"Gaming in Color", a Kickstarter Documentary on LGBT+ Gaming

[MindFragged]

I've never come across the term 'gaymer' before, but it seems kinda like some 70s insult when 'gamer' wasn't a term but 'gay' definitely meant homosexual. Anyways....

I watched the trailer, and I'm not sure my fears of it kinda saying what I'm already well aware of have been assuaged by the series of talking heads. However, there's not a lot of indication how that content is going to be framed, so it could be interesting... also, I don't think there's any harm in this being made. If it helps lead to reform, predictable or not, so much the better.

 

[Seagoon]

I really, really don't see the purpose of this documentary, why are they asking LBGT people specifically about their experiences with games as if we have some special insight?

Would you rather that they talked to straight gamers about their experiences of being a part of the LGBT gaming community?

 

[Dango]

Well you know what I think? That's nice. That doesn't mean I'm gonna donate or care about it though.

 

[runic knight]

All right, time to make a second announcement, because apparently people just love finding reason to complain.

Or they just don't understand the point of the kickstarter or why they should fund it.

[HEADING=2]To all people protesting about the apparent lack of a point:[/HEADING]

I didn't think I'd actually need to explain this, but documentaries (and educational activities in general) do not need a point. They have an aim or purpose, which is to inform and educate (and, perhaps, to stir emotion in their audience). Education doesn't need a point beyond its purpose to educate. There are documentaries on everything, from beer to shoes to ladles to the bolts that hold underwater construction together. From wide-ranging to incredibly specific, information and education are their own point.

They don't need a point, but when someone is asking for money, in order to get it there usually is some point to giving it in the first place. Homeless man is given money not because he lacks it so much as it is suppose to help feed him. If the purpose is to educate, well, that is the point then isn't it, though I supppose part of the problem is that many feel the narrow focus, especially along side posters like yourself playing victim, sends a message that this will end up another Anita Sarkeesian. Shame that though, as this project seems far less motivated by an idealogy and rather more about a take on a subject that is not often explored. Say... why not have that be the point?

If you aren't interested, that's fine. I'm sure I wouldn't be interested in a documentary you'd find fascinating. But I wouldn't go to a thread discussing that documentary and go "What's the point in this?" with the obvious implication that if I cannot see the point in the documentary, it shouldn't be made. Or that everyone else needs to stop whatever they're doing and justify the existence of this documentary to me. Or a mean-spirited attempt to kill the positive buzz in the thread. Whatever my intentions, it would be, to say the least, rude.

Except in asking for money, one is throwing themselves out there to the scrutiny of those who are asking, including the "what the hell is the point of this" portion. if they wanted to make it themselves, that is one thing, if they need to ask for money, people will naturally ask for what purpose, or for what purpose is the project itself being made.

So please, actually think about the things you're posting and how you'd feel if you were on the receiving end of them. Thank you.

I'd feel.... well, not offended if someone was asking me to justify my asking them for money. That just seems common sense there. Hell, I wouldn't feel offended about people asking if I was funding it all myself, as it doesn't take more then a few seconds to reply "to show a view point of a portion of gaming that is often overlooked." Hel, even if they still don't follow, I wouldn't get offended as I would realize that I have no right to demand they understand or not question it. But that is just me.

Heh, for what it's worth, "convincing the CoD kids that they're being dicks and should watch all these documentaries until they feel bad" would be absolutely awesome. Though it's a bit too idealistic, I agree.

See this, right here, this is the sort of marginalizing mindset bullshit you were just slamming when you were patting your back previously. Just kinda hard to take you seriously when you display your own preconceptions with such obviousness. You know most COD kids aren't dicks, right? And that if you have to try to guilt someone into your point of view you are arguing WRONG! Yes there are assholes online, no, them using homophobic slurs whose meaning has deluded to general insult is not the same as discriminating specifically against the LGBT. Are there people who will do so based on your sexuality? Of course. Hard to have something akin to 80% the population playing games without grabbing some of the racists, sexists gay bashers in the world. The trick is to realize those who use certain words are not the same as those who treat people different because of traits they can't help. All racists are assholes, not all assholes are racists, if you will.

 

[Ambitiousmould]

# "Don't complain, just enjoy games" / "It's just a game, stop pushing your agendas". You know what, people from minorities want to enjoy their games too, so wouldn't it be nice if games were not offensive to them, if they were less homophobic (or sexist/racist/whatever)? Wouldn't it be nice if they're treated as respectfully as others online (not that that's a particularly high bar)?

# "No need to pander to very minority". That's easy to say if you're in the majority. What is this "pandering" supposed to be anyway? Things like featuring a more diverse cast in a game, for instance, a cast that includes good gay/female/non-white characters. A game that caters to their wishes too (like gay romance options). And, yea, just not being homophobic (or sexist/racist/whatever). Nothing that should really hurt anyone too much, and you know what? Many straight white dudes would welcome all that too.
Gays have every right to demand that games cater to their wishes as you. Don't worry, your still the majority, your wishes will still have more weight.

# Complaints about the sexuality of certain characters in BioWare games. How dare they to include gay characters! And, even worse, how dare they including gay-only love interests (Mass Effect 3)! It really sucks that not everyone wants to bang with you! And how dare they to make all love interests bisexual (Dragon Age 2)! It really sucks that everyone wants to bang with you!

I'm having a hard time making up my mind about this, but I will say that I pretty much agree with what you're saying here, but I also think that the people who are saying these arguments are missing the point. The idea is to document experiences of LGBTQ+ among other gamers, not the content of games. Let's keep this relevent.

 

[Darken12]

Or they just don't understand the point of the kickstarter or why they should fund it.

And? Don't want to fund it? Cool, don't fund it. This isn't a thread that wants to convince everyone to fund it. It seeks to bring something to the attention of the people who would fund it if they were aware of it.

They don't need a point, but when someone is asking for money, in order to get it there usually is some point to giving it in the first place. Homeless man is given money not because he lacks it so much as it is suppose to help feed him. If the purpose is to educate, well, that is the point then isn't it, though I supppose part of the problem is that many feel the narrow focus, especially along side posters like yourself playing victim, sends a message that this will end up another Anita Sarkeesian. Shame that though, as this project seems far less motivated by an idealogy and rather more about a take on a subject that is not often explored. Say... why not have that be the point?

I cannot comprehend this paragraph. It is self-contradictory. You are simultaneously saying that this project should be justifying itself and then acknowledge that its point is education (just like any other documentary).

Except in asking for money, one is throwing themselves out there to the scrutiny of those who are asking, including the "what the hell is the point of this" portion. if they wanted to make it themselves, that is one thing, if they need to ask for money, people will naturally ask for what purpose, or for what purpose is the project itself being made.

I am not asking for money on their behalf. I am pointing out something to the people who would be willing to donate but might be unaware of it. This is a pseudo-news post presented in a positive, supporting way. If I wanted to actually sell you this product, I would have adopted a completely different attitude and tackled this thread from a completely different standpoint. I am not associated with the people behind the project, so it's not my responsibility to justify anything to you or anybody.

I'd feel.... well, not offended if someone was asking me to justify my asking them for money. That just seems common sense there. Hell, I wouldn't feel offended about people asking if I was funding it all myself, as it doesn't take more then a few seconds to reply "to show a view point of a portion of gaming that is often overlooked." Hel, even if they still don't follow, I wouldn't get offended as I would realize that I have no right to demand they understand or not question it. But that is just me.

If I were to actually respond to anyone like that, I would be implicitly making the following declarations:

A) That I am somehow affiliated with the people behind the project and am authorised to speak on their behalf.
B) That this project's raison d'être is up for debate, questioning or judgement.
C) That questioning this project's raison d'être is a valid question that merits serious acknowledgement.
D) That I am making a serious effort to try and convince others to donate for this project.

I have no intention of making any of those statements.

See this, right here, this is the sort of marginalizing mindset bullshit you were just slamming when you were patting your back previously. Just kinda hard to take you seriously when you display your own preconceptions with such obviousness. You know most COD kids aren't dicks, right? And that if you have to try to guilt someone into your point of view you are arguing WRONG! Yes there are assholes online, no, them using homophobic slurs whose meaning has deluded to general insult is not the same as discriminating specifically against the LGBT. Are there people who will do so based on your sexuality? Of course. Hard to have something akin to 80% the population playing games without grabbing some of the racists, sexists gay bashers in the world. The trick is to realize those who use certain words are not the same as those who treat people different because of traits they can't help. All racists are assholes, not all assholes are racists, if you will.

Yes, I am aware. I was quoting another poster. If I had had to come up with the phrase myself, I would have worded it differently.

Having said that, and just in case someone might be misinterpreting what I said in the post you quoted, I am not advocating for brainwashing or any form of dictatorial measures (I would say that I didn't think it needed to be said, but I thought that several times before and this thread continues to prove me wrong). I was advocating for education, though I realise I should have taken ten minutes to properly formulate a phrase instead of saving time by quoting someone else.

I was also referring to an unreal, imaginary circumstance that I am fully aware is never going to happen. My sentiments were more along the lines of "I wish documentaries such as these would have an educational effect on the problematic sectors of the gamer demography." I will edit my post accordingly.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I'm having a hard time making up my mind about this, but I will say that I pretty much agree with what you're saying here, but I also think that the people who are saying these arguments are missing the point. The idea is to document experiences of LGBTQ+ among other gamers, not the content of games. Let's keep this relevent.

Yea, that's true. It seems to be primarily about their experiences, not about demanding any changes from games. Yet, as always, there are some who feel the need for preemptive strikes.

Why? What does this do, other than spotlight one tiny section of the gaming populace?

I hope that, one day, we can reach a point when no one cares about whether or not a gamer is gay, straight, elvish, or a dog. I find this rather annoying than anything where there are movies/documented/books showcasing something that needn't be showcased.

I hope that too. But you know what? But you know what needs to happen in order to get there? The gaming community needs to change. It needs to become a more friendly, a more progressive place. And this is not going to magically happen by itself.

And a good start would be not saying that such a project shouldn't exist, which is not too different from saying that LGBT people have no right to make their voices heard. Let them decide what they feel is "pointless" and what is not.

 

[runic knight]

And? Don't want to fund it? Cool, don't fund it. This isn't a thread that wants to convince everyone to fund it. It seeks to bring something to the attention of the people who would fund it if they were aware of it.

It is a kickstarter, thus the idea of bringing awareness would naturally go hand in hand with the assumption that the awareness is being done in hopes of garnishing support for it.

I cannot comprehend this paragraph. It is self-contradictory. You are simultaneously saying that this project should be justifying itself and then acknowledge that its point is education (just like any other documentary).

I am saying that it is not unexpected for a project, any project to justify itself. As such, since as you said the purpose is to educate, perhaps the point of the thing would then be the very thing you are trying to educate people on. LGBT perspective on games. Though, this is often why people ask the whole "why?" question, as they don't get the point of such a documentary in the first place is to present an often overlooked perspective, at least as far as I can understand.

I am not asking for money on their behalf. I am pointing out something to the people who would be willing to donate but might be unaware of it. This is a pseudo-news post presented in a positive, supporting way. If I wanted to actually sell you this product, I would have adopted a completely different attitude and tackled this thread from a completely different standpoint. I am not associated with the people behind the project, so it's not my responsibility to justify anything to you or anybody.

This sounds to me like those "news" stories I see in the paper about the latest miracle break through in whatever. Making people aware of something that requires money really is hard to see as anything but advertising, be you doing it for personal profit or as a fan. Listen, you are making the project aware to others, being dickish when they start to ask you what the hell the point of the project is, especially since many do so in relation to what they perceive as a pointlessness to start with, is doing the project a disservice. You are right, it is not your project to defend, but as the one advertising it, you have to expect people will critic it, and you as the messenger.

If I were to actually respond to anyone like that, I would be implicitly making the following declarations:
A) That I am somehow affiliated with the people behind the project and am authorised to speak on their behalf.
B) That this project's raison d'être is up for debate, questioning or judgement.
C) That questioning this project's raison d'être is a valid question that merits serious acknowledgement.
D) That I am making a serious effort to try and convince others to donate for this project.

I have no intention of making any of those statements.

Except, you don't have to be affiliated to the project when you are still advertising it. As a fan, fine, but it is what it is. Since you chose to advertise in a forum, it will get discussion, debate and questioning as people respond to your news. And it is quite valid, as advertisement of a kickstarter presents people with the notion they might be being asked to give, which would then lead them to start asking those questions. Your seriousness or lack there of doesn't diminish people from wanting to understand, from feeling like you are representing the kickstarter, however unofficially, and from wanting to discuss the project in general, especially with the one posting the news in the first place. And that says nothing about your own responses in the thread that feed the discussion and presents yourself as some defended of the idea by trying to shoot down people's questions in the first place.

If I posted a news story about a kickstarter, outside of the absurd or unusual (those points that would make it news worthy in a different way), most people would assume I support it and might ask me questions. It would not matter if I was directly associated with it, being as I was the first one supporting and advertising it, assumption and question about what I know or even why I support it would follow.

Yes, I am aware. I was quoting another poster. If I had had to come up with the phrase myself, I would have worded it differently.

Having said that, and just in case someone might be misinterpreting what I said in the post you quoted, I am not advocating for brainwashing or any form of dictatorial measures (I would say that I didn't think it needed to be said, but I thought that several times before and this thread continues to prove me wrong). I was advocating for education, though I realise I should have taken ten minutes to properly formulate a phrase instead of saving time by quoting someone else.

I was also referring to an unreal, imaginary circumstance that I am fully aware is never going to happen. My sentiments were more along the lines of "I wish documentaries such as these would have an educational effect on the problematic sectors of the gamer demography." I will edit my post accordingly.

That is fine then. I just found the idea that blanket assumptions about a group of people in response to a topic about a group of people often given blanket assumptions about was rather unfitting. I doubted you were advocating forcing people to watch, and didn't really go after that point.

 

[CloudAtlas]

All for the sake of making a documentary about the 'challenges' of being a homosexual gamer in the (supposedly existent) 'gamer' community. It's quite the waste.

I forgot to explicitly add statements in this spirit to my list of stupid reactions. So:

# Judging the value of the documentary before production has even started. It's a shame that people who seem to have the gift of foresight waste it for such petty causes.

Think about it. The only people who are going to watch this are people who have funded the kickstarter and maybe some of the demographic being discussed in the film. No one is being enlightened, it isn't going to change anything and I truly doubt it's going to provide any real food for thought. It is nothing more than masturbatory, self-indulgence in a petty first-world issue.

Meanwhile there are people out there who are genuinely suffering and genuinely persecuted who could actually use $50,000 for help or awareness. Because really who actually needs the money and representation? The rich homosexual who gets called a fag on Xbox live or the poor middle-eastern homosexual who is in hiding in fear of being put to death for his sexuality?

Do you understand what moral relativism is? Anyway, why aren't you fighting for world peace or something right now? Surely that's a more worthy cause than criticizing the plan to make a documentary about LGBT in gaming?

 

[Darken12]

It is a kickstarter, thus the idea of bringing awareness would naturally go hand in hand with the assumption that the awareness is being done in hopes of garnishing support for it.

There's a difference between me offering you a cookie from a tray and actively trying to convince you to try one. I'm doing the former, not the latter.

I am saying that it is not unexpected for a project, any project to justify itself. As such, since as you said the purpose is to educate, perhaps the point of the thing would then be the very thing you are trying to educate people on. LGBT perspective on games. Though, this is often why people ask the whole "why?" question, as they don't get the point of such a documentary in the first place is to present an often overlooked perspective, at least as far as I can understand.

The problem with this argument is that it implies that some types of education are invalid. The point of a documentary is to educate, simple as that. All documentaries have this point. Asking for more than that leads to the unequal and marginalising ideology that some documentaries or educational works need extra justification to exist. You may like one documentary subject more than another, but they all have the same right to exist, and fulfil the same point: education.

This sounds to me like those "news" stories I see in the paper about the latest miracle break through in whatever. Making people aware of something that requires money really is hard to see as anything but advertising, be you doing it for personal profit or as a fan. Listen, you are making the project aware to others, being dickish when they start to ask you what the hell the point of the project is, especially since many do so in relation to what they perceive as a pointlessness to start with, is doing the project a disservice. You are right, it is not your project to defend, but as the one advertising it, you have to expect people will critic it, and you as the messenger.

Actually no, I do not have to put up with people's bigotry or prejudice. And neither do the people behind the project, either. What you are doing is victim-blaming. You are absolving people of blame for their own prejudice and instead shifting it to the project for daring to exist and to me for daring to make a thread about it. It's not my fault that people are unable to comprehend the basic point of a documentary and let their prejudice loose when the subject comes up.

People who demand a point for a documentary such as this one but wouldn't demand a point for a documentary on a specific subtype of beer, Mongolian architecture or the history of shoelaces, are being prejudiced. If you demand every single documentary to justify itself, fine, you're not prejudiced, you just flat-out don't understand the purpose of documentaries. But I am fairly certain that every single person who has demanded to know the point of this project is fully aware of the purpose of documentaries. Those who ask that, or who say that this is unnecessary, are not innocently confused people who are unaware of why documentaries exist. They are people who have issues with the LGBTQ+ community or their harmless projects. And that, as I said before, is prejudice.

Except, you don't have to be affiliated to the project when you are still advertising it. As a fan, fine, but it is what it is. Since you chose to advertise in a forum, it will get discussion, debate and questioning as people respond to your news. And it is quite valid, as advertisement of a kickstarter presents people with the notion they might be being asked to give, which would then lead them to start asking those questions. Your seriousness or lack there of doesn't diminish people from wanting to understand, from feeling like you are representing the kickstarter, however unofficially, and from wanting to discuss the project in general, especially with the one posting the news in the first place. And that says nothing about your own responses in the thread that feed the discussion and presents yourself as some defended of the idea by trying to shoot down people's questions in the first place.

If I posted a news story about a kickstarter, outside of the absurd or unusual (those points that would make it news worthy in a different way), most people would assume I support it and might ask me questions. It would not matter if I was directly associated with it, being as I was the first one supporting and advertising it, assumption and question about what I know or even why I support it would follow.

I have already answered this in my previous paragraph. I do not have an obligation to validate people's prejudice. Don't want to back the project? Don't back it.

 

[runic knight]

There's a difference between me offering you a cookie from a tray and actively trying to convince you to try one. I'm doing the former, not the latter.

Except the cookie in both scenarios cost something. The difference here seems more akin to the guy at the counter selling you one and the guy outside in the gorilla suit. Sure the one in the suit can't sell you it, but still, you wouldn't be wrong in assuming they'd know something.

The problem with this argument is that it implies that some types of education are invalid. The point of a documentary is to educate, simple as that. All documentaries have this point. Asking for more than that leads to the unequal and marginalising ideology that some documentaries or educational works need extra justification to exist. You may like one documentary subject more than another, but they all have the same right to exist, and fulfil the same point: education.

No, it is more based on the idea that some education is worth more then other, and when based in an idea of money, the notion is one of "does this education justify the money and time required to make the documentary?" They do have the same right to exist, but, again, on a topic that is related to a project requesting money, people will question if it is worth it.

Actually no, I do not have to put up with people's bigotry or prejudice. And neither do the people behind the project, either. What you are doing is victim-blaming. You are absolving people of blame for their own prejudice and instead shifting it to the project for daring to exist and to me for daring to make a thread about it. It's not my fault that people are unable to comprehend the basic point of a documentary and let their prejudice loose when the subject comes up.

Hold it! Right there. At no point did I say anyone here is a victim, nor treat them as such, so put the card down and get off the soap box. I haven't made any claim about people's personal bias or preconceived ideas beyond how they might result in asking questions in relation to any kick starter. So the entire paragraph here is worthless, except as a rather blatant attempt to throw yourself and your cause on the ground and cry foul. Seriously, that is pathetic.

Reread what I was saying if you must, but try to do so without your own perchance to cry bigotry. I can fully see someone saying "this is pointless" based on a number of issues, anywhere from concentrating on a minority opinion in a field where even majority opinion can and often is ignored (see DRM practices), to the idea that it will be bland, uninteresting endeavor since gay gamers are still just gamers in the end and thus they would not see their responses to most things any different then their own. Any project advertising itself will have people question it, because that is human nature. Get over the topic of it for a moment when looking at my post and instead look at it in a general view, as I have been trying to keep it. A project is asking for money advertised in a thread. This will get:
1. Discussion
2. Questions
3. People asking what the hell the point of it all is
This is pretty universal, regardless of topic, so blaming people doing so on bigotry or whatever else like that comes off as dismissive, hand waving and outright dishonest.

People who demand a point for a documentary such as this one but wouldn't demand a point for a documentary on a specific subtype of beer, Mongolian architecture or the history of shoelaces, are being prejudiced. If you demand every single documentary to justify itself, fine, you're not prejudiced, you just flat-out don't understand the purpose of documentaries. But I am fairly certain that every single person who has demanded to know the point of this project is fully aware of the purpose of documentaries. Those who ask that, or who say that this is unnecessary, are not innocently confused people who are unaware of why documentaries exist. They are people who have issues with the LGBTQ+ community or their harmless projects. And that, as I said before, is prejudice.

No, other people might question the existence or purpose of that type of documentary, as they would not deem it worth the time and effort to look into it and just dismiss it with a "why the hell would anyone care" attitude. I know, because my dad does it all the time when I try to watch the history channel's "how it works" series. Or was that discovery channel..? anyways, the point here is that you will always get some people who don't see the point and saying such, or even outright asking for the thing to justify itself. This is not limited to topics on gender, sexual orientation, race or whatever else.
Thus dismissing people on that as being bigoted is openly assuming that your cause has to be treated differently or have a deferred respect then they might give documentaries on beer subtypes or whatever else. I'm sorry, but no, you don't get to expect that. Nor do you get to play victim when people treat you the same as people would treat any other documentary or kickstarter. It comes off as you wanting to be treated differently the the rest. Some people don't see the point of something you understand or enjoy, sucks, but hey, that is life. That is not discrimination, oppression or even a valid insight into their motivation for not understanding, and your attempts to present it as otherwise are underhanded if not only misguided.

I have already answered this in my previous paragraph. I do not have an obligation to validate people's prejudice. Don't want to back the project? Don't back it.

There is a grey area where people haven't made up their mind. Hence questions. But I will say that playing victim because people dare ask what the point of the kickstarter's documentary is in the larger scheme of things does nothing but shore up prejudices that it is nothing but mental masturbation session by a closed off group of people who merely want to whine about the situation rather then what it could potentially be, a unique outlook by an often overlooked group into an entertainment medium that many enjoy. Your hostile responses and prejudice that anyone against it are bigots do far, far more harm to the kickstarter then anything else.

 

[Zeh Don]

Sorry, and I don't mean to be harsh, but this isn't really something I feel needs my money because, ultimately, I fail to understand the objective of the documentary in comparison to one about, say, a specific gaming community microcosm - say, World of Warcraft - and it's social evolution.

I appreciate the difficulties that minorities have gone through and continue to go through, however the mass gaming communities on the internet are a harsh yet indiscriminate band of pseudo-sadists. Here, you're an idiot until you've proven otherwise. It's a strange brand of fairness, yet the one that ultimately arose from a place where - unless you actively advertise any one aspect about yourself - you are who ever you want to be.

I wish you guys the best of luck with your documentary in any case.

 

[Vegosiux]

Not as if we have some special insight, as if we are treated experientially different from the majority. This is established right in the description of the kickstarted, though I'm paraphrasing.

But that's the problem, how can you document that part if you have no point of comparison? No, I'm not saying this isn't worth doing, it is, but the results will not be comparative to the rest of the gaming community if there's no point of reference. If you only collect experience from X, you can research quite well X is treated, yes. But not collecting any experience from Y means you can't research how X is treated comparatively to Y.

Um, what I'm saying is that it's always a good thing to bring more prespectives to light of day, it's just that you can't compare different subgroups of a community if you only ever focus on one in your data collection.

 

[ajr209]

The word "pander" seems to be getting tossed around quite a bit in this thread.

I don't know how many people here has seen a pic that's been making the rounds on various sites but for those who haven't it shows the faces of many of the main characters from different titles and all of characters are white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men. Take a look at your game collection. How many games do you own that don't have people of that description as the main character?

The reason the vast majority of playable characters in games are white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men is because game companies want as much money as possible and are of the mentality that white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men won't buy their games if there's anyone on the box that is in any capacity different than themselves. As a result of this mentality games with main characters who are minorities are few in number.

So the fact of the matter is the people who get pandered to(often at the expense of not just other groups getting fair representation but also of the creative expression of the devs who genuinely want to take stories and characters in varied ans new directions) are none other than the very people crying the hardest about pandering.


As for what purpose this documentary serves it is the same as any other documentary-to document a particular subject matter (as the word suggests). as pointed out by others far more eloquent than I a documentary need serve no purpose beyond that or have justification beyond that, just like how a big action blockbuster need serve no purpose beyond being entertainment for a couple of hours. Hey, it's great if it does but it's not a prerequisite by any stretch of the imagination. Besides, seeing the world through someone else's eyes and potentially coming away with a greater understanding of yourself or the world around you is far from the fate worse than death some seem to want to make it out to be.

 

[Smeatza]

I don't understand what this documentary is supposed to be about.

"For something so huge, there's still a very narrow perception of what a "gamer" is and it's time that we show the world there's more than just the stereotype."
"The gaming world is far more diverse than the media would have you think."

That would suggest it's about disputing the media image of gamers. But.....

"For too long gamers have been painted in a very specific light, and the mosaic of gamers have lacked the diversity of minorities, queers, women, and members of LGBT communities."

This suggests they at least partly agree with the media image. Unless the "mosaic" they refer to is the media image.
If this is the case I applaud the aim but I'd rather see sensationalist media called out in a more robust, all-encompassing way.

The only other thing it could be about is this...

"we'll be documenting the experiences of LGBT and women gamers / game developers to introduce perspectives you may not have seen before."

And if that is their aim, I'm not interested. The fact that someone is of a different sexuality or gender to me does not spark my interest in themselves or their experiences.

 

[runic knight]

The reason the vast majority of playable characters in games are white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men is because game companies want as much money as possible and are of the mentality that white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men won't buy their games if there's anyone on the box that is in any capacity different than themselves. As a result of this mentality games with main characters who are minorities are few in number.

Partially true. That demographic is historically the one that has supported game sales from the start, and it does stand to reason that companies would rather play it safe by catching the same fish over and over then throwing something new out and hoping for the best. The 20-40 demographic has a lot of spare money, males were much more predominant purchasers then females and straight is the majority orientation compared to GLBT. Furthermore, since they do like their market testing, any data that shows a preference in character type or presentation in that core group would be pandered to, and any chance of deterrent would be avoided. Some people like a character they can see as an avatar, while others don't care, Thus they make the avatar the one most relate-able to the target demographic, but don't openly exclude any demographic beyond not designing towards them, probably in hopes that the ones outside the demographic who don't care about relating to the character will still pick up the game at the smallest amount of lost potential sales. Not excusing any exclusion here, merely saying that it isn't that they don't think the games wont sell, rather, they want the best chance to sell a lot, and if that means designing the target around that demographic, well, pretty obvious that greed trumps political correctness by far in that regard. In fact, companies often display greed and refusal to change in a lot of ways. See DRM.

 

[CloudAtlas]

The reason the vast majority of playable characters in games are white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men is because game companies want as much money as possible and are of the mentality that white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men won't buy their games if there's anyone on the box that is in any capacity different than themselves. As a result of this mentality games with main characters who are minorities are few in number.

Partially true. That demographic is historically the one that has supported game sales from the start, and it does stand to reason that companies would rather play it safe by catching the same fish over and over then throwing something new out and hoping for the best. The 20-40 demographic has a lot of spare money, males were much more predominant purchasers then females and straight is the majority orientation compared to GLBT. Furthermore, since they do like their market testing, any data that shows a preference in character type or presentation in that core group would be pandered to, and any chance of deterrent would be avoided. Some people like a character they can see as an avatar, while others don't care, Thus they make the avatar the one most relate-able to the target demographic, but don't openly exclude any demographic beyond not designing towards them, probably in hopes that the ones outside the demographic who don't care about relating to the character will still pick up the game at the smallest amount of lost potential sales. Not excusing any exclusion here, merely saying that it isn't that they don't think the games wont sell, rather, they want the best chance to sell a lot, and if that means designing the target around that demographic, well, pretty obvious that greed trumps political correctness by far in that regard. In fact, companies often display greed and refusal to change in a lot of ways. See DRM.

All you say is true. But that doesn't change the fact that some in this group who is pandered to all the time are fast to complain every time a game "panders" to someone else too. One example that comes into mind here are characters in BioWare games, be it the inclusion of gay and lesbian love interests in Mass Effect 3 or making all love interests bisexual in Dragon Age 2. Also, demanding games to not be sexist is apparently equal to "pandering to women".

I get that the decision to make your fixed protagonist female is a big decision. But there are smaller decisions a developer can make, like those above, that can make a real difference for (a share of) the respective groups without really hurting white male straight gamers. And yet some of them complain about everything.

I don't want to patronize ajr209, but I think that's what he (also) meant.

 

[ajr209]

The reason the vast majority of playable characters in games are white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men is because game companies want as much money as possible and are of the mentality that white, 20-40 years old, straight, cis, men won't buy their games if there's anyone on the box that is in any capacity different than themselves. As a result of this mentality games with main characters who are minorities are few in number.

Partially true. That demographic is historically the one that has supported game sales from the start, and it does stand to reason that companies would rather play it safe by catching the same fish over and over then throwing something new out and hoping for the best. The 20-40 demographic has a lot of spare money, males were much more predominant purchasers then females and straight is the majority orientation compared to GLBT. Furthermore, since they do like their market testing, any data that shows a preference in character type or presentation in that core group would be pandered to, and any chance of deterrent would be avoided. Some people like a character they can see as an avatar, while others don't care, Thus they make the avatar the one most relate-able to the target demographic, but don't openly exclude any demographic beyond not designing towards them, probably in hopes that the ones outside the demographic who don't care about relating to the character will still pick up the game at the smallest amount of lost potential sales. Not excusing any exclusion here, merely saying that it isn't that they don't think the games wont sell, rather, they want the best chance to sell a lot, and if that means designing the target around that demographic, well, pretty obvious that greed trumps political correctness by far in that regard. In fact, companies often display greed and refusal to change in a lot of ways. See DRM.

All you say is true. But that doesn't change the fact that some in this group who is pandered to all the time are fast to complain every time a game "panders" to someone else too. One example that comes into mind here are characters in BioWare games, be it the inclusion of gay and lesbian love interests in Mass Effect 3 or making all love interests bisexual in Dragon Age 2. Also, demanding games to not be sexist is apparently equal to "pandering to women".

I get that the decision to make your fixed protagonist female is a big decision. But there are smaller decisions a developer can make, like those above, that can make a real difference for (a share of) the respective groups without really hurting white male straight gamers. And yet some of them complain about everything.

I don't want to patronize ajr209, but I think that's what he (also) meant.

Don't worry, you're not patronizing me. In fact you understand the point I was trying to make perfectly.

 

[runic knight]

All you say is true. But that doesn't change the fact that some in this group who is pandered to all the time are fast to complain every time a game "panders" to someone else too. One example that comes into mind here are characters in BioWare games, be it the inclusion of gay and lesbian love interests in Mass Effect 3 or making all love interests bisexual in Dragon Age 2. Also, demanding games to not be sexist is apparently equal to "pandering to women".

Oh I don't hesitate to call those whiners out when I see it as well, don't worry. I rarely see inclusion of options and alternatives such as that as a bad thing, given that it doesn't prevent any other options. And I found most people tried to shout the anti-homosexual people down as well. But in a company's eyes, it is a different matter. The ones being dinks are part of their main demographic. The rest of the demographic generally wont mind or notice the absence of such small details, so by not giving them, they retain the largest percentage of the largest share of their potential, purchasing audience.

One problem about those saying they don't want sexism is that a lot of the complaint about games seems from not pandering to them in the same ways as the main demographic rather then outright exclusion or discrimination. And many would see calling a game sexist for that as not an appeal for equality, but rather whining in the same vein as those who whine about gay relationships being in games; both are complaining about not getting the product exactly as they want it rather then just enjoying it as it is. This says nothing of those who stir the pot, jump on for drama, try to guilt people into changing things and the like. And it is that sort of behavior that undermines a lot of effort as well. There is a lot of backlash about any big name game protagonist being female, all sorts of extra drama solely because they are female. And not the uptight male white assholes complaining the protagonist is "a chick", but media hype and expectation and prejudgement about the character because as a female, she has to be special because she is so underrepresented. Hell, Tomb Raider's infamous not-rape scene and the poorly worded idea of wanting to take care of Lara as a character (which the gameplay did justice I think in regards to wanting to avoid those gruesome deaths). I can't imagine it being any different for a gay protagonist or whatever else, nor can I truly dismiss the company concerns with wanting to avoid negative press that can't be spun or marketed (like some negative press about being overly violent or whatever can). To call a comparison, it is like the "no girls play games" thing, where some people would say that up and down, would react like stupid horny monkeys the second one did appear, then return to the first stance after their own actions drove them off. Why have a protagonist that part of your target demographic will not feel represented by, another part will openly dislike and will be questioned and torn apart by media, pundits, journalist and ideologist all trying to fit the "strangeness" into some box or as representative of some larger whole? Outside of do some intentionally to buck the trend, that is.

I get that the decision to make your fixed protagonist female is a big decision. But there are smaller decisions a developer can make, like those above, that can make a real difference for (a share of) the respective groups without really hurting white male straight gamers. And yet some of them complain about everything.
I don't want to patronize ajr209, but I think that's what he (also) meant.

I do understand, and you have a good point about how companies don't even put forth an effort half the time, and how some assholes get noisy about any effort made. I agree wholly there. I just don't find their lack of effort sexist or whatever else, especially given their mindset and motivations being greed and practicality based on past and past successes. Stupid, shallow and short-sighted, surly, but not against any group of people. They pick the obvious path to money, regardless common sense some times, and make a game that half the time could be paint by numbers target research marketing. As bad an idea as that is, and as crap that the big names in game development do it that way, sexist/racist/homophobic it is not. Hence why I often argue against such claims and instead try to promote general improvements in story telling, game design and NOT using the same playbook and market research. But those are riskier and more expensive I guess.

To tie back to the main topic, if the documentary is about giving a perspective of the GLBT community, it may be interesting to see how and why they play the games that are designed for a different demographic and might explain better how decisions the AAA section are getting right, even if by accident.