37 réponses à ce sujet

[Burnouts3s3]

There's always been a certain stigma attached when discussing feminism, gay rights or race relations in video games. Whenever the topic gets mentioned, many opponents label the other side as 'Social Justice Warriors' or 'White Knights'. But the question remains if this is a bad thing for video games.

 

Not that I am accusing Bioware of catering to the majority. In fact, I applaud Bioware for appealing to LGBT rights and giving the player options. What I want to know is that do you believe in the movement.

 

Personally, I think it's a good thing. I think games, that includes mobile games, games like Gone Home and Call of Duty, should be more inclusive and appeal outside the target demographic. Games do have the power to influence what's considered normal and with more people getting into gaming, it should only make sense that both developers and publishers appeal to the outside demographic.

 

What do you think?

[Allan Schumacher]

But don't you see that the one doing the most yelling is the SJW belligerent?

 

I think this is a matter of perspective.  Because I disagree that they're the loudest, but would likely identify more closely with "SJW" than not.  The response to Anita's kickstarter was probably the catalyst to make me start looking at the whole issue more closely.

 

I've seen lots of people invade the "We'd like to see more Female Inquisitor" thread with posts that are clearly meant to provoke.  Which leads to escalation and derailment.

 

 

Escalation is a HUGE issue.  People don't believe that they are acting hostile.  And in turn respond more hostile to perceived hostility and things get very heated very quickly.  It happens on these boards all the time and not just about issues pertaining to social justice or stuff like that, but things like Mages vs Templars and so forth.

 

 

Few people go "I'm the one acting irrationally mad with not so well thought out points."

[Allan Schumacher]

Yet what is seen all too often is even MORE claims of inequality the second a developer starts to become more inclusive. Look at Bioware - they have worked hard to provide a wide variety of sexualities by the player character. When they made everyone bi-sexual in DA2, they recieved flak from the LGBT community that said that sexuality is more than just a switch about who one hops in the sack with. So now Bioware is making exclusive sexualities and people complain that the ratios between the various sexes and sexualities may be skewed, or that their preferred LI is not going to fall into their respective "bucket."

 

I used to react like this.  Sometimes I still do.  I learned that in many cases it's because of my own humanity and defensiveness, and it's an exercise in my privilege (and authority) to insinuate that people should bring up points in a way that I am more comfortable with, when it behooves me to try to understand the criticism.  Alternatively, we could take DA2 outrage (or ME3 outrage) and ignore it since a lot of it was so vitriolic.  Would you consider this an ideal solution?  I mean, if someone decides to call us a bunch of liars for a variety of reasons, is it okay if I conclude "this isn't framed the way that I like... so I'm going to ignore it?"

 

Also, I think you're being unfair in your representation of DA2 criticism.  There's a lot of LGBT people that love DA2's romances for their inclusiveness, and when compared to DAO feel it's infinitely better.  Yes some would like more representation, but asking for iteration isn't a huge issue.  It's content feedback.  Some like it as is.  Others feel things like representation is still important and would like us to still consider it.  I do see some people feel it's problematic to erase bisexuality, and feel that even using player driven terms like "playersexuality" is a form of validation.  I think some of the feedback in this regard is very hostile, but at the same time I now consistently refer to the DA2 romances as bisexual.  So was it ineffective?

 

 

Further, by trying new things and approaching subject matter that we're less familiar with, we innately open ourselves to criticism from some people because we possibly weren't even on the radar in some cases.  People give us feedback on these topics because we've shown that we're willing to give it a try.  It'd likely not be productive on the Call of Duty forums (note: Call of Duty has started adding female characters themselves, so I don't even know if my example is particularly valid).

 

 

And on a final note, it's always important to remember: the most extreme views are the ones that go viral.  No one cares about "well reasoned argument for why ME3 ending was poor."  But they pick up on "Man files complaint with FTC."  It's everyone's responsibility to remember that the extreme views are almost always overrepresented.

 

 

I'll comment more after work.

[Allan Schumacher]

Good for Blizzard. I can only wonder at what the SJW hivemind is asking for on the Blizzard forums. When slaying demons in the burning pits of hell I don't think one should be concerned that "(insert minority here) isn't represented enough".

 

You're not actually doing that.  You're playing a video game.  The threat is wholly contained in the video game's setting and the setting asks the player to choose a particular character to adventure with.  The basis of your argument seems rather silly and not exactly understanding what issues people seem to have with it.

 

Since, however, you seem to be saying that you don't really care, then is it safe to assume you're expressing a tacit approval for making these changes since you don't lose anything if they had decided to simply make a character model look differently, while other people may benefit?  Or is there a resistance to do something like this simply because it feels like a concession and you're worried about slippery slopes?

[Allan Schumacher]

But as we can see here, DA:O sales wound up being somewhat similar to DA2 in the first three weeks, but then, for reasons unknown to me other than "word of mouth," DA:O saw a spike in sales in Week 8 that surpassed that of Week 2. Clearly, the initial reception of the game was good, but what would drive sales that large two months after release? What happened? Who talked about the game in massive numbers? What were their means of doing so? Why were they effective?

 

I think it's important to also recognize that it was Christmas.

 

 

EDIT: Ninja'd like mad.  I should get more caught up on the whole thread before responding....

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't really know what to feel. I like playing games with a female playable character of course, as I'm female myself. And having gay characters can be a plus as well, if done right. Would I like more games with female and/or gay playable characters? Sure. I'd also like more female leads in movies and more female protagonists in books.

 

But that's it. If a game doesn't have a playable female and/or gay character maybe it just didn't need to. Another game will possibly have them and I'll buy that one as well, if it's good.

 

And thinking about it, many of my favourite games have only male playable characters: Grim Fandango, Monkey Island, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Planescape Torment, Alpha Protocol, The Witcher 1&2. Some had both male and female, like KotOR 2, Dark Age of Camelot, Vampire Bloodlines, Mass Effect 1 and Day of the Tentacle. Only one of my favourite games ever had a female-only lead: The Longest Journey.

 

 

And the games with male-only playable characters usually have good supporting female characters (at least, the ones I play), so I'm fine. Elaine Marley and Sophia Hapgood are total badasses.

 

This is true.  There are some that feel that by doing this, it means that every game must have mandates racial selection and so forth.  In fact, as an anecdote this topic came up today with some friends, specifically the Blizzard reference here.  Me and one mentioned "must the barbarian be a white person?"  And a third responded with "but it'd be a lot of effort to make all the different character models for each race."  But that's not understanding the position put forth.  Yes, I wholeheartedly understand having racial permutations for the characters would be more work.  But I'm saying "couldn't it have just been say, a brown person?  Or asian?"  Not spend the time making the white model at all, and just choosing something else.

 

I think it's precisely fair to say "it'd have no difference at all on the game" aside from "now there's a guy who looks a certain way."  So by pointing it out, now maybe Blizzard will, when thinking of art for someone, start at something that isn't just white person by default?  Especially in a game that depends so little on how the character looks, in my opinion.

 

If this would make some people happy, while (evidently) sooooo many other people "just don't care" then it seems like an easy way to make people happier without much cost.

 

 

But yes, it doesn't mean a game can never have a white man (stubbled or otherwise) as a game's protagonist.  The issue isn't with any single game, though.  It's about looking at ALL gaming in aggregate.  I loved the Walking Dead.  It had a black man as the main character.  It didn't need to be.  I don't think the narrative changes a whole lot (aside from a funny joke about Lee being "urban" and Lee giving the stink eye).  But I found it mildly refreshing simply because he looked different.  I consider this a positive, without a huge cost.

 

 

 

 

SJWs are oversensitive idiots and hypocrites.

 

I'd prefer to not be called an oversensitive idiot nor a hypocrite, if I may be so inclined to ask that of you....

 

And yes, I'm increasingly inclined to refer to myself as an advocate for "social justice" and it's in large part because of the responses I see towards people like Anita.  The irony, of course, being that many people against "social justice warriors" are because they see the radicals and go "those people are crazy" and feel motivated to respond in kind.

 

 

 

Sure Bioware, Ubisoft, Bethseda can propagate any sort of agenda that they want - doesn't mean that I have to support or blindly follow it like a sheep. I play videogames for the entertainment value not because of what a particular group of people think.

 

I am curious, do you feel that us adding racial diversity as something that would be a detriment to the game.

[Allan Schumacher]

Perhaps the underlying psychological reaction is the following:

• Women/ethnic minorities/sexually diverse/etc. groups feel alienated by the way games are made today.
• Above said groups push for change in the way games are made so that they will like it.
• Gamers who like gaming as it exists today (warts and all) have the natural fear that to change gaming may make it a pass time they no longer enjoy.
• Alternatively, saying that you enjoy gaming as it exists today (or are a developer in gaming today) would also imply that you are a bigot against those groups who do not feel included in gaming.

This may be all subconscious and under the surface, and also highly illogical (but the again, if you subscribe to Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, most subconscious lines of thought ARE highly illogical), but it could be the case.

The SJW side saying "change gaming to include everyone" may sound, on a subconscious level, like "I don't like gaming as it exists today - change it to suit me and anyone who likes gaming today is SOL because they are a bigot."


Again, just spitballing a theory as an amateur Psychologist.

EDIT:

To sloppily summarize my already sloppy theory, SJW are saying "Why are you so against changing gaming? I hate it!" while, for lack of a better phrase, the dudebros are saying "why are you so set on changing gaming? I love it!" Each one is treading on the other.

 

First, as an amateur psychologist myself, an important thing to remember is that because I logically deduce something doesn't mean it's reality.  Further, I may be wrong.  It's very important to remember that, I find.

 

 

As for your last phrase, I see uncomfortable analogues.

To sloppily summarize my already sloppy theory, SJW are saying "Why are you so against changing gaming? I hate it!" while, for lack of a better phrase, the dudebros are saying "why are you so set on changing gaming? I love it!" Each one is treading on the other.

 

Lets reframe it:

 

"Why are you against improving racial representation? I hate that we don't!"
"Why are you so set on changing racial homogeneity?  I love it!"

 

We aren't many steps away from:

 

"Why are you against equal rights for all? I hate the inequality!"

"Why are you against me having additional rights and authority? I love it!"

 

Yes, I recognize that the impact of this is different than the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century.  But I think it's still a symptom that "we aren't there yet."  So I ask "why is it that you like current gaming?"  If the answer to this question is typically stuff like "because I find it fun" then it basically, to me, comes across as "Do whatever you like socially.  As long as it doesn't impact the gameplay and whatnot, I'll still enjoy it because I couldn't be arsed about those other things."  If the answer is "because I like playing as a white man."  WHICH IS FINE.  But it means have some empathy if someone prefers to not play as a white man.

 

 

At the same time though, I hate the notion that I should instead be focusing my efforts on women in the Middle East and Asia, because those are things I'm fundamentally not equipped to deal with.  Further, they are not things I can directly influence, whereas this is something I can strive to achieve.  I'm also not a fan of "there are bigger problems to deal with" because that implies that we shouldn't bother with small problems in any capacity until the big ones are dealt with (it's also a tacit admission that it's a problem).

[Allan Schumacher]

I suppose that the fact that it currently isn't raining hellfire and brimstone outside slipped my mind. The river of blood seems to have dried up too, what a shame.

Then I have to ask why you bothered making the assertion?  It seemed like an attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but I don't think it came across well executed.  It gave a stronger inclination that you may not actually understand the issue, however.  Such is the challenges with attempting such an argument (or just trying to be funny, in general).
 

Yes you choose a character, and you can only customize so much of the character. If somebody wants to argue that they should be able to customize more of that character fine, but they shouldn't dress it up with talk of justice and portray it as some sort of struggle against oppression.

This isn't about character customization. This isn't about "hey, you should have let me have the option to have a different character altogether, while maintaining the original character."  It's "would the game be any different if instead of a white guy, it was not a white guy?"

 

I mean, you're implicitly suggesting that the white guy version still exists in your explanation.  Why didn't it cross your mind that it actually meant "replace the white guy with a non white guy?"

 

A tacit approval? Of course not. I'd first need to know which specific change we are referring to here. Any change involves time and effort to implement and should be weighed accordingly. Depending on the game there is usually a list of things I'd rather see improved first.

Precisely.  It's always about "thing I want to have."  But you seem to be construing "axe to grind" with "feature I'd like to see" as though the features you enjoy are somehow more important by virtue of the current status quo being something you claim to not care about (but actually do, given the inclination to always speak up).

 

Or are you suggesting that Lee from The Walking Dead takes any significant additional time and effort to implement because he happened to be black instead of white.

 

I do try to explain situations such as the concept art, or why we only show male inquisitor for so long) about how the problem starts at day 1, not late in development, because the problem is "starting with a male" as opposed to any ostensible measure to avoid showing women.  Not everyone has perspective to understand all choices, and I hope I can help people make sense of them.  A lot of it is assumptions over how people think games are made.
 

And I tend not to concede anything to those with an axe to grind. This isn't some matter of human rights, it's just software.

 

No, it's just a matter of wanting diversity in gaming.  Like you say, it's "just software."  I have no problems with people asking for a particular feature to be put into a game, regardless of what that feature is.

 

Everyone has an axe to grind for the game.  It's always about something that they would like to have happen in the game.  Make it more like DAO.  Keep it like DA2.  Voiced protagonist.  Silent Protagonist.  Personal story.  More epic story.  More action combat.  More tactical combat.  Romance content.  No romance content.  LGBT content.  Gender diversity.  Better writing.  More Varric.  More Qunari.  More choices.  Stronger narrative.  More exploration.  More customization.  And so forth.

[Allan Schumacher]

That depends, are you doing it out of necessity or for fear of being labeled a racist video game developer? If it's the one then there should be no question because you were already working on the game with an inclusive and diverse cast including race and sexual orientation & transgender characters. If it's the latter then I equate it to a small child being forced to apologize by the grown ups, to another small child for stealing his crayons or pouring a bucket of sand on his head.

How do you differentiate between the two? There are people that assume that Cullen is a romanceable character because people asked for it. I have a feeling that no matter how many times I tell them otherwise, they won't believe it.

Because I think the end game here is a reality where things are just added "because" and we don't need to remind ourselves to have diversity in our characters, it's (hopefully) something we just got used to doing.
 

That being said appealing to a wide demographic of people certainly will draw in more money and hopefully in the long run more fans, but having more gay people, transgendered-men/women and other ethnicities included won't make a lick of difference if the game itself is pure crap. And while we're still on the topic of diversity, so long as said game is truly diverse (meaning that it caters to all walks of life and not just one or two specific races/orientations) then you'll have nothing to worry about from me, but if you're championing a new game as being the latest in a truly epic and diverse WRPG/Platformer/etc but is really only catering to one or two races (since you mentioned race) but not the rest, then it's not really "all inclusive" or "diverse" video game and we will just end up with the same kind of games that we've been getting for the past 10 or so years...which is meh..fine by me, so long as the story doesn't suck. 
 
EDITED: edited like crazy, please update quotes to reflect my update thanks

I agree that the game needs to still be good. Which I think is a point a lot of people overlook when they say "this game that had a woman protagonist sold like crap" because virtue of woman protagonist alone isn't a unit seller. It's the sum of all the parts.

[Allan Schumacher]

Here's the issue I have with the video.

 

I get told I'm not interested in having a meaningful debate (what constitutes a meaningful debate?).  I mean, they make a joke about lighting a man on fire because they disagree with them.  Is it reasonable that acts like that disincline me from wanting to engage?  While just wanting attention (are these people not wanting attention).  While also going on about hypocrisy as though it means "doing something different."  It'd be like calling me a hypocrite because 2 years ago I had a different opinion now.  It's not impossible for something that didn't bother me 4 years ago to now be something that makes me go "I'm not as okay with that actually."  Hypocrisy is holding contradicting opinions at the same time.  For instance, suggesting the video game culture is not toxic, while at the end of the video pointing out how in game toxicity is beneficial because it exposes men to the toxicity women receive.

 

Further, It's okay to dismiss me as a "SJW" or a "white knight" but it's not okay for Anita (or someone else) to dismiss people as being misogynists.  Never mind that it's totalitarianism for me to not want to engage with people that are assholes who have perspectives that I feel are wrong, hostile, and dishonest, but yet it's Anita's own fault for mentioning that trolls get to her.  It's never that it's the fault of the trolls for making Anita newsworthy and making people like me start to look more closely.  (And that literally was a huge catalyst for me).

 

 

I mean, we don't look at games based on their social content but on whether they are any "good" or not.  What is a metric for good?  If someone values representation, then social content fits under the ambiguously used "good."

[Allan Schumacher]

I'll use an example. The inevitable "Asians in DA" thread that seems to reincarnate itself roughly every three months. In that thread, people request that there be people who, in appearance, represent people of eastern Asian descent in the DA setting. In this thread, I always respond back that there are no known peoples who appear "Asian" and that if such a people were to be introduced, they would need to have some form of explanation (migration, travelers, refugees, invaders, what have you) to show up in the game world in order to maintain the game's lore, a crucial piece of game development for me personally.

 

So you're saying the internal logic of a fictional fantasy universe has greater moral value than representation in media?

[Allan Schumacher]

Sarkeesian made her bed and now she needs to lie in it, no sympathy from me for professional victims.

 

Not sure how this is relevant to my inquiry.  I'm not saying you should sympathy for Anita.

[Allan Schumacher]

You're right, no one should feel sympathy for a charlatan and a hypocrite.

 

If this is your sole contribution, you've been warned.  If you wish to engage the discussion, do so.  Because I keep getting told I'm not interested in having an honest debate (in the video you linked) but you don't seem to be interested in discussion at all.

 

Since you brought her up, what do you think is the primary catalyst that allowed Anita to become a professional victim?

[Allan Schumacher]

I would actually argue that it kind of depends(as some lore things are very specifically defined, such as Asari being mono gendered), but in the specific case being talked about then the internal logic and representation shouldn't even be conflicting. It would not be a stretch to say they're travelers from some far off land.

 

Although I think it says a lot more that some people consider asians to be so different from us that they need an explanation for existing in the first place within the game world, even if they haven't been shown yet.

 

On another note I found Blizzard's "We focus on fun before representation in the media" a bit odd considering they'll go and make a character like Tyrael who is easily one of the most epic characters in the Diablo universe, and he isn't white. They have regularly included people beyond the standard grizzled angry white dude in all their games(not to say that they're perfect though, especially when it comes to female armour in their games).

 

I actually noticed that Blizzard's comments actually seem incongruent with their actions too.

[Allan Schumacher]

No she is not, she is getting attacked by trolls who just happen to use her gender against her because she feels super-sensitive about it. 

 

Trolls use the most hurtful things to illicit a response whether or not they believe it. To trolls the potential lolz is worth it. 

 

Do you think that Anita would have as much exposure as she does if it hadn't been for the people being so virulently outspoken against her?

[Allan Schumacher]

And yet if people call out social activists for going too far on their views or for harassing people for disagreeing, they are wrong? Why is that only one side get to be criticized?

 

I've seen plenty of people get called out for going too far.  A lot of the time with our own game.

[Allan Schumacher]

Yep, it would taken several years but most certainly.

 

I don't.  But I'm biased because the hate is literally what it took for me to take notice.  It's what I focused on when sharing the issue too.

 

In any case, we can agree that the hate exacerbated the issue and now you have to suffer for it because it turned Anita into a martyr.  She was able to leverage the attacks against her and has become more prolific as a result.

 

As such, I think it's a valid argument to point out that the hate filled responses helped fuel and motivate a lot of people.  As TDKR pointed out, the radical views of people can push people away (which is what happened with me - I began to realize there was an issue, and while I was still getting my bearings it was clear to see a perspective I did not want to associate with).

[Allan Schumacher]

Removed some posts since it's not actually relevant and overstepped myself a bit.

[Allan Schumacher]

Her videos would still be as polarizing (I would say biased) as they've always been. So I think she'd still get plenty of exposure because of that.  

 

How much, if any, people were even interested in taking notice until the event happened?  (note, at least me and a few other coworkers.  I actually consider it a pretty strong catalyst to a lot of the exposure lately, speaking as someone on the inside of game development and speaking as a group that don't agree with many aspects Anita shares in her videos).

[Allan Schumacher]

There are aspects of her videos that I think are good points.  There are aspects of it that I think misunderstand some context and have challenging resolutions if fixed purely at their face value.

 

I'm replaying Fallout: New Vegas.  Anita does call out that while FONV allows for men (and even ghouls) to be prostitutes and placed on display as well as women.  Though she still points out that the game can encourage violence towards women.  I don't really agree (I think the game does a pretty bang up job with the random NPC generation for gender diversity), but if you're allowing the game player freedom to decide to attack any character, the resolution to preventing violence against women is to omit women from the setting.  Alternatively, the freedom for the player to behave in a particular way is removed.

 

If there's encouragement for violence towards women in FONV, I'm either blind to it (which may be the case) or it's actually a manifestation of beliefs/actions outside the game setting proper.  Caesar's Legion has negative perspectives towards women equality, but they're also pretty clearly "the evil faction" when held up to a lot of our standards.  Maybe it's problematic that the game lets you side with them, specifically, but even then I'm not sure if the faction does much to actually encourage or reward the player for specific actions against women (it's been a long time since I did any of Caesar's quests, however, and I didn't do all of them).

[Allan Schumacher]

And fortunately as she gained popularity, more people are beginning to notice her hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of like-minded individuals.

 

I'm curious if there's been some ways that you feel I have been hypocritical.

[Allan Schumacher]

Nope. 

 

If you thought that was a jab at you that wasn't my intention. 

 

No, it was actually a literal an invitation for feedback since, by nature of formulating my opinions, I have a bias to not see them as being contradictory (a human trait).

 

It's probably motivated because I consider myself a like-minded individual in many aspects.

[Allan Schumacher]

Provide a genuine thesis please, since I'm pretty sure that you're actually being sarcastic.

 

 

This is a general warning to the thread if your goal is to simply post videos and leave it to me to determine what aspects, specifically, you are referring to.  It's ambiguous and unproductive.

[Allan Schumacher]

Ho! I just saw she tossed in some Witcher and Dragon Age, two franchises which have some of the most intelligent and empowered women in games. Way to do your homework, Anita.

 

Context, scene, and elaborations?
 

I have reservations about some parts of the video too, but I tried to be clear (the FONV part).

 

Our game may have intelligent and empowered women, but that doesn't mean that we don't have examples that are also subpar as well.  Which scenes were discussed from the Witcher?

[Allan Schumacher]

When I say don't just fire and forget videos, I'm meaning it.  That's uninteresting (and completely against what I said to do a few posts earlier).

 

Lets share our own perspectives instead of someone else's.  If you're relying on what other people have to say, you're not demonstrating any critical analysis of your own and when I get accused of not debating honestly, it's frustrating to see a whole bunch of passive attempts of piggybacking on what other people have to say.

 

 

Make reference to the Anita video if you must (by pointing out times), but talk about what you feel are problems.  I've already shared some of mine.  I've even opened myself up for personal critique.  Feel free to talk about that too.