How can "gamers" and "social justice warriors" get along?

[Alleged_Alec]

If I want to play as another race, I'll play as another race. If I want to play my character as a woman, I should be aloud too. Character options should always be available. (Personally I loved the fact you can do most types of people in RPGs, especially Bioware games.)

Gamers: as long as it is an option (which is what most SJW seem to want; just an option) choice actively enhances a game. There is little drawback to you (though there is slight drawback to the companies making the game. though not much).

I agreed with the rest, but I'm sorry, but this is bullshit. No, you should not expect to always be able to choose gender/sexuality/whatever. Sometimes, a game is made with a story and a message in mind, and to change something about the character ruins the story. Yes, changing the gender of the protagonist in Mass Effect and Dragon age worked. You know why? Because the character is a blank slate with no real personality. In games where the protagonist actually matters, this makes making the games impossible.


As for what I think? Mostly, it has already been said. Gamers: stop being such a bunch of whiny douches. Yes, sometimes, your most favoritestest game in the entire world will be called out for being sexist or some other bad words. Accept that this will happen. Furthermore, don't try to defend it with weak excuses and threats; this only serves to undermine your position. Accepting that something is sexist doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

SJWs: accept that gamers are a pretty conservative bunch. They do not like changes to games they're playing. Also: understand that if you want changes, don't throw a fucking tantrum every time something happens you don't like. Instead, tell briefly why you think it is done badly and contrast with something you think does it better. Furthermore: the mantra 'if you don't like it, change it' applies here as well. Don't expect others to conform to how you think games should be. If you think there are too little female protagonists, don't just point this out and passive-agressively whine to companies when they make a game which does not conform with your image of games. Change start with yourself. Make your own game, join a big company and push for ideas which you think should be in games. This is how you get diversity in games, not by demanding it from people.

 

[Erttheking]

By having the SJW's be gone forever?

I'm completely serious here. They aren't making anything better, they're a fucking plague at the moment.

People you don't agree with? A plague? Please don't blow things so massively out of proportion.

 

[NoeL]

But what if them complaining about sexism gets it changed?

What if it doesn't? I understand the risks, but that doesn't mean we should just sit back and do nothing.

See what I mean? A bit of mental gymnastics and a few verbal backflips and we've represented "Well, these ideas are interesting and possibly they'd make for a good game, but I don't feel they fit within the established narrative and characters of this series. Why not make your own game from scratch rather than appropriating and modifying something that's already successful, and if it's good, surely it'll stand on its own merits?" as "I cannot smile unless I have my reassuringly hateful virtual bigotry simulator game to enact oppressing minorities, this stems from my deep-rooted fear of women and homosexuals and the worry that they're coming to take away my guns and cut off my penis, also I'm a manchild, waah waah".

I think the absurdity of your example shows what's not the case. No one is asking for gender swapping of established characters (it's been bandied about with the new Zelda because a) Link looks pretty feminine in the trailer, and b) since "Link" isn't a single character but instead a descendant in a lineage from the Hero of Time it wouldn't break any established characters/lore if they made the next Link a girl), no one is demanding inclusivity for the sake of meeting some quota, or any of that nonsense. You also have this weird notion that if a game is sexist/racist/homophobic it must've been designed to be hateful. In almost all cases it's out of laziness or unnecessary pandering to the market, and "SJW"s are simply asking them to be more thoughtful.

I don't understand why this is an inherently bad thing, why it should change, or in fact how we'd change it without blatently rigging the market to represent a progressive agenda rather than mainstream tastes. What are we going to do, force developers to gamble millions of dollars and years of development time on experimental games? Pop music is the mainstream face of the music industry, but indie music exists. Hollywood blockbusters are the mainstream face of film, but arthouse cinema exists. There's no need to directly intervene in the medium; just provide the choice and if there's a demand for games with transsexual Maori wheelchair users, people will buy it, it'll be profitable, and the market will have broadened itself to accommodate the demand.

Saying "Look where else this is happening!" doesn't address the problem. Music, movies and TV also have a faaaaaar larger consumer base and completely different public image than gaming, so you can't really compare them the same way. Nobody thinks pop music encompasses the whole of "music", nobody thinks summer blockbusters encompass the whole of "movies", but plenty of people think AAA console games encompass the whole of "gaming".

If you go into a cinema you tend to find the blockbusters front and centre, but also a wide selection of different movies for different audiences. If you go into a music store you'll have the top singles/albums, but also a wide selection of different artists for different audiences. If you walk into a book store you'll have the best sellers, but also a wide selection of different books for different audiences. If you walk into a gaming store you'll have games for white, adolescent males, games for children, and maybe some shovelware for girls. Progressives want to expand this audience and make gaming for everybody, like other mediums before it.

the rest

All good points, though I disagree that the "entitlement" is a bad thing. If there is a market for the kind of change people are asking for then it's in everyone's best interests for devs/publishers to cater to that, and people should be asking for that. To use some examples, take a look at EAs microtransactions, or Ubisoft's DRM. People can and should protest with their wallets, yes, but is it really so bad to speak out against those practices and ask that they change them? Do you look at the "Fuck EA!" threads and think "Pfft, entitled brats."?

 

[Erttheking]

Making games more enjoyable and accessible to others doesn't, or at least shouldn't make them less enjoyable for you. If you need your games to be sexist, homophobic etc. in order to enjoy them there's something wrong there, and I don't think the games industry should be encouraging that - regardless of whether or not it's more profitable.

But that's the thing, some people consider different things to be sexist, racist or homophobic.

Like, look at Skullgirls. A fighting game made up almost entirely of female characters (two male characters are or will be DLC). A lot of the characters are dressed quite skimpily, and I'm fine with that. Some feminist from the depths of tumblr though probably wont be.

And my feminist friend absolutely loves it. Nothing is ever going to liked by everyone. Some people hate persona 4, some hate portal, some hate suikoden 2, some hate thief 2, some hate every game you and I like. I never got the argument that devs are giving up on female characters because people always complain about them, when the same can be said for everything in gaming.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

By having the SJW's be gone forever?

I'm completely serious here. They aren't making anything better, they're a fucking plague at the moment.

People you don't agree with? A plague? Please don't blow things so massively out of proportion.

He didn't say anything about agreeing or disagreeing. Don't put words in his mouth.

All good points, though I disagree that the "entitlement" is a bad thing. If there is a market for the kind of change people are asking for then it's in everyone's best interests for devs/publishers to cater to that, and people should be asking for that. To use some examples, take a look at EAs microtransactions, or Ubisoft's DRM. People can and should protest with their wallets, yes, but is it really so bad to speak out against those practices and ask that they change them? Do you look at the "Fuck EA!" threads and think "Pfft, entitled brats."?

I think it's a matter of how you argue it.

Ubisoft says "we don't put women in games because it's too much work."

This is a statement deserving of ridicule, because Ubisoft is one of the laziest companies in existence. Not because Ubisoft is "alienating" the female player base.

Gary Newman thought the same thing and spoke his mind. When asked if he was gonna put female avatars in Rust, he said no and made a joke. HE was then accused of alienating the female player base.

It just breeds an endless cycle of "you're with us or against us."

 

[Erttheking]

By having the SJW's be gone forever?

I'm completely serious here. They aren't making anything better, they're a fucking plague at the moment.

People you don't agree with? A plague? Please don't blow things so massively out of proportion.

He didn't say anything about agreeing or disagreeing. Don't put words in his mouth.

So I'm to assume that he finds people he agree with to be a plague? I doubt that. People don't call others a plague unless they disagree with their opinion. It's a logical conclusion.

 

[Artaneius]

Games should be made for gamers. Not for people who want everything to be politically correct. We have enough bs when it comes to "equality and fairness" in the real world. Video games is suppose to be something to escape that, not remind us of "woman rights or minority rights". If I wanted to just be completely exposed to people crying for fairness, I would just go fucking outside.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

By having the SJW's be gone forever?

I'm completely serious here. They aren't making anything better, they're a fucking plague at the moment.

People you don't agree with? A plague? Please don't blow things so massively out of proportion.

He didn't say anything about agreeing or disagreeing. Don't put words in his mouth.

So I'm to assume that he finds people he agree with to be a plague? I doubt that. People don't call others a plague unless they disagree with their opinion. It's a logical conclusion.

No it's not really. That attitude is very toxic.
You can agree with someone and dislike how they go about it.
I agree with the ultimate goal of Zionists. I hate how Zionism is done in practice.

 

[Erttheking]

By having the SJW's be gone forever?

I'm completely serious here. They aren't making anything better, they're a fucking plague at the moment.

People you don't agree with? A plague? Please don't blow things so massively out of proportion.

He didn't say anything about agreeing or disagreeing. Don't put words in his mouth.

So I'm to assume that he finds people he agree with to be a plague? I doubt that. People don't call others a plague unless they disagree with their opinion. It's a logical conclusion.

No it's not really. That attitude is very toxic.
You can agree with someone and dislike how they go about it.
I agree with the ultimate goal of Zionists. I hate how Zionism is done in practice.

It's a toxic attitude to make logical assumptions? And not refer to other people as the plague? That' doesn't make any sense.

Also I've seen him in other threads. I very much doubt that he agrees with the concept and disagrees with the methods of SJWs (God I hate that term).

Trust me, I'm not just making baseless assumptions here. Go to enough feminism threads and you get a feeling for who's on which side of the fence.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

By having the SJW's be gone forever?

I'm completely serious here. They aren't making anything better, they're a fucking plague at the moment.

People you don't agree with? A plague? Please don't blow things so massively out of proportion.

He didn't say anything about agreeing or disagreeing. Don't put words in his mouth.

So I'm to assume that he finds people he agree with to be a plague? I doubt that. People don't call others a plague unless they disagree with their opinion. It's a logical conclusion.

No it's not really. That attitude is very toxic.
You can agree with someone and dislike how they go about it.
I agree with the ultimate goal of Zionists. I hate how Zionism is done in practice.

It's a toxic attitude to make logical assumptions? And not refer to other people as the plague? That' doesn't make any sense.

Also I've seen him in other threads. I very much doubt that he agrees with the concept and disagrees with the methods of SJWs (God I hate that term).

Trust me, I'm not just making baseless assumptions here. Go to enough feminism threads and you get a feeling for who's on which side of the fence.

It's a toxic attitude to assume that someone dislikes another social movement or thing because they disagree with it's goal.

Especially when we're concerned with an idea like "social justice" where some people apparently thinking that only women have vaginas is some sort of oppression, whereas others don't.

I don't care about your inter-forum war. Don't expect me to know the whole context two guys arguing in a thread that just begun. I'm only going to be going on based on what I see here.

If you know more about the person you're talking about, don't expect me to know every step of your mental process.

 

[Batou667]

I know the OP was arguing in good faith, but 'SJW' is not a useful term. It's a blanket term, intended to shut down any kind of debate by lumping any and all who argue about representation or equal treatment into one big group (and stereotyping their behaviour). As it's usually applied, it's a sneery, dismissive, denigrating term.

We could say the same about the indiscriminate bandying-about of terms like racists and sexists, and the tiresome suggestion that anybody who opposes or questions the need to change gaming culture is a hostile, masturbating basement-dweller who's both terrified of and hates women.

"Entitlement" to... exactly what most people already get to experience, remember: characters that represent them.

It tends to chafe when somebody who does have something tells somebody who doesn't that they're acting entitled to it.

Yes, I should thank my lucky stars that by sheer coincidence, I actually am an Italian plumber called Mario in real life, and therefore have the privilege of having an entire series of games ostensibly about me. Oh, wait, I forgot that isn't the case at all.

I don't accept this assumption that as a straight white male, I'm catered to in a meaningful and self-affirming way that I wouldn't be if you removed one of the three bolded words. By that logic I should be incapable of enjoying Sonic The Hedgehog, because it doesn't represent meeeee.

Anyway, I do think that a variety of protagonists or avatars is in general a good thing, if just for the sake of variety and the ability to tell stories from a different viewpoint. But you've got to remember that media aims for the middle ground, the average, not out of malice but the simple maths of appealing to as broad an audience as possible. If you exist outside of the norm, expect less representation.

 

[Batou667]

I think the absurdity of your example shows what's not the case. No one is asking for gender swapping of established characters, no one is demanding inclusivity for the sake of meeting some quota, or any of that nonsense. You also have this weird notion that if a game is sexist/racist/homophobic it must've been designed to be hateful. In almost all cases it's out of laziness or unnecessary pandering to the market, and "SJW"s are simply asking them to be more thoughtful.

It was hyperbole, but grounded in the truth: a lot of the time in these discussions, any resistance to the progressives' statements/demands is dismissed as hostility, or immaturity, or an endorsement of bigotry ("because I define myself as good, anybody who disagrees with me is evil"). It's annoying as it smothers discussion and it's needlessly divisive.

Also, how do we decide a game is racist/sexist/homophobic? Does it require a negative portrayal of women/minorities/homosexuals, or is it enough to just omit them, or not feature them in enough frequency for a certain person's liking?

Saying "Look where else this is happening!" doesn't address the problem. Music, movies and TV also have a faaaaaar larger consumer base and completely different public image than gaming, so you can't really compare them the same way. Nobody thinks pop music encompasses the whole of "music", nobody thinks summer blockbusters encompass the whole of "movies", but plenty of people think AAA console games encompass the whole of "gaming".

Then they're wrong. I also don't think anybody seriously believes that. Who hasn't heard of indie games, casual gaming, browser games and apps? It's a concept that even children are familiar with.

Why can't we compare games to music and film (hell, and books)? They're all types of media, and games borrow a lot of their themes from them, particularly film. Games are also narrowing the gap in terms of market share: I think the ballpark worth of the US music, film and games industries are about $15 Billion, $10 Billion and $5 Billion respectively. I think it's perfectly valid to compare them, in fact it'd be a fool's errand to treat games as existing in a vacuum.

If you walk into a gaming store you'll have games for white, adolescent males, games for children, and maybe some shovelware for girls. Progressives want to expand this audience and make gaming for everybody, like other mediums before it.

Hold up. What do you mean, games for white adolescent males? Do you mean to say black kids don't enjoy CoD? Do you think no adults play Fifa? You think no girl has ever bought Skyrim?

Mainstream gaming is just that; mainstream. There IS NO subcategory of games that is explicitly FOR white adolescent males. Well, perhaps DOA Xtreme Beach Volleyball, but even that a) surely doesn't just appeal to *white* males and b) has a considerable female following. So please, let's not throw reality out of the window in our haste to make a point.

All good points, though I disagree that the "entitlement" is a bad thing. If there is a market for the kind of change people are asking for then it's in everyone's best interests for devs/publishers to cater to that, and people should be asking for that. To use some examples, take a look at EAs microtransactions, or Ubisoft's DRM. People can and should protest with their wallets, yes, but is it really so bad to speak out against those practices and ask that they change them? Do you look at the "Fuck EA!" threads and think "Pfft, entitled brats."?

I'd say it's more an issue of scale of expectation, and whether it's a reasonable request or a childish, foot-stamping tirade about the nature of reality.

Just this morning I was on the World of Tanks forum reading the overwhelmingly negative reaction to the 1.3 title update. Criticisms included the game dynamic being changed, tank X is now overpowered, tank Y is no longer competitive, reshuffling the tech tree means I spent X hours and Z amount of real-world currency on something I no longer want to use, please revert Z to its original settings, how about buffing this in a future update, here's an idea I have for a feature you could implement. All mostly relevant and reasonable feedback from the game's stakeholders. And that's fine, that's great, feedback is one of the most direct ways for a game company to know whether its decisions are matching up with what the players expect and want. There should absolutely be a public discussion happening about all aspects of gaming. Ideally the criticism should be constructive, and it tends to help if the requests are concrete in nature and achievable.

On the other hand of the spectrum, you have people saying "I feel mainstream games are fundamentally flawed. I don't like X, Y or Z, even though many other paying customers do. Make me a game without X, Y or Z that's still really good, and a triple-A title, and a best-seller, and I want a protagonist who's just like me, and I want it now." That's not going to happen.

 

[SUPA FRANKY]

Why not think of it as them changing not because they HAVE TO, but because they WANT TO? If someone said "You know, blacks should have more representation so let's make this character black" would you have the same problem? They're not doing it out of fear of backlash, they're doing it because they want to be more progressive.

Yea, I would ( and I'm black myself.)

I want them to make the characters they want to make, not make characters because " theres not enough black characters in games/movies/etc.)

It just feels like they are doing this just because they want to look good, rather than having him black because they imagined him that way.

I didn't even take notice of Lee Everett's race. I thought he was a compelling character on his own, and the fact that he was black never even crossed my mind. But if Telltale came in and said they made Lee black because of Progressive attitudes or something, it would really take my opinion down a notch of the character.

Like for example, Korra lately has more female characters than male? Is that the vision they had, or did they hear all this gender politics, and decided 'We want to look Progressive too!"

Perhaps I'm overthinking it, but I really HATE that i have this urge to question whether a person was added because that was the chaarcter they wanted, or they wanted to show how progressive, feminist, equality, blah blah blah they were.

 

[Silvanus]

We could say the same about the indiscriminate bandying-about of terms like racists and sexists, and the tiresome suggestion that anybody who opposes or questions the need to change gaming culture is a hostile, masturbating basement-dweller who's both terrified of and hates women.

A "tiresome suggestion" I haven't actually seen, unless you're exaggerating quite a bit (or just lumping trolls in with what people call 'SJWs').

Yes, I should thank my lucky stars that by sheer coincidence, I actually am an Italian plumber called Mario in real life, and therefore have the privilege of having an entire series of games ostensibly about me. Oh, wait, I forgot that isn't the case at all.

I don't accept this assumption that as a straight white male, I'm catered to in a meaningful and self-affirming way that I wouldn't be if you removed one of the three bolded words. By that logic I should be incapable of enjoying Sonic The Hedgehog, because it doesn't represent meeeee.

Nobody has said that you can only enjoy something is the protagonist fully reflects you. If you believe that's the argument, then you've misunderstood it fundamentally. That's a terrific oversimplification.

Anyway, I do think that a variety of protagonists or avatars is in general a good thing, if just for the sake of variety and the ability to tell stories from a different viewpoint. But you've got to remember that media aims for the middle ground, the average, not out of malice but the simple maths of appealing to as broad an audience as possible. If you exist outside of the norm, expect less representation.

You started with a good train of thought there, something I could fully agree with, finding common ground. Your last sentence was needlessly patronising.

I do not need it spelled out to me that I should expect less representation. I've already noticed.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

It's a toxic attitude to assume that someone dislikes another social movement or thing because they disagree with it's goal.

Spoiler

... how you agree with a movement, but not its goal?

The method is one thing. A pacifist and a militarist would both have different methods of, say, dealing with a dangerous rogue nation like North Korea. But they have the same essential goal - make it so that North Korea is no longer a threat.

Saying you're agree with a movement, but not the goal, is like going back to the 1950s and saying "I'm all for civil rights, but I don't think that races should be treated equally."

I wrote that in a confusing way.

It's a toxic attitude to assume: that if a person dislikes a social movement, it's because they disagree with it's goal.

I'm saying that you CAN agree with a movement's goal. But you can dislike the movement itself.
If you dislike a movement, it's not the same as saying that you don't like the movement's goal.

In the case of social justice, I think more diversity in videogame's would be fine, but I hate how people keep demanding it on some sort of principle.

 

[IceForce]

It feels like a month ago the term "social justice warrior" didn't even exist. Now, apparently, they are everywhere. Like Furbies in 1999. I'm guessing this is the latest permutation of the femi-nazi/white knight/do-gooder here to steal all the tits and explosions from our popular entertainment, and perhaps our penises in the bargain? Terrifying.

Meh. It's just insecure people seeing boogymen around every corner. This is nothing new.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Who fucking cares really? It's quite simple to just ignore the whole thing.

 

[Something Amyss]

In the case of social justice, I think more diversity in videogame's would be fine, but I hate how people keep demanding it on some sort of principle.

Since "social justice" is merely a pejorative used to describe people who want that said diversity, it seems a little empty to accuse "them" of "demanding it all the time." It's like you're yelling at Rush Limbaugh's feminazis or those welfare queens who drive 7 figure cars.

I mean, I oppose caricatures, too. The problem becomes when you define your stances against them. It's knocking down straw men.

Or, in more succinct terms:

Meh. It's just insecure people seeing boogymen around every corner. This is nothing new.

Because the Social Justice Warrior is just the new gaming bogeyman. No, it's not even that. It's just another shitty reboot.