363 réponses à ce sujet

[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.

[Inquisitor Recon]

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).

It wasn't an assertion, I was instead questioning the wisdom of somebody who is looking for social commentary on race and gender in a game like Diablo.

 

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'm not certain what point you are trying to make here. All of that fine to consider, NPCs reacting to the player differently based on factors like race and gender is a good thing. Yet inevitably there will be some offended by some aspect of this or another. If the end result is the game world not reacting differently to such factors it really doesn't seem all that important.

 

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?"

Well I can't really know that without knowing what the specifics of this situation are? What's the game? Are we referring to the PC character or some NPC? Does it make sense when you consider the story, setting, and other factors?

 

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).

 

 

And it is always a feature somebody or another wants to see. Yet the SJWs tend to avoid acknowledging that, they attempt to portray their request as a matter of "social justice", "fairness", or some other concept intended to guilt or shame the developers into giving them what they want. Such behavior makes it clear to me that those are individuals with an axe to grind as part of some agenda that goes beyond making a better game. In many cases this commentary comes from SJWs with little interest in the game itself. People just looking to advocate some cause or another on the internet. Because of this I am indeed of the opinion that the features I enjoy and am concerned with are more important than whatever those on tumblr are harping on about this week.

 

What is this status quo you speak of? When developers are concerned with the overall picture versus supposed injustices in representation?

 

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.

As far as I know the developers decided Lee would be a black man from an early date. Clearly implementing key assets like main characters isn't "addtional" work. What I was talking about are options in regards to character customization/development. Those should be weighed based on many factors include the amount of work involved but also "what does it add to the game" and if it fits with the overall vision the developers have. Are the developers of Deus Ex: Human Revolution wrong for making Adam Jensen such a predefined character? No, it was part of their vision for the game. Would it be a problem if he was a black? Of course not, yet that isn't what the developers decided on. There is no valid reason to frame everything in the context of "is it or isn't it racist".

 

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

Well it's fine for somebody to request that, yet they should be honest about it (what I want to see) versus bringing in notions of "fairness" into the mix, or jumping right to claims of racism/sexism/homophobia/whatever as is common with the SJWs.

[Khayness]

I think sometimes when diversity comes up in gaming and things get racial it seems like a new game is being promoted because we have a transgender-Asian woman as the lead character, rather than "we're excited to announce the release of a new game that just so happens to have a transgender-Asian woman as the lead character", it's like which aspect is being promoted: the game itself or a small implementation? 

 

Hah, I remember Mirror's Edge marketing. All the gaming media was like, "playable asian girl character, and she doesn't have double D's, how cool is that?". That fact was mentioned more than the game being an experimental FPS platformer.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

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!"

You misunderstand. Those paraphrases at the bottom of my argument were abbreviated versions of how each side perceives each other, in a distorted, instinctual manner.

The SJW side can find it baffling that people would oppose moves to be more inclusive, since it is a positive goal. With the dudebros see it as change that could risk reducing their enjoyment of video games for a goal they don't see much value in.

Your above response makes it seen like those against inclusion just for inclusion's sake in an entertainment product are against it because they prefer a white and male dominated game. I don't think that is a healthy mindset for anyone to have, as it presumes that the person on the other side of the argument is racist and/or sexist. Similarly, I don't think the dudebros of the world have a problem with fighting for equality or social justice, but just that it should be a secondary goal to the development and enjoyment of the game itself.


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.

And yet, I am accused, either directly or through implication, of being racist for such a stance - even when I provide quotes from David Gaider that this is the exact method they would use in implementing another group of people who had a similar appearance as other real life ethnicities in Thedas. The responses people give are "why should they have to explain someone who isn't white, that is the very definition of racist," or "so you want to put hurdles up just to keep your white gaming environment all to yourself" or other statements of similar nonsense. I'm not against Asian characters. And neither is Bioware - you all made Jade Empire for Pete's sake.

But as someone trying to preserve the lore and saying "this could happen, but something like X needs to occur, because having people just shoot up out of the ground does damage to the setting and suspension of disbelief for the narrative," something that is part of what makes the game good, I am being told I should put aside my concerns about the game's quality and support the implementation of the inclusive change, because to do otherwise is racist.

That is what people who are against inclusion fear (and sometimes see). That these changes aren't done in a logical manner that provides both inclusivity for more people and also keeps the game's integrity intact. When the cry for inclusivity is louder than the call for good games, that's what gets people concerned.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

I just wanted to step in here and say changing the discussion to "this is just another feature request" is a dangerous path to walk. Removing the political and social implications of these issues winds up getting ugly really quick - I know from experience from asking a few weeks ago what was inherently offensive about asking for a toggle for being hit in by other sexualities. Not that I was asking, let alone advocating, for it, just what was so offensive to ask for a certain game feature that doesn't influence anyone else's game who did not use the feature. It ended poorly.


Removing the context of the feature (racial or sexual diversity) leaves it wide open to being torn apart. For instance, you could include a game with both a silent and voiced protagonist using toggles or some other method to give two different experiences of the protagonist. You could design multiple different combat systems that let the player go full action style or full, turn based tactical (and every facet of difference in-between). You could include a toggle on romances altogether, turning them on for be people who like them and completely excluding them for people who don't.

But Bioware doesn't do this. Because the effort required to add these features in and test them to the point of acceptable polish is significant. And if you spend time offering choices to one feature, it means other areas have to suffer.

If you remove the context of inclusiveness, I could easily say "there are more video games out there that offer minority or women characters (or the option to play as a minority or woman character) than has a silent protagonist. Why is the feature I want sidelined in favor of the features other want?"

If you remove the context, it hurts the argument for inclusion, not strengthens it.

[General TSAR]

I'm just gonna leave this here,

[In Exile]

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. 

 

Wait, are you saying it's not OK to have kids apologize to other kids when they're being bullies/jerks? 

[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?

[General TSAR]

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

[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.

[General TSAR]

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

[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?

[General TSAR]

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

Her self-inflated ego? Instead of simply not feeding trolls and rebutting intelligent criticism, Sarkeesian turned off the comment section (I would have done so too if I got constant death threats mind you, death threats are kinda not a good idea) and went out of her way to paint herself as a damsel in distress being attacked by the misogynist horde of the internet so the legions of white knights will jump to her defense. A most amusing irony.

[ObserverStatus]

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".

Good for Blizzard? What do you mean "good for Blizzard", look at this!

 

 

Rob Pardo of Blizzard Entertainment gave a recent talk at the MIT Media Lab emphasizing that Blizzard seeks to offer "epic entertainment experiences" and that rather than focusing on narrative, they center on fun and gameplay.

He's using the Tommy Wiseau defense to excuse StarCraft II and Diablo III's stories. I'd take a Blizzard game that does away with the sexualized character models, but maintains their pre-Burning Crusade writing quality over the crap we've been getting from them without hesitation. Blizzard is saying that they're going to keep drawing female characters the same way as before because this is a necessary condition for them to continue ruining the stories of their own franchises on purpose, believing their to be an inverse relation between story quality and fun. Praising them for this is like praising the driver who ran over your dog for his excellent taste in vintage cars.

[Cyonan]

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

 

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).

[Fast Jimmy]

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

Moral value is highly subjective and is practically impossible to define. If I were a religious fundamentalist who earnestly thought that if you didn't believe in my religion you would be subjected to eternal torture, I could make a terrible video game that preaches the tenets of my religion in an attempt to convert your soul. That has huge moral value for me, fundamentalist video game designer. It has next to no value to you, video game player who does not share my beliefs. And if my focus was on the message I thought was of moral value to the exclusion of making a good video game, then you will pass it up and it will be of no worth to anyone.

I'm not correlating SJW attitudes to religious fanaticism, just trying to show that morals one person think is great and would like to see included in a game may be bad (or, much more likely, of an neutral or ambiguous value) to someone else.

So to answer your question, no. Fictional story integrity does not have more moral value than inclusiveness. But moral value could mean bumpkiss to a large segment of people who could care less. Which means you are now harming the story of the game for a value others don't care about. Which is a losing proposition for anyone who doesn't share the exact moral compass being advocated.

[In Exile]

Her self-inflated ego? Instead of simply not feeding trolls and rebutting intelligent criticism, Sarkeesian turned off the comment section (I would have done so too if I got constant death threats mind you, death threats are kinda not a good idea) and went out of her way to paint herself as a damsel in distress being attacked by the misogynist horde of the internet so the legions of white knights will jump to her defense. A most amusing irony.

 

She is a being attacked by a misogynist horde. She is literally getting rape threats sent to her whenever this group of people find out an address where they can send their threats.

[In Exile]

I'm not correlating SJW attitudes to religious fanaticism, just trying to show that morals one person think is great and would like to see included in a game may be bad (or, much more likely, of an neutral or ambiguous value) to someone else.

 

Except that you're doing exactly that, because your example loses a great deal of rhetorical force when you substitute the absurd hypothetical you're using with a shared cultural value. For example, if we substitute religious fundamentalism with "opposition to virulent racism", the example goes in another direction entirely. It's exactly the same as another analogy you've previously used, that of support for the environment. 

 

Asking for inclusiveness is asking for something that's, as a general value, broadly supported (at least in public) and generally representative of the fundamental social and political morality of the society that we live in. Using other examples - like religious extremism - simply doesn't carry the same weight because it makes the quest seem idiosyncratic in a way that it simply isn't when it comes to the actual values in play.

 

To expand on this analogy:

 

 

So to answer your question, no. Fictional story integrity does not have more moral value than inclusiveness. But moral value could mean bumpkiss to a large segment of people who could care less. Which means you are now harming the story of the game for a value others don't care about. Which is a losing proposition for anyone who doesn't share the exact moral compass being advocated. 

 

 

 

 

There are lots of moral values that are shared by a large and substantial portion of the public, and while these are subjective in some academic and philosophical sense, they are most certainly not really up for debate for most people making up our society. 

 

This is all nothing more than a false equivalence. There are some values that, if people don't share them, we will judge and society will consider us right for judging. For example, marriage equality. Someone who doesn't share that value, at this point, is on the wrong side of the moral fence.