaningful characters outside of a specific demographic. Speaking just for me, the concept of having greater diversity sounds neat when considering the concept of learning more about myself by stepping into a role that's completely foreign to me at a more consistent rate. Allowing a developer that sort of focus on one specific ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. for a character and crafting something around that shows potential.

It's with those moments like Nintendo backing out of supporting Imagination Is The Only Escape or someone like publishers going against an artist's wish to momentarily show the female protagonist in a typical relationship b/c, in the words of DONTNOD dev translating what pubs told him, "you can't make a dude like the player kiss another dude in the game, that's going to feel awkward" that it's pretty apparent just how self-disabling a sizable portion of the industry is willing to be. Attempting to enable those to break out of said shackles sound like improvement to me.

"If a developer wants a certain type of protagonist, that's perfectly up to them....

I'm saying that trying to imply that games are bad due to some supposed lack of diversity isn't being honest."

A lot of this comes off as rigmarole.

-A consumer of said art determining the arbitrary boundaries between when an artist just wants or needs a specific sort of character within a game.
-Determining it's own importance, or lack thereof, to the game.

These sorts of things can only be actually weighed by the artist. And my previous post was meant to challenge the idea of the choice of protagonist being "perfectly up to them [artists]." There's now an on-record account of that sort of restriction being imposed by a certain sect of the industry.

"I'm saying that people that are clamoring for diversity, not for the improvement of the medium but for their own feelings."

I can't say I know everyone's thoughts if they're going wildly after this topic--nor do I think you can. What about the majority part of that diversity crowd that just acknowledge the lack of it?

coolbeans4418d ago (Edited 4418d ago )

cntd.

"I mean take a look at any discussion about diversity and then ask the author why they think it would improve the medium. They will never be able to give you an answer that isn't subjective. Objectively, improvements to the medium have nothing to do with the character's gender or race."

Wouldn't something as subjective as determining diversity within the medium be met with anything other than subjective reasoning? Even in the veil of "objectivity," you just brought forth a very subjective stance that's open to debate. By your logic, you've presented no "real" reason as to why it doesn't bring improvement to games.

"There a comes a point where you'd have to say that a person's gender, sexuality, and race are important. And haven't we been told for decades that they aren't? That all people are the same regardless of those factors?"

I can't say I've been told it in this sort of way. I always figured that sort of philosophical standpoint was meant to communicate unity THROUGH diversity.

DragonKnight4418d ago (Edited 4418d ago )

@coolbeans: Given my frequent presence in "social justice gaming" articles I am exposed to many opinions on this subject. And absolutely none give objective reasons why diversity is needed, just that it would be nice.

Even you yourself aren't giving a reason why it's needed and would be an improvement. Your entire argument can be reduced to "it'd be different."

Different doesn't necessarily mean better.

Why is a person's gender important, why is a person't sexuality important, why is a person's race important, why are all of these things somehow the savior of gaming quality and classification as art when in life we are made to believe they are supposed to NOT matter. That people are to be approached, interacted with, and "judged" based on the content of their character and not on any of the above factors. Factors which are now, ironically, being clamored for in games.

Games have to straddle the line between business and art. That's just a given. But being able to play a gay dude kissing another gay dude isn't a scenario in which you can say "wow, gaming is so great because now there are gay relationships, it's so artistic." Why is it great? Will you know and understand what that experience is like just by playing it?

At the very least you'd be seeing an artist's representation of a homosexual relationship and have to believe that that's an accurate representation. But that isn't an immediate boon to the story, it doesn't improve the gameplay, and it IS something that only people who already know what it's about can relate to.

Wanting diversity is all well and good if it can be proven to improve the medium. Wanting it just because some people have emotions and want them reflected in their entertainment, or wanting it for its own sake, leads to the kinds of problems we are starting to see where developers get to be made to feel bad if their game doesn't conform to the current social flavour of the month and instead chooses to follow a path that some would consider "following the status quo to make money" but is still an amazing experience.

If you want to know an example of something I'm talking about, read this...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013...

TLOU, a game praised for NOT being like the "status quo" is too much like the status quo and not diverse enough?

Why is diversity a necessity in the context of how it can improve the medium? Diversity just for the emotions of some gamers is NOT an improvement, it is NOT a necessity. Diversity "just for something different" is also NOT an improvement. If we are trying, in the real world, to destroy the barriers of difference, why build them up in games under the false pretense of it being a necessary improvement in the medium?

You say that I haven't shown an objective reason diversity wouldn't improve gaming, but I actually did with all of my questions. A person's skin color won't make the game more enjoyable, especially when we have character creators for that. A person's sexuality won't make the game more enjoyable, especially when we have Bioware and Bethesda for that. These things have been seen before, they're toyed with by the general gaming population as a neat choice to play around with, but in the end they AREN'T what is remembered as having the greatest impact, and the best story telling is still the best regardless of factors like gender, race, or sexuality.

**EDIT** The Character Counter on this site is BROKEN.

coolbeans4417d ago (Edited 4417d ago )

@DK

-"And absolutely none give objective reasons why diversity is needed, just that it would be nice."

Well...what I quoted in your previous comment initially mentioned "actual reasons," which gave me the idea they decided not to respond to you. I didn't translate that into meaning "objective," which is really just starting to mean "I just don't agree to that" reasons.

-"Even you yourself aren't giving a reason why it's needed and would be an improvement. Your entire argument can be reduced to 'it'd be different.'"

Except that's not true. What you just limited that part of my response isn't just subjective interpretation, but incorrect. In no way, shape, or form can that one part of my short supposition of suggesting gaming as a beneficial platform for the social benefits and fostering of common understanding (which in it of itself opens up a whole new converation) be logically limited to me saying "it'd be different."

-"Why is a person's gender important, why is a person't sexuality important, why is a person's race important, why are all of these things somehow the savior of gaming quality and classification as art when in life we are made to believe they are supposed to NOT matter. That people are to be approached, interacted with, and "judged" based on the content of their character and not on any of the above factors. Factors which are now, ironically, being clamored for in games."

I wouldn't go so dramatic, since I never heralded it as such, but...I guess that's to be expected. Let's rein that hyperactivity a bit and just look at the real life/fictional stuff mentioned. For one, it's not exactly a double standard you're trying to present. The point brought up is that gaming media oftentimes presents a world that doesn't exist and in so doing suggests the world isn't the way it actually is. That's not in regards to high fantasy, cyberpunk stuff, etc., but rather in how often anything other than a white male is so often relegated to cheap pandering, stereotypes, or token characters.

-"But being able to play a gay dude kissing another gay dude isn't a scenario in which you can say "wow, gaming is so great because now there are gay relationships, it's so artistic." Why is it great? Will you know and understand what that experience is like just by playing it?"

I honestly can't say that specific experience would hit me. But why just limit yourself to that one? I put emphasis on saying "so many" b/c there's not a guarantee every single one will affect you in some mind-blowing way. Let's think of it more broadly:

-How about a National Geographic-focused series of titles in a sense? Adventure games crafted around indigenous tribes, Eastern races with Eastern philosophies, etc. that are very accurate in their depictions putting you in some adventure in their shoes?
-How about any sort of non-white immigrant family during earlier during pre-Civil Rights times?
-Playing as a slave?

These sound like ideas that have the potential, as I said, to cause me to learn more about myself in that kind of a foreign role.

coolbeans4417d ago (Edited 4417d ago )

cntd.

-"Wanting diversity is all well and good if it can be proven to improve the medium."

1.) How is it possible to graph whether or not if it has/hasn't improved the medium? By your own arbitrary determinations?
2.) Does that mean diversity is...not "all well and good" if that's not able to be proven?

-"...leads to the kinds of problems we are starting to see where developers get to be made to feel bad if their game doesn't conform to the current social flavour of the month..."

Alright, there's absolutely a slippery slope. I can agree. Putting kind of demand against a creative mind is a bad thing to do, but since this vocal minority has no big authoritative power, I don't really see why that would be a continuous focal point to your argument in comparison to publisher homogenization that have gone on-record to shoot down developer's ideas just for wanting greater diversity.

-"You say that I haven't shown an objective reason diversity wouldn't improve gaming, but I actually did with all of my questions."

The problem with this seems two-fold as to why you haven't displayed the objective reasoning you think you have:

1.) You started out with "gaming" and then moved onto "X, Y, Z doesn't make GAMES more enjoyable." I challenged your false idea of you being "objective" in regarding the medium as whole, and not vacuum-sealed I should point out, which you still haven't proven.

2.) I don't see how anyone with any intellectual honesty can't objectively determine that kind of change to race or sexuality wouldn't make the experience more enjoyable to someone else, either to the person(s) playing it or the person(s) crafting it.

3.) Not really connected, but...really? The character creator in RPG's is your ace in the hole?

Edit: Sorry about posting that other guy's post with bad language. Should've looked through it first.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 4417d ago
Gazondaily4421d ago

"In your attempt at a university dissertation on paradigm of art vs. marketing, all you did was to stroke your vocabulary based ego. Trust me when I say your verbosity does nothing to ingratiate you, or your point, to or with anyone interested in this subject. "

Lol nice one. + Bubs

Gotta agree with what you've said as well. *tips hat*

DragonKnight4420d ago

Lol, didn't you know you're not allowed to agree with me?

*tips hat back*

Thank you sir.

Anthotis4421d ago (Edited 4421d ago )

Europeans: Eye colour ranging from black, to various shades of brown, various shades of blue, green, grey to silver.

Europeans: Hair colour ranging from black, to various shades of brown, various shades of blonde, various shades of red.

Europeans: Skin colour ranging from caramel to ivory.

Everyone else: Dark eyes, dark hair, and skin varying from dark to light.

So we don't need diversity, as we already have it. Unless skin colour is somehow important.

coolbeans4420d ago

Interesting blog.

"Maybe that’s simply because the game is theirs to do with as they please. Those like Rockstar and Suda 51‘s team have sure cared little about the controversial stories they’ve told."

I can't exactly speak for all of those developer's stories, but I wouldn't say that's always the case. For cases like GTA IV, that seemed to one of those cases where its story with controversial elements is intended to be a satire.

"I’m deeply tired of the false assumptions from developers, directors, and designers alike that my age, gender, or racial demographic is only pleased by a specific experience. They don’t know that."

This sort of attitude is probably an important component in affording the opportunity for greater diversity, but it really shouldn't be only aimed at those people. It's just a blanket problem where for some--not all--AAA companies, with their cold analysts and marketers, the idea of having a female protagonist in a costly project makes them start sweating.

70°

Microsoft Gaming Revenue Drops 7% Year-on-Year, Content and Services Down 5%, Xbox Hardware Down 33%

Microsoft announced its financial results for Q3 of fiscal year 2026, including an update on its gaming Xbox business and more.

Read Full Story >>
simulationdaily.com
Jin_Sakai8d ago (Edited 8d ago )

Not looking good. Hopefully Asha Sharma is able to turn Phil’s disaster around.

dveio8d ago

To me it's still quite remarkable how they can cash-in 5.3bn in revenue in a single quarter, since their hardware is basically dead.

Jingsing8d ago

The stock mark is what makes Microsoft remarkable, They have convinced every institutional and retail investor to just keep piling money into them. Like many big tech giants they are just a big growing pyramid scheme. As long as people keep dropping money into ETF's that cover the market Microsoft will always be liquid. At the same time it is completely stifling innovation and competition. People need to start being more discreet in how they invest their money as it's killing the system.

Tanktopmaster928d ago

Once they re-evaluate exclusive all will be fine….

S2Killinit8d ago

Riiiiight because people will just flock back to them for one or two games per year.

Jingsing8d ago

15+ years of bad performance is what they call irreparable in business. It is time for them to sell off the assets and get out of entertainment.

Tanktopmaster928d ago

These declines are on the back of extra revenue received from releasing games like Forza horizon 5 on PlayStation. So I’m being sarcastic here when I said they should go back to exclusives. Killing off a revenue stream from Ps5 sales will only make things worse

Show all comments (13)
40°

Games Done Quick is coming to Europe for the first time with 3 days of Gamescom speedruns

The charity event will be streamed live from Gamescom in August.

Read Full Story >>
videogameschronicle.com
50°

Report: Injustice 3 in Development at NetherRealm Studios

Thanks to the slip-up of an artist working on the title, we now have more evidence that a new Injustice game is in the works.