Representation in games must be properly contextual

[Vault101]

And now everyone is imagining it...

Oh, it exists... it exists.
.

As far as Jack and Miranda goes, I suspect some rule 34 was just born if someone hasn't already done that one... and somewhere a million lesbian femsheps cry.

it was one of the few times I saw some rule34 and thought "yep...that seems about right"

the one I saw was reasonably well drawn too which definitely helped. I'd find it but...

 

[Zhukov]

I can imagine those two having some very very angry energetic sex.....

And now everyone is imagining it...

Everyone including the writers... and by extension, Shepard.


I should go.

 

[Lukeje]

*snip*

Here, have an analogy about llamas that will hopefully make you think about why your suggestion is flawed: http://aidanmoher.com/blog/featured-article/2013/05/we-have-always-fought-challenging-the-women-cattle-and-slaves-narrative-by-kameron-hurley/

 

[GabeZhul]

I think it was Heinlein who at one point mentioned that codes of conduct like Bushido and Chivalry worked great until conflict with an enemy that didn't respect them. The Samurai were overthrown by mobs of peasants, and Chivalry arguably ended with battles like "Agincourt" when the flower of French knighthood took the field and marched out to claim a victory since by the rules they should have won easily, and got massacred by longbows when the British decided they weren't submitting to French rule based on some code of honor. There are apparently still some hard feelings about this today.

Patently untrue. Both chivalry and bushido are ideals created way after the time periods in which they purportedly existed. Bushido in particular was created as a part of WWII war propaganda and actual samurai were no better than the nobles, chiefs and errant knights of any other nation of the world. Hell, actual samurai didn't even use their "fabled" katanas all that much other than ceremonies and as status symbols. They were actually all about archery.

As for chivalry, it was created by 18th century romantic art and literature looking at the pre-enlightenment Europe through rose-tinted glasses. If I remember correctly it all came from some writings by some scholars on how knights "should" behave at the time, which were taken by later generations as how knights "actually" behaved and got spun into chivalric tales by writers.

In other words, the downfall of the samurai and knighthood was not due to their non-existent codes of conduct somehow holding them down in a cruel environment, but because they became obsolete on the battlefield and later lost their status as nobles due to the societal upheavals of the 19th and 20th century.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

What a ridiculous OP post. It sickens me.

Not all games ever should respect the current social problems and trends. Let alone conform to those trends by default when they don't want to debate them.
You're even going further by just putting the American situation on top of every other situation in the world.

If a game doesn't want to debate the "glass ceiling" for CEO's then the best possible course of action would be to give choice to the player. You're saying the best possible option would be to cater to one camp (yours) and screw everyone else over. If you think that wouldn't give rise to any criticism you're insane.

I'd also like the OP to stay the hell away from all the games that do have powerful and good female characters "present at the party", cus this is one party you're not invited to.

 

[Riotguards]

i say let you play as whatever you want but don't force others to provide that for you, if you want to make a multicultural game then go make it but don't go forcing people to conform to your view

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

This feels like a carefully crafted topic to piss off both sides.
It starts off talking about how minorities as American CEOs is unrealistic, then ends saying women shouldn't be included in games like CoD, Gears, etc, because those games are inherently bad in some moral way.

Either that or the OP wants every game to be about tackling social issues.

 

[likalaruku]

I'd say that the whole point of games was to step outside of reality, not reflect it. That goes doubly for simulation games.

 

[Jack Action]

Right now white males are wasting their time with "power fantasies" where mass murder is the solution to the world's problems. We shouldn't be encouraging the rest of the population to join in. We should be shutting down the party.

...where do you get off deciding that?

I mean seriously, what gives you the right to shut down my party?

 

[Stewie Plisken]

So wait; your point is, videogames shouldn't be fun, creative or provide escapism, but instead be dreary, preachy social criticism pieces that need to reflect not reality in general, but its worst aspects, which will then create guilt and an atmosphere of absolute fear that will cripple the medium as a branch of entertainment in favour of some false sense of intellectual superiority and social sensitivity.

Alternatively you could always just keep making fun games that star characters tailored to that story regardless of gender, sex, race etc. Forced inclusion in games is a ridiculous concept, but so is taking away power fantasies from anyone and especially the more underrepresented demographics that require them the most.

PS: Prey was a murder simulator tailored to a Native American protagonist and it was awesome.

 

[Something Amyss]

because [I/]white guys just wanna have FUUUUuuuun....ooohhhh ho guys just wanna have fuuuuuuuun[/I]

and blacks/woman gays don't....they want to talk about what it is to be black/gay/woman...all the time

[quote/]
from the movie cruel inentions

Black guy: I'm writing a symphony, its based on the life of martin luther king

Nostalga Chick: "because what ELSE would I write a symphony about?"

BUT WAIT they say

if your thing isn't about what it is to be gay/black/woman then whats the point of BEING gay/black/woman you might as well just be a.....oh I don't know...the default[/quote]

Yeah, I keep forgetting because I never hang around feeeeemales or minorities....I mean, all women ever talk about is social justice and their period, right man? Right?

[sub]ohgodthisisvaul101imtalkingtoaknownfemalepanicpanicabort[/sub]

Look! Over there! Chocolate!

Okay, I feel dirty even typing that in jest. It amazes, me though. Amazes me that you need a special reason to be anything other than a straight white dude.

 

[Something Amyss]

Good representation.
Gay character in DA:O. Actually a part of his character.

Bad representation.
Making almost everyone bisexual for reasons in DA2.

Token characters need to go.

Seriously. I mean, look at all those straight guys who are just thrown in for no reason. Some of them inform us of their sexuality with absolutely no reason at all!

Oh, wait. That's different. My bad.

 

[Netrigan]

Good representation.
Gay character in DA:O. Actually a part of his character.

Bad representation.
Making almost everyone bisexual for reasons in DA2.

Token characters need to go.

there's nothing wrong with characters being not-straight without their entire personal story being about them being not-straight.

Token "characters" don't need to go, only the notion of token characters. A character should be valued on their character, not how many steps they are from Nolan north.

Hey, Nolan North was almost as awesome as that Zombie voice in Saints Row.

 

[Something Amyss]

Pfff was that some sort of Freudian slip on Vault's account then? Either way it's hilarious.

I'm not sure if it was a typo, a Freudian Slip, or maybe just truth in advertising. It's actually a fairly common "debate" tactic to just throw out a ton of claims or data so the other person/side can't possibly refute them all or gets bogged down by the process (depending on whether such a debate is timed or not). Such facts are often dubious (And the problem with chivalry is that the things surrounding it are often quite dubious), and can readily function as red herrings. It's dishonest and should probably be discouraged.

Hey, Nolan North was almost as awesome as that Zombie voice in Saints Row.

If only they had done Zombie Nolan North.

 

[Netrigan]

Good representation.
Gay character in DA:O. Actually a part of his character.

Bad representation.
Making almost everyone bisexual for reasons in DA2.

Token characters need to go.

Seriously. I mean, look at all those straight guys who are just thrown in for no reason. Some of them inform us of their sexuality with absolutely no reason at all!

Oh, wait. That's different. My bad.

Don't remember where, but there was an interview with the writer of Borderlands 2 where he talked about his habit of randomly tossing in gay people and couples into the series. He acknowledged that it was thinly done, but didn't have a problem with that. Yes, Sir Hammerlock is gay and apart from a few references here and there about boyfriends, it doesn't amount to anything. And maybe that isn't true diversity and maybe there's a better way to do it, but he thinks its still important to include stuff like that.

And, honestly, I don't remember anything which sounded unlike straight dialogue. Mad Moxxi is always talking about her exes. Her exes talk about her. People refer to love interests all over the place. In a world where gay lovin' is perfectly normal, why wouldn't homosexuals talk exactly like straights about their love last, past and present? Same deal with your fantasy worlds, all that elf on elf action probably means people are pretty cool and open about this sort of thing and if you think it's weird, that's kind of on you.

Although, again, I wouldn't be opposed to a sexuality option in the character creation menu, including asexual for those people who don't want any of that silly sex stuff interfering with their questing or sex party mode where hedonism is the order of the day (I'd be hitting that hedonism switch for that Jack/Miranda/FemShep three-some option. My FemShep is all about the ladies. This is supposed to allow for role-playing and I see no harm in tailoring the world a touch to fit their preferences.

 

[Something Amyss]

Don't remember where, but there was an interview with the writer of Borderlands 2 where he talked about his habit of randomly tossing in gay people and couples into the series. He acknowledged that it was thinly done, but didn't have a problem with that. Yes, Sir Hammerlock is gay and apart from a few references here and there about boyfriends, it doesn't amount to anything. And maybe that isn't true diversity and maybe there's a better way to do it, but he thinks its still important to include stuff like that.

And, honestly, I don't remember anything which sounded unlike straight dialogue. Mad Moxxi is always talking about her exes. Her exes talk about her. People refer to love interests all over the place. In a world where gay lovin' is perfectly normal, why wouldn't homosexuals talk exactly like straights about their love last, past and present? Same deal with your fantasy worlds, all that elf on elf action probably means people are pretty cool and open about this sort of thing and if you think it's weird, that's kind of on you.

Although, again, I wouldn't be opposed to a sexuality option in the character creation menu, including asexual for those people who don't want any of that silly sex stuff interfering with their questing or sex party mode where hedonism is the order of the day (I'd be hitting that hedonism switch for that Jack/Miranda/FemShep three-some option. My FemShep is all about the ladies. This is supposed to allow for role-playing and I see no harm in tailoring the world a touch to fit their preferences.

I don't actually remember Sir Hammerlock mentioning boyfriends. This may have to do with general apathy to the sexuality of people I'm not actually sleeping with. Actually, you know, while not your direct point, your post made me think of something: you ever notice how frequently the people who complain that gays need to be done proper or need a reason to justify their presence are the ones who complain about gays "shoving it in their faces?" I mean, you don't see it for women or other minorities quite as much (though I bet there are people complaining that Franklin's friends and family in GTA V are too black or something), but there's this sort of habit where people are assumed straight until it's blatantly clear otherwise, and then people are upset.

Well.

This is one of the reasons we have campy, flaming homosexuals in the first place, people. Because society ignored and/or marginalised gays, so gays decided to be noticed.

Even the argument that there needs to be a reason for someone to be gay in a story sounds like the "why did you choose to be gay?" mentality. And I'm not saying people are trying for that, I'm just saying that it sounds awful familiar.

But yes, gay people actually do often talk about relationships just like straight people. Hell, I've been talking about mine recently, and I only feel the need to specify "men AND women" when it's relevant. Which it rarely is. There was one example, but I don't see it coming up often. Granted, it comes with the side effect that people often perceive me as straight until told otherwise, because they assume when I say "exes" I mean specifically ex-girlfriends, but I don't want to spend my life as a Bioware info dump.

In any event, I like the idea of selectable sexuality as well as selectable gender, skin tone. Saints Row IV let you romance everyone or no-one, a step up from previous games. Considering we often have multiple voice tracks anyway....

 

[Netrigan]

Don't remember where, but there was an interview with the writer of Borderlands 2 where he talked about his habit of randomly tossing in gay people and couples into the series. He acknowledged that it was thinly done, but didn't have a problem with that. Yes, Sir Hammerlock is gay and apart from a few references here and there about boyfriends, it doesn't amount to anything. And maybe that isn't true diversity and maybe there's a better way to do it, but he thinks its still important to include stuff like that.

And, honestly, I don't remember anything which sounded unlike straight dialogue. Mad Moxxi is always talking about her exes. Her exes talk about her. People refer to love interests all over the place. In a world where gay lovin' is perfectly normal, why wouldn't homosexuals talk exactly like straights about their love last, past and present? Same deal with your fantasy worlds, all that elf on elf action probably means people are pretty cool and open about this sort of thing and if you think it's weird, that's kind of on you.

Although, again, I wouldn't be opposed to a sexuality option in the character creation menu, including asexual for those people who don't want any of that silly sex stuff interfering with their questing or sex party mode where hedonism is the order of the day (I'd be hitting that hedonism switch for that Jack/Miranda/FemShep three-some option. My FemShep is all about the ladies. This is supposed to allow for role-playing and I see no harm in tailoring the world a touch to fit their preferences.

I don't actually remember Sir Hammerlock mentioning boyfriends. This may have to do with general apathy to the sexuality of people I'm not actually sleeping with. Actually, you know, while not your direct point, your post made me think of something: you ever notice how frequently the people who complain that gays need to be done proper or need a reason to justify their presence are the ones who complain about gays "shoving it in their faces?" I mean, you don't see it for women or other minorities quite as much (though I bet there are people complaining that Franklin's friends and family in GTA V are too black or something), but there's this sort of habit where people are assumed straight until it's blatantly clear otherwise, and then people are upset.

Well.

This is one of the reasons we have campy, flaming homosexuals in the first place, people. Because society ignored and/or marginalised gays, so gays decided to be noticed.

Even the argument that there needs to be a reason for someone to be gay in a story sounds like the "why did you choose to be gay?" mentality. And I'm not saying people are trying for that, I'm just saying that it sounds awful familiar.

But yes, gay people actually do often talk about relationships just like straight people. Hell, I've been talking about mine recently, and I only feel the need to specify "men AND women" when it's relevant. Which it rarely is. There was one example, but I don't see it coming up often. Granted, it comes with the side effect that people often perceive me as straight until told otherwise, because they assume when I say "exes" I mean specifically ex-girlfriends, but I don't want to spend my life as a Bioware info dump.

In any event, I like the idea of selectable sexuality as well as selectable gender, skin tone. Saints Row IV let you romance everyone or no-one, a step up from previous games. Considering we often have multiple voice tracks anyway....

One of the side-quests in the game is to get revenge on the Thresher that killed/maimed (I forget which) Hammerlock's boyfriend. There's a bit of suggestive dialogue in the Sir Hammerlock DLC which is highly suggestive that he likes that sort of thing. And I think there's a spot or two were he casually mentions a boyfriend.

And one of the leads is accidentally bisexual. Axton has a line of dialogue which had been meant to only be directed at female characters when he healed them. Something like "I've got you, darling" only they coded it wrong and he says it to male characters, too. Instead of fixing it, they added some lines of dialogue in one the DLC packs to confirm he was bisexual.

Most people don't notice it, because they don't pay much attention to the random chatter of the player characters in fights.

There's a lot of subtle stuff going on in Borderlands, like Moxxi being Scooter's mom, making Ellie his sister, making his interest in her a lot creepier. Or the possibility that Krieg (one of the DLC playable characters) is Tiny Tina's father.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

First to the OP: Are you aware of just how racist your statement was? There are plenty of Native American CEOs, and African American CEOs, etc. That notwithstanding, the games are fiction - they can be whatever the developer wants it to be.

There are cases where context is important. If you're going to make a game about Shaka Zulu, he shouldn't be white. But otherwise, it is whatever the game developer wants it to be. For all the complaints of "SJW"s supposedly trying to tell video games what to be, inclusiveness means removing restrictions on content, not putting restrictions on. It means letting developers tell whatever stories they desire - if they want to make a game full of social commentary, that's their choice, just as if they want to make a first person shooter with no social commentary at all.

You hope that you'll see more inclusiveness in the content, but when you've got women and various minorities making the games and telling the stories that speak to them, that's pretty much a given for happening. All we have to do is keep the doors open for them. And, you hope that the representation of women and minorities will get better elsewhere, but that can't (and shouldn't) be forced on developers - it's something they have to do themselves because they WANT to do it. All we can do is point out where a problem may exist and hope to be listened to.

Frankly, saying "progressives" should concentrate on shutting down a genre of video game makes me wonder if you even know what a progressive is or stands for. I mean, good grief - you're talking about Doom and Quake here, not Custer's Revenge.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

As for chivalry, it was created by 18th century romantic art and literature looking at the pre-enlightenment Europe through rose-tinted glasses. If I remember correctly it all came from some writings by some scholars on how knights "should" behave at the time, which were taken by later generations as how knights "actually" behaved and got spun into chivalric tales by writers.

Actually, that's not correct. It is a Medieval concept that starts with the knighthood moving from a strictly military class to a more landed gentry around the 12th century. One of the earliest sources codifying it is the Art of Courtly Love, by Andreas Capellanus (written around 1190), although this is in many ways a parody of the courtly romances that are arising (and, frankly, a pretty funny one). But, by the 15th century, the Arthurian Romances are in place in the form we know today, as are the Carolingian Romances.

By the time Cervantes writes Don Quixote in the 17th century, he's parodying a genre of chivalric literature with centuries behind it. I have no doubts that the Victorians added their own spin here and there to the idea of Chivalry, quite likely giving it more weight than it actually had in the Middle Ages (where it was mainly a literary concept) but it is a concept created and more or less codified in the Middle Ages.

(My first degree was in this stuff.)