Stanley Woo wrote...
No, it was a valid argument. I merely disagreed with the priority it should have when it comes to creating a fictional world. Fantasy worlds in and of themselves don't have any real rules. Magic, dragons, unlimited treasures in unlimited dungeons, swords 10x larger than is practical, everyone's an adventurer or quest-giver--all the conceits of "fantasy."
it's when these concepts are used to develop a commercial product that you start getting into the rules and expectations people have for it, ebcause you want that product to sell, and sell as much as possible. When it comes to selling a product, though, I think few people will refuse to buy a product based on whether it has a character, setting, or themes which reflect their race, religion, or whatever. i think more people would refuse to buy a game based on how it plays, whether the story intrigues them. And I tthink the opposite is also true--that people will buy a game or story or film based on actors, director, graphics, story, romances, and not for such ultimately trivial concepts like "can I make a guy who looks like me?" or "will someone speak a word of Farsi?" or "there's no black guy in here!"
While this is not a forum for political discussion, this seems relevant to the subject under discussion. If we were to arbitrarily add ethnic diversity "for the sake of fairness," we would not hear the end of how careless and insensitive we are in not highlighting the noble differences in each race, or how "X race people don't act that way" or"how come the X races didn't have more to say?" Because the second you open the door to "fairness", very little becomes forbidden and you end up with an unfocused product that tries to please everyone but ultimately fails to please anyone.
Perhaps you've noticed other concepts that weren't in our game: vegetarians, polygamists, horses, fox hunts, soccer moms, conservational biologists, astronomers, pansexuals, furries, LARPers, numismatists, lepers, schizophrenics, the deaf, paraplegics, Protestants, or Yu-Gi-Oh players (yes, i'm using it again, since so many people said they liked it). Now, currently the discussion is racial diversity, but how far do we go in order to be "fair" and "inclusive"? Do we start getting into religious diveristy (which could seriously compromise our concept of the Chantry and the Maker), sexuality (which has its own inherent issues), hobbies, nationalities (can you imagine a "Canadian" in Thedas)? Where do you draw the line on "fairness"?
And how "fair" can you be without disappointing someone? We've got European concepts pretty well covered, but perhaps you also want Asians to be represented? That might work, but is there an Asian equivalent in the Dragon Age setting? You seem to wish to ignore it in favour of "fairness" and "inclusion."
.....
I'm just trying to impress upon you the slippery slope you may encounter when you try to include or "be fair" to everyone. i just don't think it's possible, so why not just appeal to a large group of people (maybe not "the largest" or "as many as possible") and hope for the best. As long as you're not actively trying to offend someone--which we aren't--it should work out okay and you'll still have a decent game.
Stanley,
This is general discussion, which includes politics. Politics is everywhere power exists, so I think we shouldn't be afraid of it.
I see what you're saying as true -- companies don't have to include people of color in their games to sell games. That's true, definitely. Hell, you can sell games with POC as comic relief, or as stereotypical thugs and gangsters, if you want. Even PoC will buy them. I argue that profit need not be the only motivator for what a pretty large and well-run company owned by a very large company.
I don't think LARPers nor vegetarians have the same history in Western society that people of color do, and I don't understand why that comparison was made. How many people were thrown on slave ships after their latest game of Vampire: The Masquerade? Are vegans pulled over and stopped for fitting "the description" by cops on a regular basis? Racial identity is not just a passing fancy for a lot of folks, myself included. I think this history coupled with centuries of terrible imagery of people of color not to mention the lack of positive imagery of people of color throughout the media helped and helps even now to reinforce ideas of white supremacy. This affects people of color, yes, but it also affects whites, and just because whites are okay with being the only people in games, or predominating games, does not mean that dynamic is a good one.
It's not just about wanting to see yourself with all your identities in a game. I think Bioware should take a little more responsibility for its part of the role media plays in shaping the worldviews people have. I'm not saying Bioware should start donating to the NAACP or Push Coalition and march on Washington or anything. I'm saying understand that it's not just about the money; also have some social responsibility for the images you're giving people for hours and hours and hours with your awesome gameplay and kickass graphics.
I'm not saying you all should include more peoples to make others happy. I'm not saying to include more peoples to make more money. I'm saying include more peoples because I think it is
right and just. I am making a moral argument that inclusion is a value not just to be diverse but to at least not be as much a part of the problem of societal racism as I think the media, including games, can be overall.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
