Sexuality in gaming, your stance?

[Shadowstar38]

Then you can't use it as an example of fairness and inclusivity.

I think you're going to have to just be SOL then. Not every creative decision is going to match your tastes. Now if someone does want to make whatever game it is you're looking for and publishers give them the finger, then I can agree that's an idiotic process. But oppression and sexism doesn't describe what I see going on here.

 

[lapan]

Well first of all, at least one of those pictures is from Queen's Blade, an Ecchi Harem Fighter anime, not a game. Queen's Blade however I think well illustrates a valid point however. Nobody, and I mean nobody, who dislikes over the top fan-service style ecchi harem animes is going to watch Queen's Blade. It has a decent enough story, and the characters are actually well developed and likable, but the whole package has a presentation that screams fan-service, and it doesn't detract or break the story because it was designed to be that way right from the beginning.

Pretty sure Queens blade had at least one game

 

[Xenedus]

If a game has over the top sexualized female characters I will probably not play it unless it is an AMAZING game. I find it rather annoying that the developers of these types of games spend more time making your female character look like a stripper than they do making them look like a badass. I don't pick up a game because I'm looking to stare at women in thongs I pick up a game because I want to feel like a badass and it's hard to feel like a badass when it looks like you forgot to put on your pants.

 

[Eve Charm]

Eh there is way to much going on in this topic. Sexuality in gaming, why not. I still think of gaming as an non-consequence hobby or at least games themselves as far as Keeping the man, or woman, or religion or whatever down. Despite any studies gaming is far less of an impact the the other Main Stream medias.

Breaking it down in it's baser instincts, Why wouldn't you want to play as or with or just have characters on the screen, visually pleasing to you? It's like asking if you rather have a $1 or $100, a Honda or a Ferrari, a apartment or a mansion, so why then do you think MOST people would want someone in some dirty baggy hoodie and jeans over a guy in a snazzy suit or a girl in a skimpy red dress. When you can only have one or the other, Why wouldn't you have the more marketable better looking one? It's common sense. Sure not everyone has the same tastes, but they can figure out and create characters most people will AT LEAST find pleasing.

Now that being said, there is a point where trying to go to far with sexiness or what people think are sexiness, has an opposite effect and hurts your game or whatever. Your not going to take a something seriously when the characters all look like roid-rage and boob jobs half naked running around the world. Unlike saints row would have you believe, Sex appeal doesn't always increase the bigger you make boobs and bulges.

Finally I don't know how people enjoy a game if they need to stop and psychoanalysis all the characters to see if they are too sexy or troupes... Just enjoy the damn game.

 

[King Zeal]

One problem: I never said that a universal concept of sexiness existed, I said that people (men AND women) appear to OBJECTIFY women when given brain scans. That's it. Nowhere did I say that ATTRACTION was hardwired. In fact, I didn't even say that objectification was: I said it might be. I would fully agree that sexiness, in great part, is a product of nuture (things like facial symmetry tend to be more universal, though).

Still not the point, though. The brain scans in question are still typically given to men and women years after their personal sexual habits have been formed based on the culture they live in. For that argument to be true, a person who is a complete blank slate, like a small child raised by wolves or something, would have to show the same signs of objectifying one gender over another. That's the problem social scientists have when accepting any arguments about "predisposition"--brain scans only show you the end result, not how they got there.

The issue with that is that gender binary isn't forced upon consumers, consumers choose to make it so. Products may be made with a characteristic in mind, like a group's sex, but they do not force anyone to not partake. That's why I disagree with your recent discussions on the definition of exclusion. It is not the "social justice" definition of not taking one's preferences into account. Exclusion would be preventing someone from partaking in the game, which they do not. The consumer is still free to play the game, but they themselves are the ones excluding themselves from the game. Your restaurant analogy doesn't hold up. The vegetarian is free to come to the meat filled establishment, but they choose not to partake.

Have you ever heard of the term "Food Desert"? It's a term which loosely means an unavailability to access healthy food or nutrition without considerable distance or effort. This doesn't mean it's impossible to reach it, just that it's considerably more difficult to find it for impoverished people or certain ethnic groups.

Exclusion, like all other forms of discrimination or prejudice, can be systemic. It can be done with no conscious effort or desire from the person doing the exclusion. For example, public bathrooms are generally an example of being exclusive unintentionally; intersex and transgender people often have a hard time safely using a bathroom without harassment. They are not excluded because the building owners specifically wanted to do so. They are excluded simply because no one ever thought of their problems, because it usually doesn't concern them. Sure, transgender people can still use either bathroom they want, but not without great discomfort or risk to themselves.

In this case, though, the exclusion is done both by marketing, publishing, and their fellow consumers. Marketers ignore their needs/wishes, publishers stereotype them intentionally to draw in a target market at their expense, and other consumers either act like it's "rare" or "weird" when they play games anyway, sexually harass them for the games they play, or say the games they play aren't important.

That's systemic exclusion.

I think you're going to have to just be SOL then. Not every creative decision is going to match your tastes. Now if someone does want to make whatever game it is you're looking for and publishers give them the finger, then I can agree that's an idiotic process. But oppression and sexism doesn't describe what I see going on here.

And that exact scenario has happened before.

Besides, that, I didn't say anything about "every" creative decision matching my (or any group's tastes). I was talking about that specific game. In short, the game may have tried to take a step in the right direction, but it was a weak step. I give them a C+ for effort, but it's not an example of an inclusive game in the slightest.

 

[UberPubert]

Have you ever heard of the term "Food Desert"? It's a term which loosely means an unavailability to access healthy food or nutrition without considerable distance or effort. This doesn't mean it's impossible to reach it, just that it's considerably more difficult to find it for impoverished people or certain ethnic groups.

Except that doesn't apply to this situation.

First of all, video games are a luxury item, not a necessity. Don't try to compare the two, especially when geography isn't really a concern so long as you have a stable internet connection.

Second of all, no one's being excluded from it based on their class or ethnicity - and I don't mean in a "targeted demographic" way - I mean if they have money it's theirs, no first world nation allows someone to bar access to potential customers because of it.

Exclusion, like all other forms of discrimination or prejudice, can be systemic. It can be done with no conscious effort or desire from the person doing the exclusion. For example, public bathrooms are generally an example of being exclusive unintentionally; intersex and transgender people often have a hard time safely using a bathroom without harassment. They are not excluded because the building owners specifically wanted to do so. They are excluded simply because no one ever thought of their problems, because it usually doesn't concern them. Sure, transgender people can still use either bathroom they want, but not without great discomfort or risk to themselves.

In this case, though, the exclusion is done both by marketing, publishing, and their fellow consumers. Marketers ignore their needs/wishes, publishers stereotype them intentionally to draw in a target market at their expense, and other consumers either act like it's "rare" or "weird" when they play games anyway, sexually harass them for the games they play, or say the games they play aren't important.

"Systemic", you keep using that word, but either you don't quite know what it means or you're consistently failing to explain what the system actually is.

On the subject of intersex/transgender harassment...uh, you know that would probably be illegal, right? I'll break it down: A man stepping into a woman's restroom is not illegal, it is a rule by the building owner done for customer comfort. They have the right to ask violators to leave and if they refuse the police can be called on a technicality of trespassing, but if the person being harassed is legally recognized as being of the "proper" sex, not only will the police very likely leave without so much as a warning but the harassed could probably sue the owner for sex discrimination and harassment. And if it's part of a big franchise store? They'd probably settle out of court and toss in a donation to the respective group as part of a PR stunt just to offset the backlash. The "system" could not be any more in their favor unless they built even more bathrooms.

Onto the rest: Marketers ignoring the needs/wishes is not done in any kind of exclusionary manner, as a good marketer discriminating on sex may wear the facade of a boy's club but no effective one will ever explicitly state that no girls are allowed. Publishers are much the same, but in this particular instance I think you simply have them confused with the development team. In particular, the design of "sexy" characters is actually created by up to a handful of concept artists, and is chosen for final production under publisher supervision, the original design is not handed down (otherwise, what would be the point of having the artists?). As for the consumers...meh. If people have a problem with other people having a problem with what they play they should begin avoiding those people, you can't call it part of a "system" when it's actually just a loud minority that decides not to play nice and are by no means limited to sexism in their raging bouts of online psychopathy.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

Well first of all, at least one of those pictures is from Queen's Blade, an Ecchi Harem Fighter anime, not a game. Queen's Blade however I think well illustrates a valid point however. Nobody, and I mean nobody, who dislikes over the top fan-service style ecchi harem animes is going to watch Queen's Blade. It has a decent enough story, and the characters are actually well developed and likable, but the whole package has a presentation that screams fan-service, and it doesn't detract or break the story because it was designed to be that way right from the beginning.

I don't think there's an issue of sexuality in gaming being too overt, I think it's a problem of mindset. Psychologically speaking we live in an age where most first world societies treat sex as a far greater taboo than violence. It's become ridiculous to the point of people asserting sexism anytime you show a slight bit of cleavage. The thing is, sexualizing a character is not the equivalent of objectifying their gender. I genuinely like women, my best friends are women, I treat them all as equals with respect and courtesy, and yet strangely I enjoy the hell out of "giant boobs in your face" fan service in games and other media.

I get that some people think it's distracting, and that's fine, don't play it, don't watch it. I hate horror slasher films because I dislike gore or cheap jump-scares, so I don't watch them. We all have personal tastes and I have no issue with that, but I do take issue when people try to impose their personal tastes as a platform for reforming an entire medium based around their own sensibilities.

That level of thinking will only lead to the equivalent of The Hays Code for videogames.

I would say that Queen's blade may very well have good story and characters but it doesn't scream that from the offset like you said; though my question is why did Kill la Kill do so well despite the clear fanservice with Ryuko and Senketsu.

Back on track, the mindset you stated seems more American than anything. Using Japan as a reference since that country is a major source of games and gaming influence, they supposedly treat sex as a normal part of life and often have had fanservice and other sexual elements in shows that are essentially saturday morning cartoons (Gureen Lagoon is an example I bring up every time). America has always had more of a puritanical background due to the influence of Christianity and the fact that religion has a somewhat stronger role in the country.

As for imposing tastes to reform the medium, yes the medium does not have to change one bit but it does have to acknowledge that implications can be disturbing or that people are just bored with giant boobs. I'm a 19 year old guy so I can't say that sexy should be gone forever, but I can say that we need more variety and more effort in characterization.

 

[King Zeal]

Except that doesn't apply to this situation.

First of all, video games are a luxury item, not a necessity. Don't try to compare the two, especially when geography isn't really a concern so long as you have a stable internet connection.

Second of all, no one's being excluded from it based on their class or ethnicity - and I don't mean in a "targeted demographic" way - I mean if they have money it's theirs, no first world nation allows someone to bar access to potential customers because of it.

Whether games are a "luxury" item or not has nothing to do with the point at hand. The food desert example was only being used to demonstrate an example of exclusion, not to say that games were just as important. Whether or not you're being excluded does not depend on the severity of the thing you're being excluded from.

And no, they don't allow people to be barred based on ethnicity directly, but they can be excluded through geography, region, economic class, etc., which may disproportionately affect one ethnic group more than another.

"Systemic", you keep using that word, but either you don't quite know what it means or you're consistently failing to explain what the system actually is.

Or neither. And a "system", in this context, is any series of actions (or lack thereof), decisions, and/or social/cultural norms which contribute to an end result.

On the subject of intersex/transgender harassment...uh, you know that would probably be illegal, right? I'll break it down: A man stepping into a woman's restroom is not illegal, it is a rule by the building owner done for customer comfort. They have the right to ask violators to leave and if they refuse the police can be called on a technicality of trespassing, but if the person being harassed is legally recognized as being of the "proper" sex, not only will the police very likely leave without so much as a warning but the harassed could probably sue the owner for sex discrimination and harassment.

I can tell you for a fact that isn't what happens. https://www.aclu.org/translaw

Although the law is slowly catching up to protect transgender people, the restroom problem is one which is very common. It's a trans-rights issue currently.

Onto the rest: Marketers ignoring the needs/wishes is not done in any kind of exclusionary manner, as a good marketer discriminating on sex may wear the facade of a boy's club but no effective one will ever explicitly state that no girls are allowed.

Again, that's not how exclusion works. As I said above, you can be exclusive without intent.

Publishers are much the same, but in this particular instance I think you simply have them confused with the development team. In particular, the design of "sexy" characters is actually created by up to a handful of concept artists, and is chosen for final production under publisher supervision, the original design is not handed down (otherwise, what would be the point of having the artists?).

Publishers are not separate from the creative team. Increasingly in the AAA industry, publishers flex creative control over a product. They will flat out tell a developer what to put in the game.

As for the consumers...meh. If people have a problem with other people having a problem with what they play they should begin avoiding those people, you can't call it part of a "system" when it's actually just a loud minority that decides not to play nice and are by no means limited to sexism in their raging bouts of online psychopathy.

No, consumers are included because, as so many people have noted, this is a capitalistic enterprise. Loud minority or not, the consumers contribute to it.

 

[King Zeal]

Again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an entire industry showing a bias toward a specific group, often based on stereotypes and assumptions, and sometimes based on self-fulfilling logic.

 

[UberPubert]

Whether or not you're being excluded does not depend on the severity of the thing you're being excluded from.

But whether or not the thing you're being excluded from is actually important does matter, and using the juxtaposition of a "Food Desert" and a "Video games with sensibly dressed female characters desert." is dishonest in any context. A better comparison would be a "Cruise liner desert" in a landlocked area.

Or neither. And a "system", in this context, is any series of actions (or lack thereof), decisions, and/or social/cultural norms which contribute to an end result.

A lack of actions is not a quantifiable system and if - as you point out later they can be unintentional to begin with - then what proof do you have the system exists at all?

I can tell you for a fact that isn't what happens. https://www.aclu.org/translaw

Well you haven't, because that's not what it says. It says the laws I outlined are being upheld in a number of states and have only been turned down on a couple of occasions.

Publishers are not separate from the creative team. Increasingly in the AAA industry, publishers flex creative control over a product. They will flat out tell a developer what to put in the game.

But they're not the source, and while publishers have total control to say "Yes, this is good." or "No, that's not acceptable.", you would be extremely hard-pressed to find publishers blatantly leering over an artist's shoulder on female costume design, and in more than a few cases (again with the Dragon's Crown), the control is almost entirely in the hands of the artist.

No, consumers are included because, as so many people have noted, this is a capitalistic enterprise. Loud minority or not, the consumers contribute to it.

But the minority of consumers do not, the consumers that spend the most money are - and the majority of consumers are not guilty of the accusations of sexual harassment or insults. And you can't even make the argument that the majority of consumers are the ones enabling that kind of behavior since almost all of the harassment is sent by way of private messaging channels and/or is moderated. You're blaming the entire consumer base as being part of a "system" based on the actions of a loud minority who's behavior isn't actually tolerated and users are totally able to ignore.

 

[Eve Charm]

Again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an entire industry showing a bias toward a specific group, often based on stereotypes and assumptions, and sometimes based on self-fulfilling logic.

If it were this, it would be a problem. What it is 90% of the time tho, Market data and market testing and previous sales numbers show, catering their game toward other groups, DOES NOT get them profits or as much of a profit as catering towards another group. Studios can't waste a Triple A or even an A budget making a game for an audience that -on paper- is just as big but when it comes to money from sales is -no where near as close-

 

[King Zeal]

But whether or not the thing you're being excluded from is actually important does matter, and using the juxtaposition of a "Food Desert" and a "Video games with sensibly dressed female characters desert." is dishonest in any context. A better comparison would be a "Cruise liner desert" in a landlocked area.

Not really. Again, exclusion has nothing to do with importance. If a luxury liner is difficult for people of a certain region, demographic, or group to obtain, then yes, they are being excluded.

A lack of actions is not a quantifiable system and if - as you point out later they can be unintentional to begin with - then what proof do you have the system exists at all?

A lack of action is basically ignorance or apathy, which is one of situations exclusion creates. Accounts from people in the industry, for one. As I said, Jim Sterling has given plenty of examples on his show that I won't retread here.

Well you haven't, because that's not what it says. It says the laws I outlined are being upheld in a number of states and have only been turned down on a couple of occasions.

I'm sorry, what?

The first paragraph lists only 18 states that have Transgender Discrimination laws. That leaves 32 unaccounted for.

Also, on the restroom problem, it says this:

There's no clear answer because very few courts have considered this question. The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that even a law prohibiting gender identity discrimination does not necessarily protect an individual's desire to use a gender identity-appropriate restroom at work. The Tenth Circuit in 2007 upheld the Utah Transit Authority's decision to fire a transgender bus driver, based on a claim that her employer risked liability for her use of public restrooms along her bus route. In a non-workplace context, a New York appeals court has ruled that it is not sex discrimination for a building owner to prevent transgender people from using gender identity-appropriate restrooms in a building housing several businesses.

Some jurisdictions (e.g., Colorado, Iowa, San Francisco, New York City, and the District of Columbia), however, have indicated that denying transgender people the right to use a gender identity-appropriate restroom violates nondiscrimination laws. In addition, Washington's Human Rights Commission states that "transgender employees should be permitted to use the restroom that is consistent with the individual's gender identity." Some jurisdictions (e.g., Iowa, San Francisco, and D.C.) make clear that transgender people cannot be required to prove their gender to gain access to a public bathroom, unless everyone has to show ID to use that bathroom. Other jurisdictions (e.g., Chicago) continue to allow businesses to determine whether a transgender patron is given access to the male or female bathroom based on the gender on his or her ID.

Many businesses, universities and other public places are installing single-stall, unisex restrooms, which alleviate many of the difficulties that transgender people experience when seeking safe restroom access. While this is often a useful step towards addressing the needs of transgender people and others, we believe that transgender individuals should have the right to use restrooms corresponding to their gender identity rather than being restricted to only using gender-neutral ones.

In short, as I said, the law is changing, but what you said, that it's almost certain that you'll be arrested, or sued, is untrue. In some places, the law makes an effort to afford that protection, but in MOST places in the US, it isn't.

But they're not the source, and while publishers have total control to say "Yes, this is good." or "No, that's not acceptable.", you would be extremely hard-pressed to find publishers blatantly leering over an artist's shoulder on female costume design, and in more than a few cases (again with the Dragon's Crown), the control is almost entirely in the hands of the artist.

That's increasingly untrue. http://kotaku.com/we-need-better-video-game-publishers-472880781

But the minority of consumers do not, the consumers that spend the most money are - and the majority of consumers are not guilty of the accusations of sexual harassment or insults. And you can't even make the argument that the majority of consumers are the ones enabling that kind of behavior since almost all of the harassment is sent by way of private messaging channels and/or is moderated. You're blaming the entire consumer base as being part of a "system" based on the actions of a loud minority who's behavior isn't actually tolerated and users are totally able to ignore.

I'm not blaming the entire consumer base. I said that consumers contribute to a biased system. That's not the same thing as saying ALL consumers do it. Even a statistical minority, however, is more than sufficient to provide a toxic environment. Again, not even a majority of people harass transgendered people who try to use public restrooms, but the ones that do cause a problem for everyone.

 

[King Zeal]

Again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an entire industry showing a bias toward a specific group, often based on stereotypes and assumptions, and sometimes based on self-fulfilling logic.

If it were this, it would be a problem. What it is 90% of the time tho, Market data and market testing and previous sales numbers show, catering their game toward other groups, DOES NOT get them profits or as much of a profit as catering towards another group. Studios can't waste a Triple A or even an A budget making a game for an audience that -on paper- is just as big but when it comes to money from sales is -no where near as close-

Which is another reason it's problematic. Again, as editors on this site have said constantly, that's why increasing budgets and greater production values for AAA problems create a vicious circle.

That's also why they spend their time talking to US, the players, so that we can be aware of what's happening, since much of the change depends on US to fix because publishers have no incentive to do so.

 

[Eve Charm]

Again, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an entire industry showing a bias toward a specific group, often based on stereotypes and assumptions, and sometimes based on self-fulfilling logic.

If it were this, it would be a problem. What it is 90% of the time tho, Market data and market testing and previous sales numbers show, catering their game toward other groups, DOES NOT get them profits or as much of a profit as catering towards another group. Studios can't waste a Triple A or even an A budget making a game for an audience that -on paper- is just as big but when it comes to money from sales is -no where near as close-

Which is another reason it's problematic. Again, as editors on this site have said constantly, that's why increasing budgets and greater production values for AAA problems create a vicious circle.

That's also why they spend their time talking to US, the players, so that we can be aware of what's happening, since much of the change depends on US to fix because publishers have no incentive to do so.

Yes but your forgetting gaming got to where it was today and where it has been for the last decades ALREADY listening to their customers, which back then was Mostly your 13-35 male audience, and still is that audience.

The problem is, there is no "US" it always boils down to a "YOU" While they may not be catering to you, they are catering to a ton of people that lets the business succeed and become the powerhouse it is today.

Maybe they'll be better kickstarters and indies or something like this http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/08/square-enix-partners-with-indiegogo-to-form-its-own-kickstarter-like-service/ will pay off in the long run where " If there is a market ready to pay for something and pay in advance some of it, They'll know they can safely make it."

 

[King Zeal]

But as I've said before, that's not how marketing works. Like another poster, you're describing a "market bubble"--that is, catering to a specific demographic at exclusion to all others because they have historically been the most profitable. Market bubbles have the problem of shrinking or bursting, despite extremely explosive and lucrative numbers at the onset. To combat market bubbles, companies HAVE to reach out to demographics beyond the one they cater to.

 

[UberPubert]

Not really. Again, exclusion has nothing to do with importance. If a luxury liner is difficult for people of a certain region, demographic, or group to obtain, then yes, they are being excluded.

But only in the most benign way possible, and that is the great disconnect between the definition of exclusion and how you keep using it. This exclusion is not bad or a problem.

A lack of action is basically ignorance or apathy, which is one of situations exclusion creates. Accounts from people in the industry, for one. As I said, Jim Sterling has given plenty of examples on his show that I won't retread here.

Which accounts, specifically? And remember: They have to be examples of the publisher actually handing the development team finished content to implement into their games.

And do feel free to retread Mr. Sterling's examples, I don't keep up with everything the man does.

In short, as I said, the law is changing, but what you said, that it's almost certain that you'll be arrested, or sued, is untrue. In some places, the law makes an effort to afford that protection, but in MOST places in the US, it isn't.

I said the harassed could probably sue, a far cry from almost certain, and 9/16 states isn't bad, if leaning on the side of improbable (though without any accounts to the contrary we can't be certain they wouldn't either).

That's increasingly untrue. http://kotaku.com/we-need-better-video-game-publishers-472880781

Great. An anonymous source on a for-profit gaming tabloid on a single account of a biased author's opinion piece. They can't cite sources or even make poignant examples, how are we supposed to glean anything from this exactly? I can even bring myself to believe or agree with some of it, but without proof or even a hint of credibility I'm less than convinced.

I'm not blaming the entire consumer base. I said that consumers contribute to a biased system. That's not the same thing as saying ALL consumers do it. Even a statistical minority, however, is more than sufficient to provide a toxic environment.

That's a subjective observation though, and one I certainly don't agree with. I'm familiar with the reputation of competitive games and participated in more than a few myself, and while I can of course recall a few choice encounters with less than pleasant individuals I'd call the overall experience lukewarm and quiet.

 

[Eve Charm]

But as I've said before, that's not how marketing works. Like another poster, you're describing a "market bubble"--that is, catering to a specific demographic at exclusion to all others because they have historically been the most profitable. Market bubbles have the problem of shrinking or bursting, despite extremely explosive and lucrative numbers at the onset. To combat market bubbles, companies HAVE to reach out to demographics beyond the one they cater to.

But they aren't Excluding others, They are for the most part ACTIVELY working towards Including others. Games now more then ever are adding options to pick your gender, looks, body type, race and sexuality in everything from fantasy to modern military shooter. When they can't do it to the character in games like bioshock or uncharted the stories and character design cater to a wider demographic.

With that the PROBLEM is "You" or theses groups of people won't be happy till games are made that activity INCLUDE them and ONLY them and activity EXCLUDE what the current is and has been, and that is market suicide.

 

[King Zeal]

But as I've said before, that's not how marketing works. Like another poster, you're describing a "market bubble"--that is, catering to a specific demographic at exclusion to all others because they have historically been the most profitable. Market bubbles have the problem of shrinking or bursting, despite extremely explosive and lucrative numbers at the onset. To combat market bubbles, companies HAVE to reach out to demographics beyond the one they cater to.

But they aren't Excluding others, They are for the most part ACTIVELY working towards Including others. Games now more then ever are adding options to pick your gender, looks, body type, race and sexuality in everything from fantasy to modern military shooter. When they can't do it to the character in games like bioshock or uncharted the stories and character design cater to a wider demographic.

On the contrary, the default demographic in most games for a campaign is the white, heterosexual male. Again, editors n this very site have talked about it time and time again. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/9489-The-Racism-Blame-Game While some games offer you the chance to pick the character you want, that comes with problems of its own. I'm not saying it's not a good idea, but it's an idea still in its infancy.

With that the PROBLEM is "You" or theses groups of people won't be happy till games are made that activity INCLUDE them and ONLY them and activity EXCLUDE what the current is and has been, and that is market suicide.

That's a strawman argument, and flatly false.

But only in the most benign way possible, and that is the great disconnect between the definition of exclusion and how you keep using it. This exclusion is not bad or a problem.

That's your opinion others, such as many of the people being excluded, don't agree.

Which accounts, specifically? And remember: They have to be examples of the publisher actually handing the development team finished content to implement into their games.

What does finished content have to do with anything? I'm talking about a publisher telling a developer flat out what to and not to put in their games.

And do feel free to retread Mr. Sterling's examples, I don't keep up with everything the man does.

And I don't have time to look through all of his videos and articles to do that. If you don't either, that's fine.

I said the harassed could probably sue, a far cry from almost certain, and 9/16 states isn't bad, if leaning on the side of improbable (though without any accounts to the contrary we can't be certain they wouldn't either).

32 states lacking transgender discrimination statutes IS bad. It's not AS bad as 0 out of 50, but "not bad" is stretching it. And unfortunately, transgender harassment is a constant problem when it comes to restroom rights. As I said, it's changing, but it's still pretty terrible.

Great. An anonymous source on a for-profit gaming tabloid on a single account of a biased author's opinion piece. They can't cite sources or even make poignant examples, how are we supposed to glean anything from this exactly? I can even bring myself to believe or agree with some of it, but without proof or even a hint of credibility I'm less than convinced.

Believe what you want. But again, Jim Sterling, the guys at Extra Credits, and other people here and there have spoken out about it. I'd love to give more specific citations, but like I said, I lack the time.

That's a subjective observation though, and one I certainly don't agree with. I'm familiar with the reputation of competitive games and participated in more than a few myself, and while I can of course recall a few choice encounters with less than pleasant individuals I'd call the overall experience lukewarm and quiet.

Well, that's your unique experience. Sites like Fatuglyorslutty.com has hundreds of examples different ones.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I think you're going to have to just be SOL then. Not every creative decision is going to match your tastes. Now if someone does want to make whatever game it is you're looking for and publishers give them the finger, then I can agree that's an idiotic process. But oppression and sexism doesn't describe what I see going on here.

And that exact scenario has happened before.

I don't dispute that. I'm against it when it does happen.

Besides, that, I didn't say anything about "every" creative decision matching my (or any group's tastes). I was talking about that specific game. In short, the game may have tried to take a step in the right direction, but it was a weak step. I give them a C+ for effort, but it's not an example of an inclusive game in the slightest.

Fair enough. They tried but you can't please everybody of course.