Zu Long wrote...
Boiny Bunny wrote...
Very good questions and interesting things to think about. If I had to take a few stabs, I might guess that:
1) If you had an Asian ethnicity in the game (say as 50% of the Orlesian population), but they followed Orlesian culture (implied heavily to be French) and had none of their own - would that not be in the same league of offensiveness as not including them in the first place?
2) (This might be going beyond the scope of what Bioware writers are willing to consider for lore purposes but) from an evolutionary standpoint, the very slight physical differences between all of us humans, regardless of which race we belong to, are a direct result of evolving in different environments, with different challenges (after a certain date, when we spread out from Africa). It wouldn't make much sense for 2 distinct races of humans to have originated in one country (though perhaps you could introduce a story element about the Asian looking population in Orlais having migrated there 1000 years ago after a calamity destroyed their original nation?)
You could possibly introduce an Asian culture as a collection of travelers who only happen to inhabit the sections of Thedas we have yet to witness directly - who came to Thedas generations ago from lands unknown? I'm sure there are plenty of other things Bioware could think of...
As to number 2 we have Elves, Qunari, and Dwarves with VASTLY different genetic traits in the game, with no explanation as to how that happened. Bioware is not required to produce a comprehensive anthropological model for how the racial makeup of Thedas came about, so I see no reason for them to even bother providing an explanation, if they wanted to do such a thing.
That is definitely true - but (IIRC?) the different races of Thedas all came from different regions of the world (the Elves being the original inhabitants of most of the Thedas we've seen, the Kossith coming from an unknown land to the North, the humans migrating down from somewhere else (not sure where) and taking over from the elves, etc.)
Definitely agree though, that I doubt it's something worth considering. Most consumers will not be thinking about this level of detail!
It's point number 1 that gets thorny, and I wasn't sure myself, which is why I threw it out there. Being a white person, I can't really rely on my own inclinations here. If there were a game based around a samurai/ancient japanese culture where 25% of people are ethnically white, my reaction would be "Awesome!" and I would continue on from there. However I've been told THAT would be offensive and a form of cultural colonization, according to some.
I guess this area is quite murky. If you were to put a 50/50 split of (say) French and Asian inspired NPCs into Orlais, but base their entire culture off French culture, are you implying that the Asian inspired NPCs are subservient? That they have been 'absorbed' into the 'superior' culture? On the other hand, if you let them have 2 completely different cultures (but still live in the same country), are you implying that their differences are irreconcilable? That they couldn't possibly live together and accept parts of one another's cultures, as is happening around the real world today (albeit, quite slowly)?
I think either option is potentially offensive. It's also a fine line between 'classic' culture and stereotypes. Being an Australian, I would not be impressed if an Australian character appeared in a modern game and constantly made references to stereotyped colloquialisms. Perhaps Japanese gamers are tired of seeing their representative characters associated with samurai, ninjas, and laser/transformer robots?
I agree that it is certainly easier
politically, though is not necessarily the correct
social answer, to depict one race/culture per region of the world.
I've sometimes wondered if the reason white artists often stick to depicting mostly caucasians and caucasian culture in their art is because its safer than trying to wade into places like this. The movie The Lone Ranger was released this summer and there was a large outcry because A) Johnny Depp was playing Tanto, a Native American, and 
his character's appearance was stylistically based on this painting which was created by a white person who admitted it was mostly a creation of their imagination rather than being based on any specific tribe.
Well, I think the reason Johnny Depp was Tonto is that he's supposedly able to draw enormous audiences just by being in a movie, regardless of who/what he is playing. His co-star, Armie Hammer, is (well at least in Australia) a little known actor who has virtually no audience pulling power. What
is bizarre about the Lone Ranger, IMO, is that they made Johnny Depp the Indian. Why not make him the gunslinger/cowboy character, and cast somebody of the right ethnicity for Tonto? You'd just be swapping one no-namer for another, and offending many fewer people.
As it is, apparently The Lone Ranger completely bombed at the box office - perhaps partly for this reason. I know that I didn't watch it, thinking that the idea of Johnny Depp playing a native American Indian was ridiculous.
Some people online got really offended by this, and it bothered me that no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't really understand why. It was as foreign to me as people getting upset over Idris Elba playing Heimdall in the Thor movies, but I didn't feel like it was coming from the same place.
Anyone else have thoughts on this?
Sometimes movie producers like to pull stunts like this in the hope that it will generate media attention (good or bad - all press is good press), and ultimately draw more consumers. A good example is the new TV show Elementary, which has moved the classic stories of Sherlock Homes to the modern day (ripped off straight from the vastly superior (IMO) UK Sherlock show), moved it to New York City, turned Watson from a white man into an Asian woman, and a few other gender changes I won't mention here due to spoilers). As it turned out, making Watson an Asian woman really didn't make much of an impact on the plot. There was no reason that Watson had to be a white man, once you'd updated to modern times. I doubt it made much of a difference in terms of viewers or quality in the end.
Cloud Atlas is an example that didn't work out so well. Even though there is a (relatively weak) reason for there to be Caucasian actors playing Asians, and Asians playing Caucasians, and men to be playing women and vice versa, the make up and special effects are not convincing in the slightest, and the vast majority of the cast is white, where there was genuine potential to feature a very well rounded cast racially speaking. It received a lot of negative press, for the controversy, and the poor make-up effects.
Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 16 septembre 2013 - 07:13 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
