With the biggest story coming out of this years E3 centering on the females in gaming debate, we have had countless articles, blogs, and vlogs dominate the gaming media. On one side we have the ?Why are we not representative? crowd shouting at the top of their digital lungs about discrimination from the white-hetero-male-run industry. On the other side is the, of course, ?Who gives a shit? white-hetero-male-majority. And once the topic of females in games is brought up, in comes the other ?gaming minorities? calling for their particular demographic to represented. In this article, I am not looking to take one side or the other. Nor do I have a real opinion either way. It is true, when it comes to our passion, gaming's most important and recognizable heroes are the fore mentioned white-hetero-males. Should the big companies like Ubisoft and Rockstar try to appease the vocal masses? That's the question I will be attempting to answer.
When I think about this debate I have two phrases that pop into my head. The first one I will be exploring is the classic ?The Customer is Always Right? moto. That is a great philosophy to adopted when starting and operating a business. Is the customer always right? As a former Kroger employee, I can say without a doubt, NO. But more importantly, will they be right? Well if you want these people to continue to be customers then yes. You will bend over backwards to please them. Smiling, giving them free stuff, going the extra mile, that what you have to do. The Ubisoft dude saying it would be ?too hard? to put women in Assassin's Creed whatever (I don't know, I don't play that shit) is not bending over backwards. Is it a bullshit excuse? I can't answer that. I have never made an AAA game (or any game for that matter), I'm don't know what goes on behind the scenes. The truth is the game is probably so far into development that it could be true. When it comes down to it, he should have been more vague. When you are a customer service rep., saying ?no? in any form is a bad thing to do. What the guy should have said was ?We have no plans for a female characters right now, but we will look into that?. Bang. Crisis averted.
Ok not really. People would have still complained. This has been a long time coming. Just a year ago when Grand Theft Auto 5 was being released, all we heard about, other than how great the game was, was that there were 3 main playable characters, all of which were male. And back then people complained. But that's our right as consumers. Remember Microsoft's turn around following the Xbox One DRM outrage. Sure they were all passive aggressive and butt-hurt, but they did it. Or how about the outcry for backwards compatibility. I like to hold on to my old games and consoles. And having to unplug and set up another machine to play older games can be a *****. Being forced to re-buy a game, or purchase a license to play an old game is bull shit. Or playing for a service like PlayStation Now to stream PS3 games that I own the damn disc of is complete crap. That is terrible business. Giving the customer what they want is important, because eventually we will no longer buy their products.
Now to take a very different turn in this argument, I have two words for ya: Artistic Freedom. It's not just for people that like to poop on the American flag and hang the shit covered rag in a gallery, it goes for game companies, too. Let's face it. If a writer or director decide to cast a white-hetero-male as there lead, that is their right. Bringing up GTA5 again, I had read an article, before it's release, on IGN. In the article, the writer had asked some one at Rockstar why all 3 protagonist were men. The response was that the stories they wanted to tell were more suitable for male leads. The article ended with a snide comment about how we'll see why GTA5 story needed masculine characters when it's available. I think we can all agree the gaming media is domination by liberals, and they love to jump on stuff like that. However, did that effect the near prefect scores GTA5 got from all gaming sites? Not at all. The choice of having the characters be exactly who Rockstar wanted them to be, helped create a narrative that kept the game interesting and exactly how the game was envisioned. What if Rockstar was pressured to make one the characters a woman during year 4 of it's 5 year development? Rewrites, new voice work, and motion capture would push the already delayed game even further pass it's release date. The finished product wouldn't be what RS had initially hoped for and may ultimately suffer for the sake of appeasing as many people as possible. Imagine if George R.R. Martin went back and wrote the original The Game of Thrones because people complained about Ned Stark dying. All of a sudden he has to completely rewrite the entire epic. But he doesn't. He kills off whoever he wants and tells the story he wants to tell. And the game industry should be no different.
I know that the whole Ubisoft/Assassin's Creed thing isn't necessarily about artistic freedom. It was just the proverbial straw. It was a dumb excuse that knocked the lid off of a pot full of boiling water. But I'd like to throw one more hypothetical out there. Imagine if every game was not allowed to have a character, but instead an avatar that you create. You pick the gender, the race, age, birthplace, and sexual orientation. Then as you play those choices you made affect the characters, the voices and so on. All of a sudden development time double. The games have to ship on 4 or 5 duel-layer blu-rays or downloads would be over 100 Gigs, because unique animations and dialogs would have to be created for every possibility. I mean, if a gamer from Alabama wanted his character to be a good ol' boy, than there should be a voice option with a southern accent. Or a bradda from da hood. Or maybe that Chinese lady I get my wonton soup from wants to be represented. Hey where's the games that represent the no job, lazy basement dwellers? I want a game where my avatar wakes up determined to start that novel, but instead I have to play a fapping mini-games and them I- um, my avatar falls back to sleep.
In all seriousness, pleasing everyone is impossible. I don't know about anyone else, but when I play a video game, my ultimate goal is to have fun. The avatar, whether white, black, gay, man, woman, furry, doesn't affect the over-all experience. Even if he's a whiny little pansy (insert any character you want here; you know what I'm talking about). But of course, now a days story in games have become more and more important. And any good story needs a good, well developed, character. And if you want characters to represent you, maybe it's time to put down the controller and pick up a book on programming. Still, it never hurts to voice your opinion. But game designers can decide who is the star of their games. Then they can create a story and worlds that fits that character. Oh, and Ubisoft needs to work on their PR.
I hope everyone enjoys this article. I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind or demonize one side of an argument. My hope was to give people another perspective on the ?diversity in gaming debate?. My name is QUICK TIME DAN and I hope I gave you something to think about.
When I think about this debate I have two phrases that pop into my head. The first one I will be exploring is the classic ?The Customer is Always Right? moto. That is a great philosophy to adopted when starting and operating a business. Is the customer always right? As a former Kroger employee, I can say without a doubt, NO. But more importantly, will they be right? Well if you want these people to continue to be customers then yes. You will bend over backwards to please them. Smiling, giving them free stuff, going the extra mile, that what you have to do. The Ubisoft dude saying it would be ?too hard? to put women in Assassin's Creed whatever (I don't know, I don't play that shit) is not bending over backwards. Is it a bullshit excuse? I can't answer that. I have never made an AAA game (or any game for that matter), I'm don't know what goes on behind the scenes. The truth is the game is probably so far into development that it could be true. When it comes down to it, he should have been more vague. When you are a customer service rep., saying ?no? in any form is a bad thing to do. What the guy should have said was ?We have no plans for a female characters right now, but we will look into that?. Bang. Crisis averted.
Ok not really. People would have still complained. This has been a long time coming. Just a year ago when Grand Theft Auto 5 was being released, all we heard about, other than how great the game was, was that there were 3 main playable characters, all of which were male. And back then people complained. But that's our right as consumers. Remember Microsoft's turn around following the Xbox One DRM outrage. Sure they were all passive aggressive and butt-hurt, but they did it. Or how about the outcry for backwards compatibility. I like to hold on to my old games and consoles. And having to unplug and set up another machine to play older games can be a *****. Being forced to re-buy a game, or purchase a license to play an old game is bull shit. Or playing for a service like PlayStation Now to stream PS3 games that I own the damn disc of is complete crap. That is terrible business. Giving the customer what they want is important, because eventually we will no longer buy their products.
Now to take a very different turn in this argument, I have two words for ya: Artistic Freedom. It's not just for people that like to poop on the American flag and hang the shit covered rag in a gallery, it goes for game companies, too. Let's face it. If a writer or director decide to cast a white-hetero-male as there lead, that is their right. Bringing up GTA5 again, I had read an article, before it's release, on IGN. In the article, the writer had asked some one at Rockstar why all 3 protagonist were men. The response was that the stories they wanted to tell were more suitable for male leads. The article ended with a snide comment about how we'll see why GTA5 story needed masculine characters when it's available. I think we can all agree the gaming media is domination by liberals, and they love to jump on stuff like that. However, did that effect the near prefect scores GTA5 got from all gaming sites? Not at all. The choice of having the characters be exactly who Rockstar wanted them to be, helped create a narrative that kept the game interesting and exactly how the game was envisioned. What if Rockstar was pressured to make one the characters a woman during year 4 of it's 5 year development? Rewrites, new voice work, and motion capture would push the already delayed game even further pass it's release date. The finished product wouldn't be what RS had initially hoped for and may ultimately suffer for the sake of appeasing as many people as possible. Imagine if George R.R. Martin went back and wrote the original The Game of Thrones because people complained about Ned Stark dying. All of a sudden he has to completely rewrite the entire epic. But he doesn't. He kills off whoever he wants and tells the story he wants to tell. And the game industry should be no different.
I know that the whole Ubisoft/Assassin's Creed thing isn't necessarily about artistic freedom. It was just the proverbial straw. It was a dumb excuse that knocked the lid off of a pot full of boiling water. But I'd like to throw one more hypothetical out there. Imagine if every game was not allowed to have a character, but instead an avatar that you create. You pick the gender, the race, age, birthplace, and sexual orientation. Then as you play those choices you made affect the characters, the voices and so on. All of a sudden development time double. The games have to ship on 4 or 5 duel-layer blu-rays or downloads would be over 100 Gigs, because unique animations and dialogs would have to be created for every possibility. I mean, if a gamer from Alabama wanted his character to be a good ol' boy, than there should be a voice option with a southern accent. Or a bradda from da hood. Or maybe that Chinese lady I get my wonton soup from wants to be represented. Hey where's the games that represent the no job, lazy basement dwellers? I want a game where my avatar wakes up determined to start that novel, but instead I have to play a fapping mini-games and them I- um, my avatar falls back to sleep.
In all seriousness, pleasing everyone is impossible. I don't know about anyone else, but when I play a video game, my ultimate goal is to have fun. The avatar, whether white, black, gay, man, woman, furry, doesn't affect the over-all experience. Even if he's a whiny little pansy (insert any character you want here; you know what I'm talking about). But of course, now a days story in games have become more and more important. And any good story needs a good, well developed, character. And if you want characters to represent you, maybe it's time to put down the controller and pick up a book on programming. Still, it never hurts to voice your opinion. But game designers can decide who is the star of their games. Then they can create a story and worlds that fits that character. Oh, and Ubisoft needs to work on their PR.
I hope everyone enjoys this article. I wasn't trying to change anyone's mind or demonize one side of an argument. My hope was to give people another perspective on the ?diversity in gaming debate?. My name is QUICK TIME DAN and I hope I gave you something to think about.
