269: Praise Diversity, Address Inequality
- Thread starter Jamin Brophy-Warren
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The videogame industry is an INDUSTRY. It is concerned with the demographics of its consumer base, not the national demographics. I get the impression that a lot of people think that the racial aspect of a character is just decided by chance, or the whim of the designer. If videogame companies are like any other companies I can assure you they have done many studies and focus groups to determine how to maximize their sales to their target audience. If you want more black characters then you need a larger black consumer-base. It's that simple. You might say that it's racist that whites prefer to play as whites, but its a commonly accepted rule in psychology that all people prefer people that look similar to them, even to the point that one looks for similar facial traits in potential mates. Is that racist? Well, it's certainly a form of implicit, unconscious bias, but it can only qualify as racism if hatred is removed from the definition. A positive preference of something is not tantamount to contempt of everything else.
"Willful ignorance and willful lack of sensitivity?" Really? So in order to be completely absolved of racism you have to have a PhD in anthropology? That's absurd. I'm willfully ignorant of all sorts of cultures because I don't have the time or energy to devote to studying them. If I glean a stereotype from a culture without knowing the basis for that stereotype then I must be racist right? As long as I don't think that ALL Scots wear kilts, play the bagpipes and eat Haggis, I don't think it's racist to associate Scots with kilts bagpipes and haggis. Only a complete moron would think that some stereotype is necessarily true about every person who belongs to that group without exception.
As for sensitivity: why on god's green earth would hypersensitivity be a good thing? Everyone always has to step on egg-shells because you never know who you might offend. It seems obvious to me that we should be working in the exact opposite direction. As long as no one discriminates against anyone in an official capacity (i.e. denies them a job, a place at a restaurant, or a seat on a bus) then racism should be treated as an opinion. Granted a potentially extreme and offensive opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. If someone voices such an opinion publicly then it provides cause to review any official decisions they may have made that regards race, just as an outspoken right-wing fanatic who turns down an application from a woman who is pro-choice better have a good explanation for doing so lest he risk litigation.
Aside from official decisions we should, as a society, try to DE-sensitize race. After all, why would a racial slur be more insulting than a personalized insult that actually applies to you. If someone calls me an inbred redneck trailer-trash cracker, I'm more liable to laugh at their hyperbole than to take umbrage. But if someone says something personal about me or my family member (that somehow applies), then I'm probably going to respond in kind. The goal is to make everyone hypersensitive is tantamount to censorship. If people are hypersensitive then they will be easily offended, yet the goal is supposedly to make sure that no one is offended. The only way to accomplish that goal is to make sure no one ever says anything that could remotely be construed as offensive. Does it stop at race? Maybe I'm offended by Christianity's claims that anyone who isn't Christian spends eternity in hell. Guess they'll have to take that part out of their sermons. "If you're a good Christian you'll go to heaven." "What if I'm not Christian?" "Errr... You'll... go to... heaven?" "So what's the point of being Christian?" "Ummmmmmm..."
Sure if everyone was knowledgeable about and had respect for everyone's race/culture then no one will ever say anything offensive. Oh wait... What if they point out how one culture is inferior to another in a certain objective respect? Say for instance the minimal scientific achievements of the cultures of sub-Saharan Africa, or those of other undeveloped parts of the world. Objective historical facts can't be racist; that would make reality itself racist, which is absurd. The only answer is to say that all cultures are equal overall. However, no one can seem to give a set of criteria on which to judge this equality. You could say they're culturally equal, but that is a question-begging sophistry as the equality of the CULTURES is the very thing in question. Diversity is the most hopeful answer to this question as diversity does have a positive aesthetic value. But to say that all cultures are equal qua diversity is merely to say that they are equal by means of being different. However, equality can ONLY be measured between DIFFERENT things, for to say something is equal to itself is, of course, a meaningless tautology. Thus if being different makes things equal then equality applies to everything, you are even entitled to claim 3=7!
A great deal of people talk about equality and inequality in a vague manner that seems to confound equality of opportunity with actual equality in traits. The goal of the civil rights movement is the former, the goal of hard-line communism is the latter. People are not equal in the latter sense. Some people are smarter than others, some are stronger, some faster, some more congenial. This is a fact of life. The purpose of equality of opportunity is to ensure that people rise in society based upon the attributes that are relevant to success, and not by arbitrary discrimination and favoritism. The very basis for society and life in general is the inequality of traits, for without it there could be no lifeforms beyond simple protozoa, and there could be no way to determine who should be responsible for what in a society. One of the primary reasons why communism fails is that it doesn't provide an incentive for superior individuals to do anything different than their inferiors. If a professor is paid the same as a janitor then why go to college?
But it would be unfair of me to withhold the answer from the philosophically uninitiated. It is quite simply that the equality that multiculturalists claim is not an objective or descriptive equality, but a prescriptive equality. Their real claim is simply that culture is a matter of taste, and diversity is important insomuch as it allows as many pallets to be catered to as possible. What they're really saying is that you may not like a culture, but that is your taste, and you have no more of a claim to objectivity as anyone else. Sure, certain cultures may be scientifically backward, but scientific achievement is only one criterion by which to judge a culture. In essence, the racist or chauvinist is likened to the irascible fellow in the art gallery who keeps shouting, "a painting of a soup can isn't art!" To which the rest of the people in the gallery reply, "so say you."
"Willful ignorance and willful lack of sensitivity?" Really? So in order to be completely absolved of racism you have to have a PhD in anthropology? That's absurd. I'm willfully ignorant of all sorts of cultures because I don't have the time or energy to devote to studying them. If I glean a stereotype from a culture without knowing the basis for that stereotype then I must be racist right? As long as I don't think that ALL Scots wear kilts, play the bagpipes and eat Haggis, I don't think it's racist to associate Scots with kilts bagpipes and haggis. Only a complete moron would think that some stereotype is necessarily true about every person who belongs to that group without exception.
As for sensitivity: why on god's green earth would hypersensitivity be a good thing? Everyone always has to step on egg-shells because you never know who you might offend. It seems obvious to me that we should be working in the exact opposite direction. As long as no one discriminates against anyone in an official capacity (i.e. denies them a job, a place at a restaurant, or a seat on a bus) then racism should be treated as an opinion. Granted a potentially extreme and offensive opinion, but an opinion nonetheless. If someone voices such an opinion publicly then it provides cause to review any official decisions they may have made that regards race, just as an outspoken right-wing fanatic who turns down an application from a woman who is pro-choice better have a good explanation for doing so lest he risk litigation.
Aside from official decisions we should, as a society, try to DE-sensitize race. After all, why would a racial slur be more insulting than a personalized insult that actually applies to you. If someone calls me an inbred redneck trailer-trash cracker, I'm more liable to laugh at their hyperbole than to take umbrage. But if someone says something personal about me or my family member (that somehow applies), then I'm probably going to respond in kind. The goal is to make everyone hypersensitive is tantamount to censorship. If people are hypersensitive then they will be easily offended, yet the goal is supposedly to make sure that no one is offended. The only way to accomplish that goal is to make sure no one ever says anything that could remotely be construed as offensive. Does it stop at race? Maybe I'm offended by Christianity's claims that anyone who isn't Christian spends eternity in hell. Guess they'll have to take that part out of their sermons. "If you're a good Christian you'll go to heaven." "What if I'm not Christian?" "Errr... You'll... go to... heaven?" "So what's the point of being Christian?" "Ummmmmmm..."
Sure if everyone was knowledgeable about and had respect for everyone's race/culture then no one will ever say anything offensive. Oh wait... What if they point out how one culture is inferior to another in a certain objective respect? Say for instance the minimal scientific achievements of the cultures of sub-Saharan Africa, or those of other undeveloped parts of the world. Objective historical facts can't be racist; that would make reality itself racist, which is absurd. The only answer is to say that all cultures are equal overall. However, no one can seem to give a set of criteria on which to judge this equality. You could say they're culturally equal, but that is a question-begging sophistry as the equality of the CULTURES is the very thing in question. Diversity is the most hopeful answer to this question as diversity does have a positive aesthetic value. But to say that all cultures are equal qua diversity is merely to say that they are equal by means of being different. However, equality can ONLY be measured between DIFFERENT things, for to say something is equal to itself is, of course, a meaningless tautology. Thus if being different makes things equal then equality applies to everything, you are even entitled to claim 3=7!
A great deal of people talk about equality and inequality in a vague manner that seems to confound equality of opportunity with actual equality in traits. The goal of the civil rights movement is the former, the goal of hard-line communism is the latter. People are not equal in the latter sense. Some people are smarter than others, some are stronger, some faster, some more congenial. This is a fact of life. The purpose of equality of opportunity is to ensure that people rise in society based upon the attributes that are relevant to success, and not by arbitrary discrimination and favoritism. The very basis for society and life in general is the inequality of traits, for without it there could be no lifeforms beyond simple protozoa, and there could be no way to determine who should be responsible for what in a society. One of the primary reasons why communism fails is that it doesn't provide an incentive for superior individuals to do anything different than their inferiors. If a professor is paid the same as a janitor then why go to college?
But it would be unfair of me to withhold the answer from the philosophically uninitiated. It is quite simply that the equality that multiculturalists claim is not an objective or descriptive equality, but a prescriptive equality. Their real claim is simply that culture is a matter of taste, and diversity is important insomuch as it allows as many pallets to be catered to as possible. What they're really saying is that you may not like a culture, but that is your taste, and you have no more of a claim to objectivity as anyone else. Sure, certain cultures may be scientifically backward, but scientific achievement is only one criterion by which to judge a culture. In essence, the racist or chauvinist is likened to the irascible fellow in the art gallery who keeps shouting, "a painting of a soup can isn't art!" To which the rest of the people in the gallery reply, "so say you."
Society is sick in western Europe and USA. Stop being so butthurt about black people, or yellow people or whatever. If you want equality, treat everybody equally.
That was a great article, and it tackles the point well. I'd dare to say that of all the articles in this issue this is the one that best treats the issue.
So I'll reply. Should we speak up on this perceived racism?
It's a case by case basis, really. RE5 brought up a lot of criticism. But for the Japanese developers, this problem just didn't exist, because for them, it wasn't a game about a white guy shooting black guys. Nope, not a game about a human shooting zombies either. It was a game about a foreigner shooting foreigners.
Likewise, why are there no black Little Sisters? There are no blonde ones, either. It's part of the character design - notice how they look similar to The Ring's Samara. For some reason people find a soaked prepubescent[footnote]I had to look up how this word is spelled. Bloody hell, Chrome has a built-in spellcheck, so why is it that whenever I need to actually know how a word is mispelled I'm on Firefox instead?[/footnote] girl with long black hair and pale white skin scary. So is it racism? I wouldn't say it is.
And then there are cases like GoW's Cole, and San Andreas' C.J. who was mentioned in the comments. They are pretty borderline cases, especially Cole, who know mostly from second hand accounts since I found GoW absurdly drab. Cole appears to be a one-dimensional 'tuff guy' steretotypical black character who can only shout and act macho. This seems to be the standard for the series, though. I'd say that if Cole didn't act like that he'd be the black equivalent of The Girl - the female character that is better than all the guys only because making the girl awesome is a marginally better solution for a character whose primary characteristic is 'female' (a bad decision on itself) than any other female stereotype. C.J. fares a little better, he manages to be a character of his own despite coming up from the most stereotypical black setting possible, starting out as a 'gangsta' but eventually forging his own path, only to later be confronted with his on hoods. Although earlier GTA's stories are spoiled by the much better (or at least much more sophisticated) story of IV, C.J. is above the videogame character curve and is not just a black guy but rather a character who, amongst other things, is black.
This case-by-case thing is not as easy as it may look. Nintendo made Jynx purple so it doesn't look like a racial caricature. Was a racial caricature intended at first? Is if racism if you end up with something that looks like a racial caricature? To what extent can not knowing, or refusing to aknowledge, such things actually be seen as contributing to racism?
And the real problem is that most main characters are white. It's something that movies, currently as well estabilished as a cultural landmark as books and already with a row of giants to draw inspiration from, still struggle with. Videogames will still do so.
Although maybe if we had noticed this earlier - if we had asked developers why so rarely are our guys in the game not Generic White Dudes - maybe we'd have had more diversity, back when doing something risky in a game was not financial suicide, back when there was room to experiment, back when games weren't expecting billions of dollars in profit just to make even. Maybe you are right - we need to speak up on this, but more importantly, we should have spoke up before, now there is too little, too late, too much inertia to overcome. Diversity in games shall increase as acceptance does in real life, or likewise fail to. We'll see.
So I'll reply. Should we speak up on this perceived racism?
It's a case by case basis, really. RE5 brought up a lot of criticism. But for the Japanese developers, this problem just didn't exist, because for them, it wasn't a game about a white guy shooting black guys. Nope, not a game about a human shooting zombies either. It was a game about a foreigner shooting foreigners.
Likewise, why are there no black Little Sisters? There are no blonde ones, either. It's part of the character design - notice how they look similar to The Ring's Samara. For some reason people find a soaked prepubescent[footnote]I had to look up how this word is spelled. Bloody hell, Chrome has a built-in spellcheck, so why is it that whenever I need to actually know how a word is mispelled I'm on Firefox instead?[/footnote] girl with long black hair and pale white skin scary. So is it racism? I wouldn't say it is.
And then there are cases like GoW's Cole, and San Andreas' C.J. who was mentioned in the comments. They are pretty borderline cases, especially Cole, who know mostly from second hand accounts since I found GoW absurdly drab. Cole appears to be a one-dimensional 'tuff guy' steretotypical black character who can only shout and act macho. This seems to be the standard for the series, though. I'd say that if Cole didn't act like that he'd be the black equivalent of The Girl - the female character that is better than all the guys only because making the girl awesome is a marginally better solution for a character whose primary characteristic is 'female' (a bad decision on itself) than any other female stereotype. C.J. fares a little better, he manages to be a character of his own despite coming up from the most stereotypical black setting possible, starting out as a 'gangsta' but eventually forging his own path, only to later be confronted with his on hoods. Although earlier GTA's stories are spoiled by the much better (or at least much more sophisticated) story of IV, C.J. is above the videogame character curve and is not just a black guy but rather a character who, amongst other things, is black.
This case-by-case thing is not as easy as it may look. Nintendo made Jynx purple so it doesn't look like a racial caricature. Was a racial caricature intended at first? Is if racism if you end up with something that looks like a racial caricature? To what extent can not knowing, or refusing to aknowledge, such things actually be seen as contributing to racism?
And the real problem is that most main characters are white. It's something that movies, currently as well estabilished as a cultural landmark as books and already with a row of giants to draw inspiration from, still struggle with. Videogames will still do so.
Although maybe if we had noticed this earlier - if we had asked developers why so rarely are our guys in the game not Generic White Dudes - maybe we'd have had more diversity, back when doing something risky in a game was not financial suicide, back when there was room to experiment, back when games weren't expecting billions of dollars in profit just to make even. Maybe you are right - we need to speak up on this, but more importantly, we should have spoke up before, now there is too little, too late, too much inertia to overcome. Diversity in games shall increase as acceptance does in real life, or likewise fail to. We'll see.
Ok, let me pick up on one point here.
Question: just how often do you "see" the "face" of a game? Unless, as has been pointed out by a few other comments here, you customize it yourself?
If there weren't a few pictures of Jack from "Bioshock" in flashbacks of photographs and on a wall, nobody would know if he was white or Brazillian. "Half Life" and sequel are told exclusively from the point of view of the protagonist from the very start - if it wasn't for the cover art you wouldn't even know what he looked like. What if Valve had just decided to leave his appearance as a mystery? As for games like "Doom" and "Halo", well, the hero is some guy in a spacesuit. To the best of my recollection he never appears, not even in the game's artwork.
Question: just how often do you "see" the "face" of a game? Unless, as has been pointed out by a few other comments here, you customize it yourself?
If there weren't a few pictures of Jack from "Bioshock" in flashbacks of photographs and on a wall, nobody would know if he was white or Brazillian. "Half Life" and sequel are told exclusively from the point of view of the protagonist from the very start - if it wasn't for the cover art you wouldn't even know what he looked like. What if Valve had just decided to leave his appearance as a mystery? As for games like "Doom" and "Halo", well, the hero is some guy in a spacesuit. To the best of my recollection he never appears, not even in the game's artwork.
Yes. But my point was about stereotypes, which leaves me thinking I must have done a poor job at explaining myself. Sorry for that.AceCalhoon said:
My original point was that as far as stereotypes of educated people go, there is a vast majority of white exponents. The Big Bang Theory is just another one of the same shows that does the same thing.
And what is that thing? Permeate the status quo into society via entertainment even when they have no hidden political agenda or even the slightest of mean intentions. I'm, in a way, asking for those that own the means of production to do minorities a solid, kinda how JJ Abrams did with his new spy show that might suck balls where both leads are not white.
Though, yes, I do acknowledge that it should be up to minorities to also get those shows done themselves and self represent themselves. The same goes for videogames.
One thing that struck me was the comment along the lines of "Why aren't there any non-white little sisters."
My immediate response to that was "Well.. why should there be?" I don't think the game developers need to be able to supply reasons for their characters race, gender or appearance beyond that's how I imagined him/her/it in my head. What I'm saying is the argument of 'racism by ommission' is silly
My immediate response to that was "Well.. why should there be?" I don't think the game developers need to be able to supply reasons for their characters race, gender or appearance beyond that's how I imagined him/her/it in my head. What I'm saying is the argument of 'racism by ommission' is silly
I would answer this question "("I know it's a fantasy world, but why aren't there any non-white Little Sisters in BioShock?") " thusly...the games characters were drawn from a time where black people were heavily oppressed and the vast majority of powerful people in the western world were white.
How would little sisters who were black show up? Strange mutations?
Seriously?
Empty hyperbole. Think about the game time and setting. I know there were many rich people of colour in 1920,30,40,50's US, but I am unsure how many achieved real power and would be accepted by a power elite that would set up an underground base.
How would little sisters who were black show up? Strange mutations?
Seriously?
Empty hyperbole. Think about the game time and setting. I know there were many rich people of colour in 1920,30,40,50's US, but I am unsure how many achieved real power and would be accepted by a power elite that would set up an underground base.
But... If anything, The Big Bang Theory should be precisely the kind of thing you would see in a fair society. It has exactly the mix of white/non-white that it's supposed to. The only status quo that it's permeating into society is the truth.unabomberman said:
But, yeah. This is pretty much where I sit on the issue. The interesting question to me is, "why aren't they?" But it's a question that is very rarely asked.unabomberman said:
Well what do you expect man? They tried to put black people in games - look at Resident Evil 5! But then everyone complained like - "That's racist!! You shoot black people!!!" So now they don't put black people in games anymore, what did you think would happen?
Just imagine if the protagonist in a New-gen shooter game was black! I'm sure everyone would complain like - "This game is racist!! It depicts black people shooting White people!!" Hell, why don't we just have the game's power-ups be chicken and watermelons then? To increase your magic, you have to complete a stealth mission where you sneak onto a farm and eat X amount of chickens and f*** X amount of cows.
The point is, most of the development staff for western games are always white, anti-social guys who grew up terrified of talking to girls and had a huge collection of legos and NES games in their basements. Naturally, they just make the kinds of protagonists that they relate to - white, muscle-headed, machinegun wielding men. Most of them are inspired by action heros like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis. Besides, anytime they put a black person in a game, SOMEBODY always complains about the race depictions, so why should they even try anymore?
Just imagine if the protagonist in a New-gen shooter game was black! I'm sure everyone would complain like - "This game is racist!! It depicts black people shooting White people!!" Hell, why don't we just have the game's power-ups be chicken and watermelons then? To increase your magic, you have to complete a stealth mission where you sneak onto a farm and eat X amount of chickens and f*** X amount of cows.
The point is, most of the development staff for western games are always white, anti-social guys who grew up terrified of talking to girls and had a huge collection of legos and NES games in their basements. Naturally, they just make the kinds of protagonists that they relate to - white, muscle-headed, machinegun wielding men. Most of them are inspired by action heros like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Bruce Willis. Besides, anytime they put a black person in a game, SOMEBODY always complains about the race depictions, so why should they even try anymore?
So, I'm trying to understand what the point of this article was. Is it about the fact that the author wants more characters who are half black and half Mexican? Was this article really just an oblique way of asking for that? Or was there another point to all this rambling? If there was, I'm not seeing it.
Also, this.ResiEvalJohn said:
I think it is time for some perspective. It feels like too many people of non-white origin are chasing windmills for reasons that are unclear to me. There is more than enough obvious racism and inequality in this world. There is loads of injustice going on every day, but people get angry over a video game that was obviously not trying to insult anyone and a lengthy discussion is needed even before one can see something that might be perceived as racism. What happens here is not being angry over racism, people are being angry at the world. This makes no sense.
It feels like people see what they want to see and for some reason cannot accept that they are a minority in most cases. In my daily life I've must've been accused of racism at least a thousand times already, simply because I'm white, blonde and have blue eyes (which is obvious racism), but somehow I don't feel the need to 'defend' my ethnic group. People see what they want to see, while the truth is I don't give a crap about someone's race and neither should you. I think it is one of the most uninteresting things in this world.
As for almost all these games, it is obvious the designers either didn't think about it, or just made the protagonist around their largest focus group. Well boohoo, if you get bothered by that, I'd hate to see what happens when you have to handle a real problem. The actual ignoring of the whole subject is the most obvious statement about the lack of racism anyone can ever make. But then it's not racism what bothers the writer, it is that he is left out. this is something completely different. Yet the tag of these articles all say "racism".
Crying about racism for these silly things will just further help the inflation of the word, which in the long run will help along political racists. Think about the boy that cried wolf too many times...
It feels like people see what they want to see and for some reason cannot accept that they are a minority in most cases. In my daily life I've must've been accused of racism at least a thousand times already, simply because I'm white, blonde and have blue eyes (which is obvious racism), but somehow I don't feel the need to 'defend' my ethnic group. People see what they want to see, while the truth is I don't give a crap about someone's race and neither should you. I think it is one of the most uninteresting things in this world.
As for almost all these games, it is obvious the designers either didn't think about it, or just made the protagonist around their largest focus group. Well boohoo, if you get bothered by that, I'd hate to see what happens when you have to handle a real problem. The actual ignoring of the whole subject is the most obvious statement about the lack of racism anyone can ever make. But then it's not racism what bothers the writer, it is that he is left out. this is something completely different. Yet the tag of these articles all say "racism".
Crying about racism for these silly things will just further help the inflation of the word, which in the long run will help along political racists. Think about the boy that cried wolf too many times...
This post was pure gold.ReiverCorrupter said:
Personally, it's my belief that as long as we continue seeing people as "black" and "white," racism is going to continue. If you continue seeing a separation, we won't be equal; isn't that one concept that came out of segregation-era America? "Separate but equal is not actually equal?" When a black person looks at a while person and thinks, "That's one of THEM, not one of US," that encourages racism. When a white person looks at a black person and thinks the same thing, that does the same. To me, 'racism' is defined as judging individuals by their race, not by their individual qualities. And that's what complaints about "there aren't enough black people in high-class, early-1900s society" in Bioshock or "there are too many black people in Africa" in Resident Evil sound like to me.
I really don't understand the complaints against Resident Evil. We start in videogaming's infancy, as a white male. We kill white zombies. We kill Hispanic zombies. We kill male zombies. We kill female zombies. We kill black zombies. We see good, white survivors. We see good, Hispanic survivors. We see good, black survivors. Is the only way that a game can integrate race to have a black main character? It sounds like having token race characters is in fact the only thing that this series didn't do (to my knowledge; I don't actually like the gameplay in Resident Evil so I've only played a few minutes of them) aside from discard the character that we've been following for a decade and find a new, black one. And if that isn't racism, discarding a character because he's white, then I don't know what is.
Is it your assertion then that producers/publishers are discriminating against minority content authors? In other words, that there are a proportionate number of minority TV shows, movies, and video games being concepted and submitted, but that they are being denied exclusively because of their racial nature?unabomberman said:
That's certainly worrying if it's true. And a lot of what's written in articles like this one certainly implies it. But do you have any proof? Or short of proof any evidence, other than "there aren't enough minorities in the media and white people are racist"?
I'd like to start off saying that I found the article fairly poorly written, with a good number of words missing and generally unfocused. That being said, I find that at least black people are represented sometimes. Me, I am a Scandinavian, and my kinsmen in the media all share the following:
We are blonde
We are huge, tall muscular men and huge, matron-like women
We have names like Hanz, Franz or Eric
We are either twin henchmen with great big guns, or savage viking-like berserkers. Either way, we are stupid as shit on toast.
We are either the villain's henchmen, the villain's shock troopers or, rarely, a small side-character you find in a single scene.
We drink mead and ale all the time.
You will never see a Scandinavian as a lead character, and if you do, he will be a viking. I feel that, as far as minorities go, you include all of them, or none of them. Personally, I don't care about race in games, just like I don't care about gender. I can play as all races and all genders, and identify with my character. I think it's more important to look at the game itself and figure out "what fits into the game" than to start crying foul whenever there's not at least 40% blacks or mexicans or brazilians or whathaveyou.
As far as bringing any little issue under public scrutiny, I am quite sure that the majority of people would get bored with it fairly quickly if we brought every little thing under the sun up as a huge, big deal. Pick your battles.
Personally, I don't care what my character looks like, and in the case of character costumizations I'll make a backstory for the character, then make a face that matches, be it black, white, asian or whatever. To me, issues like the RE5 stuff is incredibly stupid, and is based on people's desperate desire to feel victimized. The day I feel race becomes a big deal is the day I start clamoring for realistic portrayals of Swedes, Norwegians and Danes in games.
We are blonde
We are huge, tall muscular men and huge, matron-like women
We have names like Hanz, Franz or Eric
We are either twin henchmen with great big guns, or savage viking-like berserkers. Either way, we are stupid as shit on toast.
We are either the villain's henchmen, the villain's shock troopers or, rarely, a small side-character you find in a single scene.
We drink mead and ale all the time.
You will never see a Scandinavian as a lead character, and if you do, he will be a viking. I feel that, as far as minorities go, you include all of them, or none of them. Personally, I don't care about race in games, just like I don't care about gender. I can play as all races and all genders, and identify with my character. I think it's more important to look at the game itself and figure out "what fits into the game" than to start crying foul whenever there's not at least 40% blacks or mexicans or brazilians or whathaveyou.
As far as bringing any little issue under public scrutiny, I am quite sure that the majority of people would get bored with it fairly quickly if we brought every little thing under the sun up as a huge, big deal. Pick your battles.
Personally, I don't care what my character looks like, and in the case of character costumizations I'll make a backstory for the character, then make a face that matches, be it black, white, asian or whatever. To me, issues like the RE5 stuff is incredibly stupid, and is based on people's desperate desire to feel victimized. The day I feel race becomes a big deal is the day I start clamoring for realistic portrayals of Swedes, Norwegians and Danes in games.
Wait, last time I checked most gamers I know, don't care what race they are or are shooting at, apart from being coletrain, everyone wants to be coletrain.
Newsflash: No-one cares, the only people who do are the media.
EDIT: Read that in the nicest voice you can
, it's not meant to sound offensive.
Newsflash: No-one cares, the only people who do are the media.
EDIT: Read that in the nicest voice you can
, it's not meant to sound offensive.While I must disagree that just because a main character is not a certain race, doesn't mean that the story is racist. However, I've heard online that someone was disgusted that they had to play as an African-American character in one of the Call of Duty's. They also said that, "Main characters should be white and allies be minorities." I must say, I've lost all respect for this person, who was once my closest friend.
I'm Irish. I thought the "town drunk" portrayal of Irish in Red Dead Redemption was hilarious and, while a stereotype doesn't define a whole nationality, I felt that it was rather well-written.
I'm Irish. I thought the "town drunk" portrayal of Irish in Red Dead Redemption was hilarious and, while a stereotype doesn't define a whole nationality, I felt that it was rather well-written.
I think as long as the gaming majority consists of white males from the ages of 13 to 25, protagonists will continue to be white. As stated in the article, every gamer likes being able to identify with the character they're playing as, and that typically includes their race.
It sucks. I'm a person of color myself, and I can't tell you how disappointing it was growing up playing Street Fighter II and realizing that if I wanted to play someone who looked like me, my only option was, surprise surprise, an evil, borderline illiterate boxer who once killed someone in the ring and killed one of Dhalsim's elephants by punching it for no reason.
I can't see the situation changing, as long as the community is still dominated by one race. It's becoming more diverse as time goes on, and articles like these really help to raise awareness, but I can't help but feel we've still got a very long road to walk.
It sucks. I'm a person of color myself, and I can't tell you how disappointing it was growing up playing Street Fighter II and realizing that if I wanted to play someone who looked like me, my only option was, surprise surprise, an evil, borderline illiterate boxer who once killed someone in the ring and killed one of Dhalsim's elephants by punching it for no reason.
I can't see the situation changing, as long as the community is still dominated by one race. It's becoming more diverse as time goes on, and articles like these really help to raise awareness, but I can't help but feel we've still got a very long road to walk.
First, Latin refers to Rome; it does not refer to America. The Latins (Rome) were a people very distinct from contemporary Italians in both genetics and culture. Latinos (read whatever they are calling themselves: Hispanic maybe) are entirely different and not very Latin on a genetic level-but on a linguistic level through Spain. It's a common mistake.geoflo1024 said:
To the meat of the post: If you want to see more or your given race in video games, stop typing on forums and start typing code.