363 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?

[LPPrince]

The more the merrier.

[Rykoth]

I think the problem is there tends to be an extreme.

 

A good example is the game Guild Wars 2. An MMORPG, and one with very shoddy lore, made to appeal to everyone and made wayyyyy too fluffy and light hearted for my tastes. As a *roleplayer* it is so unrealistic to roleplay in. Only villains are racists.Only villains see genders as anything but equal with different parts. Only villains do this or that. Every race and culture is made to be effectively "white knightish."

 

Compare that to say Dragon Age (which while progressive, is at least to a point BELIEVABLE) or the Elder Scrolls or the Witcher. Guild Wars 2 is an example of the extreme, and if you even try to argue that it makes no sense and has no basis in any sort of suspension of disbelief - the people often labeled as "SJW" will crucify the crap out of you on their tumblrs and the like.

 

Hell, using roleplay as an example, if you play someone as not being very nice, they accuse the writer as being just as bad.

 

So yeah, the term SJW is - to me - a negative one. It's the ones who take it to an extreme where you can't even have flawed people in your fictional mediums anymore without being labeled a bigot.

 

To me, adversity is one of the universal themes that can make a fantasy world believable. That means overcoming stigmas, whether it is gender, race, or sexuality. The real world doesn't always offer the happy ending with that, and often times is a bleak struggle. I like to see those kinds of struggles in my fiction with success being the end game.

 

IMO, the SJW is detrimental to gaming because they don't want that struggle at all. That has no basis in realism... at all. Not even suspension of disbelief. People are people and by nature, some people are just not going to feel the same way, and therefore, trying to make everyone follow the same creed or belief system in your fiction (let alone IRL) is impossible to comprehend.

[Khayness]

Massive case of First World Problems.

 

While it's certainly an issue, so much nonsense gets labeled under sexism/racism/whatever is offensive to kids these days, like the recent UbiSoft attacks, it's hard to take them seriously, when around 80% of the time, they are just speaking out of their ass.

[Beerfish]

At times people hollering for things being too 'politically correct' have a valid point.  It all depends on everyone's point of view of what is proper and there is often no concrete consensus.  What % of the gaming population are woman?  What % are gay?  What % of content should be Representative of these groups?  What about racial content as well?  It's a sensitive issue that hopefully one day will not come up as often as it does because we have reached a point of it not being a big issue.

[Fast Jimmy]

Inclusivity for inclusivity's own sake is Marketing. Yes, it is better social karma than something like Dead Space's "your mom will hate this game" attempt at... whatever that was. But it is still marketing - packaging your product in such a manner as to attract a broader customer base.

I don't mind Marketing. It is very useful and the more copies of a game I like that sells, the better the chance I will continue seeing future content that I like from the same developer.

But when things like story, lore and setting are sacrificed in the name of Marketing, I can't help but roll my eyes. Whether that's making things that were previously established irrelevant, or if it fundamentally upsets previously established lore, it is a detriment to the believability of the narrative. I don't care if that's suddenly making every female in the game giant-boobed/scantly clad, giving a race an entirely different look from one game to the next (like adding horns <ahem>) just for the Rule of Cool or suddenly having every form of sexuality and ethnic representation found in the real world to suddenly pop up out of the ground unexplained in a fictional one... it is all the same level of irritation.

Marketing, even socially progressive Marketing, should not devalue or interfere with the game in the least. That's my view on things. I'm sorry that offends people who like Marketing that is aimed at groups not usually targeted.

[Fast Jimmy]

At times people hollering for things being too 'politically correct' have a valid point. It all depends on everyone's point of view of what is proper and there is often no concrete consensus. What % of the gaming population are woman? What % are gay? What % of content should be Representative of these groups? What about racial content as well? It's a sensitive issue that hopefully one day will not come up as often as it does because we have reached a point of it not being a big issue.

It's interesting, because for the past half a century, this has been the hope - that one day the entire issue won't matter because we will have reached some form of equilibrium.

But that's so open-ended and undefined that it becomes a constantly moving goal post, where there is no final determination of what is a big deal. For instance, women in politics. I think it is safe to say that women are underrepresented in elected government positions. But women have the right to vote and hold office in most industrialized countries. There are more women alive on the plane than men. So what steps need to be taken? If every woman on the planet is fed up with not having more women, then hey could all just vote straight "woman" on the tickets and the issue is resolved.

Point being is that people complain about women being represented in government, but very few would vote for a woman whose ideals are counter to their own. So, in reality, it becomes "there aren't enough women LIKE ME in government" which is non-social crusade issue at all. Then it is solely a political one.


I use this as an example not to show that I'm against more women in politics (I'm not) but to show that the problems are not the demonized sexism, racism and prejudice that people (like those labeled as SJW) accuse it of being. Want more sexualities represented in video games? Then get gamers (or people new to gaming) to buy the pants off a game with sexuality choices. Want more ethnicities in mainstream movie? Pre-order twenty million tickets to the new Fantastic Four, complete with a African American Human Torch.

Because when these things don't happen, it says, to me, that these things don't matter. That a small subsection of people are finding interest in the idea of what is being advocated. Which, if is the case, means we've already reached the goal - it doesn't matter.

[TheChris92]

I think its ridiculous to be branded with an insulting title just because one believes in the freedom of equal rights for all. 

There are the people who'll occasionally come with the dumb "It's just a video game" argument, where I have to raise my finger for a moment.

It's video game, yes, but they are important because we take them seriously and we like playing them, as much as we love watching film and books, and we'd be

just as embarrassed or mortified about any form of irrational underlying hatred towards any group of people within any of these medias. 

 

No one is talking about forcing someone to care about this issue, but whether one Johnny doesn't care does mean it isn't important, and it's not exactly like people are demanding that one developer solely cater to this or that group. It's about raising awareness that "Hey, we are here! Can we have our voice be heard". There's nothing wrong with that at all. I'd love to see more female protagonists in video games that don't resort to stereotypes but are written as quite simply.. "person".

It'd also be cool to see characters that are fundamentally into the same sex, if it serves the plot in some way, of course. 

 

I don't particular see the point of opposition to this issue to be honest.

[Cyonan]

I would say it depends on the situation.

 

A character that was included for the sake of having one of these characters is likely going to end up a bad character, and nobody likes a bad character. It should add to an existing character, not be their entire identity.

 

Some games also don't really need it. A game like Minecraft doesn't do anything in terms of character development, so it would be kind of pointless to start hitting insane levels of inclusiveness.

 

and then some games just wont be able to include well written characters for every last one of these groups. It is quite a few characters to have in a game.

 

As far as the movement goes, it's fine to ask to have these things in games or why a company chose not to include it. It's not as fine for some of them to start hating on companies because they didn't include whatever group you wanted them to.

 

Unless they have a stupid reason for it like Ubisoft. Then hate away.

[Endurium]

Traditionalists aren't going away any time soon, and the very vocal minorities are getting their day across the board (IRL and in entertainment). This is just drama for drama's sake.

[MissOuJ]

I think that not being inclusive is going to start biting publishers in the a** very soon. Look at the E3 Ubisoft backlash and the #womenarehardtoanimate tag - if even fraction of that can be shown to affect the sales of the new AC game, I can guarantee that Ubisoft will be keeping playable female characters in mind when they start producing their next AC game - or any of their future titles, for that matter.

 

Other than that... yeah, treating people like equals is one of the lowest ladders of human decency, and I think we could / should manage that. However, seeing how some gamers (and just people in general - try and have a conversation about female / racial / LGBT representation in *insert popular TV series here* in any popular forum, sit back and watch the organic waste hit the cooling apparatus) react to any comment along the lines of "you know... I think we / the show / the industry could be portraying this particular demographic a bit more fairly" the aftermath is usually prettu ugly. See also: the abuse Sarkeesian faced (and continues to face) - and she's not even particularly radical. I've seen rad fem in all of its disgusting, racist and transphobic glory, and Feminist Frequency isn't only in a completely different post code, its on a different continent.

 

Also I truly loathe the term SJW - like inequality is just an illusion and caring and fighting for representation and against harmful stereotypes is just tilting at windmills.

 

But ehh. I have high hopes for videogames yet.

[TheClonesLegacy]

I would say it depends on the situation.

 

A character that was included for the sake of having one of these characters is likely going to end up a bad character, and nobody likes a bad character. It should add to an existing character, not be their entire identity.

 

Some games also don't really need it. A game like Minecraft doesn't do anything in terms of character development, so it would be kind of pointless to start hitting insane levels of inclusiveness.

 

and then some games just wont be able to include well written characters for every last one of these groups. It is quite a few characters to have in a game.

 

As far as the movement goes, it's fine to ask to have these things in games or why a company chose not to include it. It's not as fine for some of them to start hating on companies because they didn't include whatever group you wanted them to.

 

Unless they have a stupid reason for it like Ubisoft. Then hate away.

^This

 

Also, Considering Ubisoft had a pretty decent reason they could've used, the reason used is pretty not great.

Aveline.

Her game, it's HD Re-Release, and her DLC for Black Flag, went pretty unnoticed (Hell, Liberation only made 0.96 Million Dollars, that's pretty bad)

So if I were Ubisoft, my reason would be "Due to the sales of Liberation, we don't see it as ideal to use another female character in an Assassins Creed Game"

Might sound stupid to SJWs and most people, but from a publisher standpoint it makes sense. Why waste money developing new game assets if you don't have to? Especially when it's shown it doesn't sell.

[xAmilli0n]

Inclusion is a good thing.  If there is no good reason not to be inclusive, then why not go for it?  Story and character matter the most of course, but saying that adding a specific type of character would automatically result in a bad character or hurt the story is simply an excuse to be lazy.  Its all up to the creator of course, and their idea of what final product should be, but if at all possible, I say be inclusive.

 

If you've never read them before, take a look at some of the text games by Choice of Games.  Its easy to see how simply changing pronouns or swapping gender roles can make a game immensely enjoyable and engaging.

[Fast Jimmy]

Inclusion is a good thing.  If there is no good reason not to be inclusive, then why not go for it?  Story and character matter the most of course, but saying that adding a specific type of character would automatically result in a bad character or hurt the story is simply an excuse to be lazy.  Its all up to the creator of course, and their idea of what final product should be, but if at all possible, I say be inclusive.
 
If you've never read them before, take a look at some of the text games by Choice of Games.  Its easy to see how simply changing pronouns or swapping gender roles can make a game immensely enjoyable and engaging.

And one of the values of a non-voiced, lower production development. Heck, characters can even reference you by name, instead of "Warden" or "Shephard."

[Cainhurst Crow]

I find their cause to be commendable, and a pretty good one to have. I even support a lot of what they are going for because I find it would overall help break up some of the more common tropes of video games.

 

But the methods many choose to employ by trying to get what they want, the attitude they have going about it, and the users themselves and how they conduct themselves, is what makes me turn on them and really not like them very much. There's an arrogance to a lot of these folks, a sort of tone they adopt in their writings that sound like they are speaking from some position of authority and superiority rather then as just another person looking to do some good. They tend to be thinned skin, I find, unable to take mild bashing or critical examination of their goals of ideals without decrying the examiner as being racists, or sexist, or homophobic, or whatever other buzz word they think will make the other person feel bad and back off and make them look like the victim. Meanwhile, they had been doing the same thing to a much greater degree, using little to no information to make assumptions of moral judgement, as to whether the person is good or not based on a position they might have that isn't 100% aligned with there.

 

An example here, two people want more female representation in games. One fan is a social justice warrior and demands the game companies do it and do it now, or else threatens them and condemns them as willingly oppressing women as part of a patriarchy. Another fan, a normal one, sees that its going to take a while, but keeps asking to see more female characters, making sure people can see the people want this to happen. SJW comes into normal persons thread and begins attacking anyone who disagrees, being extremely belligerent and aggressive, calling people women beaters and rapists. Normal person doesn't want the thread locked and asks SJW to stop being so mean and angry. SJW turns on normal person and says that normal person is a horrible person for not being outraged and attacking other users, then blocks them before they can reply. Thread is locked shortly after, both users get temp banned.

 

I find a lot of SJW's are so concerned with getting what they want in the game that they don't really care how its done, and that concerns me if all they really want is just numerical representation and nothing else. The amount they use their "cause" to embody their lives, while their business, is just outright strange to me. For example many DA fans admit that without romance content they wouldn't be fans of dragon age. This strikes me as a horrible reason to support a company, akin to a stereotypical gamer supporting a trash game because you get to see hot women on the screen. Something the SJW's would condemn as furthering the decline of society, but not if they do it for whatever cause they support. Many have also said they do not care about a games lore, nor do they care about having quality in the inclusion they seek, just that its there at all. And as I stated before, they are quick to anger and attack.

 

These factors are all bad on their own, but there is one factor above all else that makes them truly a bane to deal with, they don't listen. For all their talk about giving people a voice in gaming to stand up for others rights, they don't seem to care about listening to anyone else voice an opinion. They just keep their own arrogant view that they are right, morally and empirically, and anyone else who doesn't fall in line is wrong. Perhaps this is simply normal intenret behavior but combined with their quick tempers, disregard for anything but their own goals, and self-proclaimed moral high ground, it makes them entirely unlikeable and untrustworthy.

 

Which is a downright shame, because I honestly feel because the most extreme members of the movement, the social justice belligerents, are getting all the attention and all the control in their victories, nobody is really winning. Their cause is seen as whiny and its supporters are seen as horrible, the changes themselves that win over the SJW's are cosmetic at best, the changes don't actually matter in the game itself and so the payoff for all the outrage and protesting was minimal, and the rest of the people who wanted better change are left disenfranchised while the game companies themselves can just point to their half-attempts and be praised for being better.

 

Their movement has some legitimacy and merit, there are game companies out there who could use more inclusiveness. Ubisoft comes to mind in their latest release about why they don't have female characters. If not for the people composing the movement, maybe there wouldn't be so much resistance.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

One of the reasons DA2 felt stupid was its romances that were shaped by SJW demands. / My 2 dollars.

[Khayness]

For example many DA fans admit that without romance content they wouldn't be fans of dragon age. This strikes me as a horrible reason to support a company, akin to a stereotypical gamer supporting a trash game because you get to see hot women on the screen.

 

What I love about internet fights, that most of the time, most participants are acting the same, they are only on different sides.

[OdanUrr]

I just want to play good games.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think its ridiculous to be branded with an insulting title just because one believes in the freedom of equal rights for all. 
There are the people who'll occasionally come with the dumb "It's just a video game" argument, where I have to raise my finger for a moment.
It's video game, yes, but they are important because we take them seriously and we like playing them, as much as we love watching film and books, and we'd be
just as embarrassed or mortified about any form of irrational underlying hatred towards any group of people within any of these medias. 

Okay, first off... since when are movies or books somehow safe havens of social equality?

Secondly, show me a video game made in the past twenty years that has irrational hatred against a particular gender, ethnic group or sexuality. HATRED is a terrible word to use and one that, frankly, SJW can sometimes use far too often. Burning a cross in someone's yard - that's hatred. Not including enough characters of various pixelated pigmentation in your game - that's an oversight. Let's not confuse the two.
 

No one is talking about forcing someone to care about this issue, but whether one Johnny doesn't care does mean it isn't important, and it's not exactly like people are demanding that one developer solely cater to this or that group. It's about raising awareness that "Hey, we are here! Can we have our voice be heard". There's nothing wrong with that at all. I'd love to see more female protagonists in video games that don't resort to stereotypes but are written as quite simply.. "person".
It'd also be cool to see characters that are fundamentally into the same sex, if it serves the plot in some way, of course. 
 
I don't particular see the point of opposition to this issue to be honest.

And if this voice is heard, what would it say, exactly? Is it saying "I won't play Call of Duty until a gay guy is the main character?" Or "I find video games as offensive medium because I don't see as many people of my race in them?" Because if there were, publishers would be all over it in a heartbeat.

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."

Meanwhile, Call of Duty sales dwarf those of any game that offers a romance option. So I'm sure you can understand not many developers are entirely gung-ho about hopping into the nest of vipers that is the game of inclusive video game development? Don't include multiple ethnicities and you're racist. Include people with different skin tones that don't act any different than the standard white characters and you're racist. Make the characters conform to any type of stereotype, good or bad, of real life ethnicities and you're racist. I can keep going, with each possible request for inclusion being able to work with it.

Should games conform to the standard white male archetypes we've seen across all other media for centuries? No. Should an attempt be made to have more representation across all groups, not just as characters, but as employees in the industry as well? Sure. But should a developer feel forced and pressured to change their game and adhere to some type of artificial politically correct checklist and formula to make sure everyone is appropriately accounted for in terms of social and sexual interaction within a game before it can even be considered to go out the door? No, absolutely not. If you want equality in video games, vote with your wallet, not with your Tumblr account.

[xAmilli0n]

An example here, two people want more female representation in games. One fan is a social justice warrior and demands the game companies do it and do it now, or else threatens them and condemns them as willingly oppressing women as part of a patriarchy. Another fan, a normal one, sees that its going to take a while, but keeps asking to see more female characters, making sure people can see the people want this to happen.

 

I find your concerns about the approach fair enough, but I felt this sentence stood out.  Why should it take a while?  Why can't we see these changes in games coming out now?  Sometimes you have to be loud to be seen.  Be the change you wish to see and all that jazz, etc., etc.

 

 

I just want to play good games.

 

While we all know these two things are mutually exclusive, I agree, sometimes we don't need to make everything a big to do.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I find your concerns about the approach fair enough, but I felt this sentence stood out.  Why should it take a while?  Why can't we see these changes in games coming out now?  Sometimes you have to be loud to be seen.  Be the change you wish to see and all that jazz, etc., etc.

 

 

 

Because that simply isn't how things in the world work, for anything. Change is not instantaneous, there is a process, and it takes time for said process to occur. Social change is even harder to do, especially for starters by the time the two posters are discussing the things they want, the game is already in beta, and its trailers and stuff with all its set mechanics and character models are already out there, unable to be changed. You'd need to wait for the next game at least to get the content you were asking for, assuming the company would do it at the next iteration. That's why every time I see people making SJW-esque demands for inquisition after the trailer, I can't help but laugh at how quickly and easily people can just scrap all their pre-alpha programing and start all over again.

 

But what good does it do to attack and belittle other fans, for not sharing your view? For all your loud noises and thunderous shouts of anger and outrage over the lack of inclusion, it signifies nothing, and turns people off from your cause. A person who stands on a soapbox and demands people storm the government or corporation anger gets no support. A person who can calmly discuss and articulate their point, show respect for other views they don't agree with, and explain why they don't agree with those views, leaves a profoundly stronger impact, even if it takes longer.

[TheChris92]

Okay, first off... since when are movies or books somehow safe havens of social equality?

Implying that I was saying otherwise? What are you talking about? I made the reference based on the fact that cinema, as well as books, can potentially involve scenes and/or events that could indicate some sort of underlying irrational prejudice towards any group of people. Not like I recall many that have it but there will be some. But the important thing to remember is that there is a difference between a film/game/book promoting racism and/or depicting. That's exactly what I was saying.
 

Secondly, show me a video game made in the past twenty years that has irrational hatred against a particular gender, ethnic group or sexuality. HATRED is a terrible word to use and one that, frankly, SJW can sometimes use far too often. Burning a cross in someone's yard - that's hatred. Not including enough characters of various pixelated pigmentation in your game - that's an oversight. Let's not confuse the two.

I'd like to think there are none. And I wasn't making the argument that there was. Perhaps hatred is too much of a strong word, which obviously have been used before in relations to cases like Resident Evil 5 -- The rather jarring depiction of Africans shines through, but I like to think that isn't the fault of the developers being bad people -- They are just idiots.
 

And if this voice is heard, what would it say, exactly? Is it saying "I won't play Call of Duty until a gay guy is the main character?" Or "I find video games as offensive medium because I don't see as many people of my race in them?" Because if there were, publishers would be all over it in a heartbeat.

What I'd like to see in general would be more games that could potentially have a female lead, where she's written as a persona/character first and everything else second, as opposed to be a pile of stereotypes masquerading as a female character.
 

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."

Inequality exists. I think it's ridiculous to think otherwise. There'll always be complaints for anything. Doesn't mean that developer shouldn't stop. I think Dice did something interesting with Mirror's Edge beyond the retarded first-person platforming. I don't anybody told them to make a game with a female character, just a good game with a character who happens to be female. That's all I'd like to see. That and more in the future.
 

Meanwhile, Call of Duty sales dwarf those of any game that offers a romance option. So I'm sure you can understand not many developers are entirely gung-ho about hopping into the nest of vipers that is the game of inclusive video game development? Don't include multiple ethnicities and you're racist. Include people with different skin tones that don't act any different than the standard white characters and you're racist. Make the characters conform to any type of stereotype, good or bad, of real life ethnicities and you're racist. I can keep going, with each possible request for inclusion being able to work with it.

I don't think I can assume that Call of Duty will change a whole lot. Just because this game sells well doesn't mean it's the status quo for all games. The industry is big and I'd like to think taht because it's so ever changing, then there's room for characters that can be whatever sexuality they wanna be or gender, while still being well-written characters first, and it involves consistency with its narrative.

Should games conform to the standard white male archetypes we've seen across all other media for centuries? No. Should an attempt be made to have more representation across all groups, not just as characters, but as employees in the industry as well? Sure. But should a developer feel forced and pressured to change their game and adhere to some type of artificial politically correct checklist and formula to make sure everyone is appropriately accounted for in terms of social and sexual interaction within a game before it can even be considered to go out the door? No, absolutely not. If you want equality in video games, vote with your wallet, not with your Tumblr account.

Implying that this isn't what I was saying?
Wanna know my opinion? I think you're taking things to an exaggerated degree. One developer does something, and there are complainers, so ultimately this means they shouldn't even bother? Who are these people that complain? Do they represent the entire LGBT community? I also think there's a difference between complaining and offering feedback. There are always complaints to any aspect of any game. You're making it sound like it's ultimately a futile effort, which is simply not true. Also as I read your comment further I get the distinct impression you're interpreting my post as something else entirely. Not sure why.
 
I'd argue that games by Atlus with Persona 4 Golden & Catherine, have managed to approach the gender, sexuality issue with a steady hand without reforming too much to stereotypes or mocking of that. I also know there are people complaining and critizing that game too for some of these things. Ultimately, this is the way of the world.

I'd like to see more games where these traits makes sense in context of the narrative. It's not that I need the games to revolve around a guy being gay, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that gamers come in all shapes and form and it would be great to see more games that can appeal to whomever -- Or maybe the right turn of phrase is -- Games that aren't afraid to conform to sensitive subjects, ignoring mass appeal, and willing enough to take new steps further. I think Last of Us did so by having Ellie being the center of attention in the plot of that game. I liked her a lot and that game.

[In Exile]

Because that simply isn't how things in the world work, for anything. Change is not instantaneous, there is a process, and it takes time for said process to occur. Social change is even harder to do, especially for starters by the time the two posters are discussing the things they want, the game is already in beta, and its trailers and stuff with all its set mechanics and character models are already out there, unable to be changed. You'd need to wait for the next game at least to get the content you were asking for, assuming the company would do it at the next iteration. That's why every time I see people making SJW-esque demands for inquisition after the trailer, I can't help but laugh at how quickly and easily people can just scrap all their pre-alpha programing and start all over again.
 
But what good does it do to attack and belittle other fans, for not sharing your view? For all your loud noises and thunderous shouts of anger and outrage over the lack of inclusion, it signifies nothing, and turns people off from your cause. A person who stands on a soapbox and demands people storm the government or corporation anger gets no support. A person who can calmly discuss and articulate their point, show respect for other views they don't agree with, and explain why they don't agree with those views, leaves a profoundly stronger impact, even if it takes longer.

Social change doesn't happen by being nice. Massive changes in American society - and America has to be the example here seeing as we're talking about American gaming companies - came on the back of huge social upheaval movements. Civil rights had outright riots. Increases representation for women came via a brand of very vocal and very aggressive feminism.

It is exactly those people who stand on their pulpit and demand change that make the difference because they're the ones who for e the public to confront the issue. People won't solve a problem until it is a problem, and as this own forum shows, for people who are on the outside the usual response to calm and rational is "well do it eventually". Not to mention that this whole calm and rational line of classification usually means something like asking for something that won't really go far beyond the status quo and going away if the answer is no.

Of course, the funny thing with all of is that my own post will probably have me labeled as a SJW, despite the fact that nothing is further from the truth.