InExile wrote...
I'm going to address this in a different way, since I feel as if you've dodged every other thing I've said. Let's say I concede: you're totally right, I absolutely advocated for the financial ruin of every single company for the sake of inclusiveness in that post. Even if we say that, on your reading, I completely backtracked (pathetically let's say, again to make you feel better about a catching if that's what you need to hear). So now that we got that out of the way, and you won 1.5 internets, how about we have a substantive discussion? Address the points I raised in my posts.
Let's do.
First off, I'd like to set some definitions up. These aren't Webster by any stretch of the imagination and we can definitely tool and modify them based on any feedback, but for the sake of this convo, let's just entertain the thought that they are somewhat valid. The words in question are "exclusion, non-inclusion and inclusion."
Exclusion is the purposeful and intent-driven removal of others based on a certain criteria. I am excluding boys with cooties from my girls only club, as an example.
Non-inclusion is the accidental or non-intentional omission of certain people without purposeful intent of doing so. Me writing a script for a movie that doesn't include any astronauts because I don't normally deal with or entertain thoughts of astronauts in my narratives would be an example of non-inclusive behavior.
Inclusion is the deliberate addition of others based on certain criteria. I am going to find five homeless people today and give them a twenty dollar bill, for instance.
Now that we have that out of the way, let's tackle some of these posts.
Let's go out there and include diverse groups, and if that offends people, they frankly deserve it. There are a number of avenues to increase shareholder value, and building your brand among consumer bases is most certainly one of them.
You are equating here someone's lack of interest in seeing a certain group in the setting as being "I hate X people." Which can, I don't disagree, be true. But it is not always the case. Someone who didn't have a problem with the Qunari's appearance and culture in DA:O may have taboo's against having a giant horned race which resembles caricatures of the devil, for instance.
People may have genuine concerns about having certain sexualities in the games. Maybe they dislike characters being off limits for them because of their designated sexual preference, something Bioware was shooting to assist with instead of further antagonize. Maybe the idea of everyone in your party being bisexual while it seems the rest of the population of the world being hetero-normative by and large is a bit of a jar. Maybe you have lived a sheltered or isolated life and the idea of people of the opposite sex making a pass at you makes you highly uncomfortable, while not, at the same time, making you hate such people with a passion or call them devil spawn. After all, people are uncomfortable with spiders, or snakes, or clowns, or creepy little children and can easily be unnerved by their presence. Is being uneasy with your own sexuality in the face of this anywhere near the same thing? No, but you can't toss everyone who is uneasy with the most extreme of sexual tendencies on the street and say "they frankly deserve it." Being turned off on something is not the same as saying "burn all the [insert designated social group here]."
And as far as building a brand, there is such as thing as brand relevancy. Does Coke have commercials that say "Do you like soft drinks? No? Deal with it!" Of course not. By the same token, one should not polarize so close to a certain target demographic as to alienate any others, regardless of how much you want members to identify your brand as identifiable.
Secondly, the fact that inclusiveness has the side effect of alienating bigots does not mean that the bottom line will be hurt. Take, for example, TD Canada Trust (or TD Bank in the US). There was a major and public drive (at least in Canada) toward LGBT inclusiveness. The CEO was a strong proponent of equality. The end result was not financial chaos for TD.
Yes, you are correct. People, organizations and even companies can be for social progressiveness and not have the world end.
Yet you forget one thing - nowhere in the entire TD Canada experience would a customer be expected to be hit on by a gay bank teller during their customer experience. That is the difference between an industry that provides a service and can stand for a cause that the consumer possibly doesn't care about or is even against... and an industry that directly involves their consumer with their cause as part of their service. Again, we are back to the discussion I had earlier, where entertainment needs to entertain first. A large part of that is engaging your audience.
Does Bioware do that with their romances and their myriad of sexual options as a way to bring otherwise disenfranchised LGBT gamers in? Yes. But also being cognoscente that there is another side to the pendulum of people who will be uncomfortable with these options is important. Saying "someone doesn't like these options? Whatever, deal with it" is not true... they DON'T have to deal with it. They can pass up the game entirely and Bioware has lost a sale. And, again, since Bioware has now included more and more sexual relationship options in their games, yet haven't seen a floodgate of new sales that can clearly indicate the LGBT community is embracing it because of this, it is something that a company cannot afford to completely ignore, saying "anyone who has qualms can just not buy the game."
Thirdly, catering to a group of bigots is an easy way to toxify your brand, especially as society moves in a more progressive direction. Sure, Bioware could cater to homophobes. But even in the United States, that's becoming a serious imagine problem for business as homophones are being lumped in with racists. No one is about to suggest making a movie to draw in the "KKK" crowd.
But that's where our definitions come into play.
Being Exclusive is something that the, as you point out, KKK does. They say "no to anyone who does not look like me." Any video game that did that would be insane.
But, on the other hand... being non-inclusive? That's a whole different bag. Because the past 7 Call of Duty games main lead are played by a straight white male doesn't mean I'm supporting the KKK. It gains none of the negative, harsh and toxic press such an endorsement includes. But it's not inclusive.
Bioware, on the other hand, works to be inclusive, including people of multiple sexualities and also working on expanding beyond the "everyone in magic worlds and space is white" concepts that seem prevalent in all media. This is both their prerogative and is also admirable.
But with Bioware working to be inclusive, no one who is non-inclusive is suffering. There aren't protests or boycotts or marches in the street when commercials for other developers air and they show clips of games with white guys saving damsels in distress. At least, not to the point where it affects the bottom line.
Does that mean Bioware should give up? Of course not. But it does mean that branding themselves as the "so progressive and open-minded developer and if you can't deal with it, here's the door" is the right move? I don't think it's a foolproof plan, I'll put it that way.
There was some nutter in the romance thread a while ago - whose post has since been deleted - that talked about how Bioware needs "strong heterosexual romances" or whatever, with damsels and distress and vulnerable women. Bioware shouldn't shame this loon, or target him, or otherwise mock or address his existence. All that I said was that the extent to which it is financially viable, Bioware should completely not cater to him.
Without a doubt. But no company spending tens or hundreds of millions of dollars creating a product to be enjoyed by millions of people should ever cater to one person. And I wouldn't think it would be possible to truly shame him as a company, honestly. At least outside of a public forum posting by a dev, which is ultimately a small potatoes type of measure in the grand scheme of things.
But, let me ask this, then... if Bioware has developed a brand as the "omni-sexual romance RPG maker," would this guy even consider buying the game? Or would he go pick up something that is more non-inclusive and doesn't upset his personal convictions as a piece of entertainment to spend his free time? I'd say there is a strong chance he would spend his dollar elsewhere if he truly believed that Bioware had become a developer that had nothing he would enjoy. However, for all we know, there is the option to play a straight male with a heterosexual romance who can save the damsel in distress in DA:I. Heck, the maleHawke-Isabella romance went this route for DA2 in a matter of speaking when you save her from the Arishok. And given the presence of all bi-sexual party members, that was arguably Bioware's most open-minded game to date in terms of sexuality.
Take, for example, the Morrigan romance. It doesn't do any of these things. Morrigan is not a damsel in distress. She always leaves the protagonist to pursue her agenda. You can only romance her on her terms, if you're willing to give up your life in Ferelden (or wherever) pursue her goals. That's certainly "excluding" this type of loon.
Yet you are able to pursue a straight romance with Leliana, where you can save her from the assassination attempts of Marjorie. Is that a perfect "damsel in distress" model? No. But the point is there is a chance this guy COULD actually find what he was looking for in a DA game. Yet if Bioware has a brand that actively repels him from even trying, then it is a lost sale.
Bioware does have a brand now where the LGBT community is, in some way shape of form, aware of the options these games offer. Could more be made aware? Sure. But is Bioware best served working to advertise this fact even more if it results in misconceptions among their larger fanbase, when in reality their games could work for both people? Or is it wise to say "yeah, a gay guy is going to hit on your male character - grow a thicker skin or there's the door" to the world? Which leads into...
Or another example, people who ask for sexuality toggles so they can literally toggle away the gay. If not including a gay toggle alienates these people, then again, too bad.
Is this the absolute worst suggestion in the world? Imagine if it was implemented in DA2... every party member was bisexual in DA2. Meaning every character was equally open to both sexes for romantic affairs. There is no "neutering" of the character inherently, where they become a sexless eunuch if the toggle was active. Anders would still have his homosexual relationship with Karl, Isabella would still make sexually suggestive comments to every woman that has banter and the world keeps turning... it just would not direct the material at the player directly.
Is "too bad" a good mindset to take on this? Again, it doesn't bother me - I have never wandered into a ninjamance in Bioware games, of any sexuality. Then again, I'm not a huge fan of romance content in general in games. But if you remove the social context of the request and just see it as "hey we can provide this optional feature to people who do want it and give other people who don't want it the option to opt out," how is that so bad of a concept?
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
That way its alot more equal. I know time and money limits things. As it were, most likely already is one gay, one lesbian, two bi and two straight. 2/2/2 type effect instead. As long as they dont have all the males for the women die, lesbians have their happy relationship as I read in here so far. I saw some posting about 2/4/2 though?
(friend, gf)
