Why Straight White Guys Shouldn't Always Play Games As Themselves

[Nurb]

Gamers have never tended to care what gender or race they played as long as the game itself was good.

This article does a lot of finger pointing and finger waggling at a generalization of an entire race/sexuality combo within a sub-culture and it's rather frustrating because this sort of stuff usually comes out of Kotaku or Cracked, which is why I've been with the Escapist so long.
.

correction..."white straight guys haven't" untill somone suggests things are skewed...then they try really hard to convince us all how little it matters...because what would women/colored people/gays know about playing something that isn't "them"?

And you're assuming I'm straight because I'm saying the gameplay or story has always mattered more to gamers than racial, gender or sexual identities.

people love to overatate "nah men! we don't care!" but you try and point it out all of a sudden the iron gates of defensivness shut up

I really wish we could get more mainstream titles with gay male protagonists if for no other reason than this one. I want to see if all the "shut up, race/sex/gender identity/sexuality doesn't matter!" folks would buy a game if the character was a big black guy especially in a game where homosexuality is as prevalent as heterosexuality is in most games.

Oh, I'm sure there will be a percentage of the whole who would still play and enjoy the game, but I'm also positive it'll be fairly small compared to the number of claims. Hell, just the rage when a character gets gender or race swapped in media should prove that "we don't care" really means "we don't care as long as they're like us."

And there's never been a better time than to get those games made thanks to the indie market and kickstarter so people can do it themselves instead of complaining and demanding other people do the work.

I'm not straight, but I'd rather play as straight character than a gay character that's shoehorned in out of social-justice fueled tokenism or checklisting.... or out of spite like you seem to want to do.

I'd like to see more correctly done gay characters myself, but if it's just to prove a point "to those lying cis-hets", the game will probably be awful and I wouldn't put my money in it.

 

[Skatologist]

Okay, I see a lot of the Walking Dead Season 1 players say they didn't see any of the subtle racial tones or however you would say that. If anybody would like to get an opposing opinion on that issue to better understand it, I'll be here to try and explain to the best of my ability, however, the long comment I was going to make on the issue is gone now and I don't want to have to write every last thing again if I don't have to. Let me just say now, I understand people not necessarily seeing the subtle racism of some of the characters and in all honesty, it isn't that prevalent in the games as to be blatantly obvious, but I can remember a few instances that I saw it.

Off/On Topic: Even if I'm not necessarily a white guy and I am still questioning some aspects of my sexuality and my sexual future, I still felt the article was somewhat talking to me or people like me. As someone who doesn't want to have a defined race and still gets comments like "What are you?" and being called a "mulatto" or "mutt", I don't necessarily feel my story should be told or I should be having someone represented in media, but I am far from against anyone trying to give me a greater understanding on their worldview or experiences or struggles. In fact, I embrace such forms of media as something I want to see more of, especially in an interactive medium such as video-games.

 

[Darxide]

I don't roleplay (that's for weird people) so I don't really ever care what my characters look like.

 

[Single Shot]

There are 2 types of people in this world:

1) Those who role play their characters and couldn't care less about their race, gender, species, sexuality, ect... so long as the character is well written capable of sucking them into its universe.

this would be all nice and dandy if things weren't as skewed as they currently are...

people love to overatate "nah men! we don't care!" but you try and point it out all of a sudden the iron gates of defensivness shut up

Firstly a thing called capitalism is what makes things as skewed as they are. If you want change bitching online is considerably less effective than going out there and showing your support for games with female / black / gay characters which don't appeal to group 1. Sadly the only members of groups 2 that are worth catering to are the (usually) straight white bro-gamer since they're the only real casual market to grow large enough, look at the rise and betrayal of the CoD franchise for example.
Most writers also write in a way that incorporates personal experiences into the game to make it more realistic, and as most games are written by straight, white, males, for reasons that go far beyond their race, gender, and sexuality then most games will be written for that perspective.

Secondly, I have never been defensive about "STRAIGHT WHITE PROTAGONSITS ONLY!!!!". What I have said is that I, like a lot of people, will play any game with a good central premise, well written characters, and a decent gameplay system. I get defensive only when people suggest the games writers be forced to quota'd into adding minority characters to their games. Weather you want to see games as art or entertainment that's a bad thing since it impedes the creative licence.
Can you imagine a world where, due to quota's, every player character had to be a minority that made explicit mention to their minority status at least once in the game? Watch_Dogs now features an Asian protagonist and is largely seen as a caricature due to his amazing IT skills. Alan Wake is a Mexican author who's shunned from the creepy village not because of his fictional demons, but because he's not white. Bioshock infinite is now the story of a black man making the eventual twist either far more obvious or totally unbelievable, and it has overtones of slavery instead of religion. Deus ex is now known for the phrase "Aw, hell no man. I didn't ask for this shit!". See how making everything about your characters minority status actually comes across as racist/sexist/ect.
Then you get to the really weird rewriting history stuff. Imagine if you couldn't accurately show the Victorian (Sherlock Homes adventures), Roman (Ryse), or Medieval periods without forcing modern minorities in? Does that extend to fantasy based on those periods like Steampunk Victorian (Thief), Ancient mythology (God of war), or Medieval fairytales (Whitcher II)? Because that's what this argument comes down to. Either you let the writer do what they want and chance the market with your cash, or you remove historically based games from the market completely and create a wave of badly written games featuring minority protagonists.

 

[Vault101]

Firstly a thing called capitalism is what makes things as skewed as they are. If you want change bitching online is considerably less effective than going out there and showing your support for games with female / black / gay characters which don't appeal to group 1.

where are all thease supoesed games? they don't get made because companies don't want to take risks...WORSE than the likes of hollywood

and people are not incaapble of playing a charachter that isn't like them...what do you think we've been doing the whole time? did anyone specifically dislike walking dead because there was a black guy? or that there was only one white guy PC in borderlands 2? no

why the hell are people so friggen eager to defend the way things are? what do they stand to gain exactly?


[quote/]Secondly, I have never been defensive about "STRAIGHT WHITE PROTAGONSITS ONLY!!!!". What I have said is that I, like a lot of people, will play any game with a good central premise, well written characters, and a decent gameplay system. I get defensive only when people suggest the games writers be forced to quota'd into adding minority characters to their games. Weather you want to see games as art or entertainment that's a bad thing since it impedes the creative licence.
Can you imagine a world where, due to quota's, every player character had to be a minority that made explicit mention to their minority status at least once in the game? Watch_Dogs now features an Asian protagonist and is largely seen as a caricature due to his amazing IT skills. Alan Wake is a Mexican author who's shunned from the creepy village not because of his fictional demons, but because he's not white. Bioshock infinite is now the story of a black man making the eventual twist either far more obvious or totally unbelievable, and it has overtones of slavery instead of religion. Deus ex is now known for the phrase "Aw, hell no man. I didn't ask for this shit!". See how making everything about your characters minority status actually comes across as racist/sexist/ect.
.[/quote]
you don't have aspirations of being a writer do you? because that was terrible...not everyone is that terrible and I find it strange so many who bulk at the idea of "oh noes! not the minoritys" apparently do so "in the name of not being sterotypical"

oh but thats beside the point because

[b/]its a comple and utter FANTASY[/b]

its never gonna happen...how the actual fuck dose anyone concince themselves this is something that will happen or somone anyone wants? its one of the stupidest non-arguments I come across everytime thsi non-debate ears its ugly head

 

[Single Shot]

Firstly a thing called capitalism is what makes things as skewed as they are. If you want change bitching online is considerably less effective than going out there and showing your support for games with female / black / gay characters which don't appeal to group 1.

where are all thease supoesed games? they don't get made because companies don't want to take risks...WORSE than the likes of hollywood

and people are not incaapble of playing a charachter that isn't like them...what do you think we've been doing the whole time? did anyone specifically dislike walking dead because there was a black guy? or that there was only one white guy PC in borderlands 2? no

why the hell are people so friggen eager to defend the way things are? what do they stand to gain exactly?


[quote/]Secondly, I have never been defensive about "STRAIGHT WHITE PROTAGONSITS ONLY!!!!". What I have said is that I, like a lot of people, will play any game with a good central premise, well written characters, and a decent gameplay system. I get defensive only when people suggest the games writers be forced to quota'd into adding minority characters to their games. Weather you want to see games as art or entertainment that's a bad thing since it impedes the creative licence.
Can you imagine a world where, due to quota's, every player character had to be a minority that made explicit mention to their minority status at least once in the game? Watch_Dogs now features an Asian protagonist and is largely seen as a caricature due to his amazing IT skills. Alan Wake is a Mexican author who's shunned from the creepy village not because of his fictional demons, but because he's not white. Bioshock infinite is now the story of a black man making the eventual twist either far more obvious or totally unbelievable, and it has overtones of slavery instead of religion. Deus ex is now known for the phrase "Aw, hell no man. I didn't ask for this shit!". See how making everything about your characters minority status actually comes across as racist/sexist/ect.
.

you don't have aspirations of being a writer do you? because that was terrible...not everyone is that terrible and I find it strange so many who bulk at the idea of "oh noes! not the minoritys" apparently do so "in the name of not being sterotypical"

oh but thats beside the point because

[b/]its a comple and utter FANTASY[/b]

its never gonna happen...how the actual fuck dose anyone concince themselves this is something that will happen or somone anyone wants? its one of the stupidest non-arguments I come across everytime thsi non-debate ears its ugly head[/quote]

First of all no, nobody in group 1 really dislikes games based on their protagonists minority status. That was the whole point I was trying to make. It's the people in group 2 that you have to convince. As for 'where are these games?' well the most recent examples would be something like remember me. It was a mediocre 3rd person adventure game that failed to like up to the same sales standards of other mediocre 3rd person adventure sims. Compare that to well written games that appeal primarily to the first group and the protagonist doesn't matter as much so long as they're believable. Yes, there is a massive skew in there, but it's not because of racism or sexism. It's because, as I have already said, group 1 does note care about the protagonists minority status and groups 2 can be best catered for by a protagonist that reflect the bro-gamer demographic.

What do I stand to gain? I get to keep my hobby from becoming a cess-pit of crap games forced into existence so the large companies don't seem offensive to anyone. I get to avoid censorship (enforced externally or internally) in games companies.

Actually, I'm published so fuck off with your 'you can't write' ad hominem there. Do you really think that forcing writers to change protagonist characters into minorities wouldn't effect their work quality? Forcing them to cater to marketing and gameplay demands already diminishes games story's more often than not so another demand would be even worse.

Now, if you have an actual argument instead of personal attacks and calling everything 'utter FANTASY' in capitals and bold letters please use that next time.

But thanks for answering the final, and most important part. How would you cope with showing periods of history like those mentioned if games had to include minority characters? And where do you draw the line on what is and isn't a time period?

 

[Something Amyss]

Elf Sternberg is good readin'; write the protagonist to his levels, and the response might surprise you.

I'm not sure what elf is, but I'm not sure why a game would have to be written to the level of "good readin'" when the average game has a story that would make a 70s Kung Fu flick embarassed.

Dunno. I've found Jennifer Hale to be The Best Shepard and the Garrus romance to be The Best Romance.
And people tell me I'm a straight male. Dunno about Garrus.

But unless you are all of the straight males, you're not really saying anything surprising, though. As I said before, I suspect that there are a number of people for which this is true. I just suspect that this number is significantly lower than the total of people who claim it. And I think you honed in on part of the issue already:

"Dudebros."

I'll preface this by saying that I don't truly know what the typical gamer is like, but the "AAA" industry is most heavily marketed towards adolescent white males of the "dudebro" or "frat boy" variety. And these games tend to sell, but we don't know if it's simply because this is the face of gaming, or because they put more resources into marketing these games. I mean, Call of Duty is practically an event in itself, which gets marketing because it's popular because it gets marketing because it's popular because....

And that's not to say these games can't be good. I like shooters. I like action. I have fun playing COD sometimes, even. The issue is that the market cultivates a certain gamer image to the point of exclusion. To the point where the industry fears something as seemingly harmless as putting Ellie or the girl from BSI (Don't remember her name because I don't care about Bioshock, sorry folks) on the cover of their game boxes.

The logic here, whether it's correct or not, is that their audience is so insecure that the mere sight of a girl would put off a significant enough portion of their audience to not make it worth the risk. Are they right? Well, I don't think they're completely right, no. I also don't think they're completely wrong.

Which is why I'd like to see it in action. I would like to see how it flew in real time if we got a bunch of black and gay and woman protagonists hogging up the AAA market. Because I think this would be a decent way to see where people really stood. If these things didn't matter, then we could expect to see comparable sales. If they did, well....There'd be a lot more cries for the return of the 83 video game crash.

But, I mean, I already think there's enough evidence to suspect the latter. I mean, look at the people losing their heads over a black Captain America or a female Thor. Hell, you can catch several of them saying that "race/sex/whatever doesn't matter, but it's suddenly different here because...Ummmmm...Ponies? I'm gonna go with ponies. And it's sort of fun to watch them scramble for justifications, but the message is fairly clear.

And yes, Jennifer Hale's Shep is awesome. Then again, Jennifer Hale is awesome, so it only follows.

 

[II2]

... Something that straight white dudes? and [pick your minority] share? The desire to see themselves in participatory media. Rather than appealing to to a sense of equality in written or spoken discussion, it is perceptibly more effective to CREATE CONTENT. People tell their own stories, best; you want female or minority characters? Encourage female and minority devs. Appealing to the big studios and publishers or gamers in general will 1) become contemptible through familiarity and be rebuked / ignored or 2) Result in tokenism.

Broader circumstance aside, I generally agree with the article's points if not its "it's whats best for you" tone. Playing Lee and Clementine in Walking Dead was interesting and gave me pause to reflect on things I might otherwise have not. The success of playing those roles though was the diegetic understanding of their 'being' in the larger story as a fixed point. I don't think the same merit is gleaned from rolling your opposite in the character customizer sliders of [pick your RPG]... The thoughtful ones do sometimes change up the male / female dialogue options, but a couple isolated programming flags on what dialogue you get does not do anything but remind you the button you picked at the start. The experience of playing a fat black lady in Saints Row or Dark Souls or Skyrim or .. whatever.. is typically a cosmetic contrivance done for personal enjoyment, not personal growth.

Regarding personal growth... The balanced people going in that trajectory are already embracing these ideas. The subfunctional shitheads who freak out at the idea of 'playing one of the nigras' that might actually stand to benefit from the advice of the article will not. Don't waste your breath.

 

[Vault101]

First of all no, nobody in group 1 really dislikes games based on their protagonists minority status. That was the whole point I was trying to make. It's the people in group 2 that you have to convince. As for 'where are these games?' well the most recent examples would be something like remember me. It was a mediocre 3rd person adventure game that failed to like up to the same sales standards of other mediocre 3rd person adventure sims.

because it was medicore...not because its protagonist was female


[quote/]Compare that to well written games that appeal primarily to the first group and the protagonist doesn't matter as much so long as they're believable. Yes, there is a massive skew in there, but it's not because of racism or sexism. It's because, as I have already said, group 1 does note care about the protagonists minority status and groups 2 can be best catered for by a protagonist that reflect the bro-gamer demographic.[/quote]
its because *other* charachters are seen as risks from a busness perspective....if they really didn't care all fine and dandy...excpet the way people freak out over it (eg: that srtawman argument I've seen a million times) it makes me wonder


[quote/]What do I stand to gain? I get to keep my hobby from becoming a cess-pit of crap games forced into existence so the large companies don't seem offensive to anyone. I get to avoid censorship (enforced externally or internally) in games companies.[/quote]
...c'mon....priorites?

except thats already happening for different reasons.....I mean we all the know the problems right now...particuallry rediculous development cost which scares publsihers away from anything remotly "different"...that "anything" includes different types of charachters alongside gameplay and specticle and all that

point is as far as games go it should be the least of ANYONE's worrys

[quote/]Actually, I'm published so fuck off with your 'you can't write' ad hominem there. Do you really think that forcing writers to change protagonist characters into minorities wouldn't effect their work quality? Forcing them to cater to marketing and gameplay demands already diminishes games story's more often than not so another demand would be even worse.[/quote]
then you should know no one would write that...


[quote/]But thanks for answering the final, and most important part. How would you cope with showing periods of history like those mentioned if games had to include minority characters? And where do you draw the line on what is and isn't a time period?[/quote]

uummm.....didn't you actually read what I said? this part:

[quote/]Now, if you have an actual argument instead of personal attacks and calling everything 'utter FANTASY' in capitals and bold letters please use that next time.[/quote]

let me explain it again

the commitee of the PC thourght police who a powerful force hell bent on forcing people to change things to confirm to a checklist?

they don't exist

they will never exist

because its rediculous

a fantasy....OR if you don't like that word..a Strawman....see what I mean?

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Interesting article. From Robert's perspective, everyone who ISN'T a straight white male gets the greater benefit from video games as a whole, because it allows them to explore diversity of protagonists who are unlike them. I'd have to agree with this.

Now to create a bunch of threads about how white males are oppressed by having to play as themselves all the time *rubs hands and evil grin* hahaha

 

[Vault101]

Interesting article. From Robert's perspective, everyone who ISN'T a straight white male gets the greater benefit from video games as a while, because it allows them to explore diversity of protagonists unlike them. I'd have to agree with this.

I learned while playing Nathan Drake that I hate....white "wise" cracking guys?

or just Nathan Fillion?

I think I hate Nathan Fillon...

 

[Single Shot]

First of all no, nobody in group 1 really dislikes games based on their protagonists minority status. That was the whole point I was trying to make. It's the people in group 2 that you have to convince. As for 'where are these games?' well the most recent examples would be something like remember me. It was a mediocre 3rd person adventure game that failed to like up to the same sales standards of other mediocre 3rd person adventure sims.

because it was medicore...not because its protagonist was female


[quote/]Compare that to well written games that appeal primarily to the first group and the protagonist doesn't matter as much so long as they're believable. Yes, there is a massive skew in there, but it's not because of racism or sexism. It's because, as I have already said, group 1 does note care about the protagonists minority status and groups 2 can be best catered for by a protagonist that reflect the bro-gamer demographic.

its because *other* charachters are seen as risks from a busness perspective....if they really didn't care all fine and dandy...excpet the way people freak out over it (eg: that srtawman argument I've seen a million times) it makes me wonder


[quote/]What do I stand to gain? I get to keep my hobby from becoming a cess-pit of crap games forced into existence so the large companies don't seem offensive to anyone. I get to avoid censorship (enforced externally or internally) in games companies.[/quote]
...c'mon....priorites?

except thats already happening for different reasons.....I mean we all the know the problems right now...particuallry rediculous development cost which scares publsihers away from anything remotly "different"...that "anything" includes different types of charachters alongside gameplay and specticle and all that

point is as far as games go it should be the least of ANYONE's worrys

[quote/]Actually, I'm published so fuck off with your 'you can't write' ad hominem there. Do you really think that forcing writers to change protagonist characters into minorities wouldn't effect their work quality? Forcing them to cater to marketing and gameplay demands already diminishes games story's more often than not so another demand would be even worse.[/quote]
then you should know no one would write that...


[quote/]But thanks for answering the final, and most important part. How would you cope with showing periods of history like those mentioned if games had to include minority characters? And where do you draw the line on what is and isn't a time period?[/quote]

uummm.....didn't you actually read what I said? this part:

[quote/]Now, if you have an actual argument instead of personal attacks and calling everything 'utter FANTASY' in capitals and bold letters please use that next time.[/quote]

let me explain it again

the commitee of the PC thourght police who a powerful force hell bent on forcing people to change things to confirm to a checklist?

they don't exist

they will never exist

because its rediculous

a fantasy....OR if you don't like that word..a Strawman....see what I mean?[/quote]

Yes, it was mediocre. Are you even readying what I write? would caps help you? you do seem to like using them. GOOD GAMES ARE GOOD GAMES REGARDLESS OF THEIR PROTAGONISTS MINORITY SATUS. MEDIOCRE GAMES CAN SCOOT BY BECAUSE THEY APPEAL TO BRO-GAMERS. GOOD GAMES THAT ALSO APPEAL TO BRO-GAMERS SELL BEST AND OTHER MINORITIES ARE TOO SMALL TO ATTRACT THE SECOND TYPE OF PLAYER WHO NEEDS TO IDENTIFY WITH THE PROTAGONIST PERSONALLY.

Does that help you?

Yes, and they are risks. As I said above mediocre games with protagonists that appeal to the straight white male crowd still do alright because of players who can't deal with different viewpoints. Mediocre games from minority viewpoints don't have a player base large enough to support their development.

Censorship shouldn't be a worry? Taking risks on games types that historically haven't done well right before an expected crash shouldn't be a worry? How about we strive for innovation to break the stale state of gaming and watch as minority writers who are only just getting into games in recent years work their way into companies to write games from their own point of view properly?

No, nobody should write that, but if you start forcing them to write characters they may not be totally familiar with or don't fully understand what you get is somewhere between a caricature and a stereotype. Let the writers write without standing over the backs the whole time and you get a far better outcome rather like telling Da Vinci to make the Mona Lisa black / Asian / mixed race for minorities would force him to paint from outside his own experience and produce something far different to the masterpiece we have today

I read your post, you never mentioned how you'd manage historical accuracy in themed or period games. And you can't expect censorship to end there because how do you define a themed or period setting in a virtual world that can take from multiple time periods at once, or by jumping between them?

 

[Vault101]

Yes, and they are risks. As I said above mediocre games with protagonists that appeal to the straight white male crowd still do alright because of players who can't deal with different viewpoints. Mediocre games from minority viewpoints don't have a player base large enough to support their development.

I think some medicore games don't do well because theyre medicre games, others like Titanfall/Watch dogs are helped by their hype and marketing

I don't think games fail because of the gender of their protagonists...Transistor did well because it was critically acclaimed

[wuote/]Censorship shouldn't be a worry? Taking risks on games types that historically haven't done well right before an expected crash shouldn't be a worry?[/quote]
again I'm willing to bet this is because they weren't promoted much/were medicore

[quote/]How about we strive for innovation to break the stale state of gaming and watch as minority writers who are only just getting into games in recent years work their way into companies to write games from their own point of view properly?[/quote]

yes innovation is lovley...and part of that would be boradening things a bit...no one is being forced to do anything, they'll do it when they want to do it...when they have the freedom should they so choose, people have aready praised games like saints row 2 for giving the option, and borderlands for being inclusive

[quote/]No, nobody should write that, but if you start forcing them to write characters they may not be totally familiar with or don't fully understand what you get is somewhere between a caricature and a stereotype. Let the writers write without standing over the backs the whole time and you get a far better outcome rather like telling Da Vinci to make the Mona Lisa black / Asian / mixed race for minorities would force him to paint from outside his own experience and produce something far different to the masterpiece we have today[/quote]
lets be honest for a second though...Watch_Dogs was not an inspried labour of love...Watch_Dogs was a paint by numbers videogame prtagost/story...you want to see something that was actually a labour of love? Bioshock Infinite...were it not for the brand name and its long development such a thing could never be made, you pitch something like that to a publsiher they won't like it

again your priorites are completly out of whack


[quote/]I read your post, you never mentioned how you'd manage historical accuracy in themed or period games.them?[/quote]
*siiiiiggghhhh*

ok for the third time

I don't need to answer that question, because that question was based on a strawman argument which did not resemble my own

its like asking [i/]"ok if you want to paint the entire world pink how will you manage sand and large bodies of water?"[/i] I don't want to paint the world pink.... ya get it?

 

[Single Shot]

Yes, and they are risks. As I said above mediocre games with protagonists that appeal to the straight white male crowd still do alright because of players who can't deal with different viewpoints. Mediocre games from minority viewpoints don't have a player base large enough to support their development.

I think some medicore games don't do well because theyre medicre games, others like Titanfall/Watch dogs are helped by their hype and marketing

I don't think games fail because of the gender of their protagonists...Transistor did well because it was critically acclaimed

[quote/] Censorship shouldn't be a worry? Taking risks on games types that historically haven't done well right before an expected crash shouldn't be a worry?

again I'm willing to bet this is because they weren't promoted much/were medicore

[quote/] How about we strive for innovation to break the stale state of gaming and watch as minority writers who are only just getting into games in recent years work their way into companies to write games from their own point of view properly?[/quote]

yes innovation is lovley...and part of that would be boradening things a bit...no one is being forced to do anything, they'll do it when they want to do it...when they have the freedom should they so choose, people have aready praised games like saints row 2 for giving the option, and borderlands for being inclusive

[quote/]No, nobody should write that, but if you start forcing them to write characters they may not be totally familiar with or don't fully understand what you get is somewhere between a caricature and a stereotype. Let the writers write without standing over the backs the whole time and you get a far better outcome rather like telling Da Vinci to make the Mona Lisa black / Asian / mixed race for minorities would force him to paint from outside his own experience and produce something far different to the masterpiece we have today[/quote]
lets be honest for a second though...Watch_Dogs was not an inspried labour of love...Watch_Dogs was a paint by numbers videogame prtagost/story...you want to see something that was actually a labour of love? Bioshock Infinite...were it not for the brand name and its long development such a thing could never be made, you pitch something like that to a publsiher they won't like it

again your priorites are completly out of whack


[quote/]I read your post, you never mentioned how you'd manage historical accuracy in themed or period games.them?[/quote]
*siiiiiggghhhh*

ok for the third time

I don't need to answer that question, because that question was based on a strawman argument which did not resemble my own

its like asking [i/]"ok if you want to paint the entire world pink how will you manage sand and large bodies of water?"[/i] I don't want to paint the world pink.... ya get it?
[/quote]

Transistor didn't do that well. It was an indie game with fairly low sales and a tiny cost allowing it to make a profit. Look at something like Dante's Inferno (a mediocre 3rd person action-adventure with a medium advertising presence) and compare it Remember me (a mediocre 3rd person action-adventure game with a medium advertising presence). Dante sold well and scored an average rating of 7.6 while Remember me scored 7.4 and failed. For the fourth time, this is only relevant to mediocre and bad games because I HAVE ALREADY SAID IT DOESN'T EFFECT WELL MADE GAMES AS MUCH.

Nobody is being forced to do anything, and you're unwilling to financially support games which attempt to make that leap, yet you expect large game publishers putting millions of dollars into a single project to see your hesitancy to support smaller games as "Well they're just waiting for a AAA game first". That's not how the world works. If you want that change you are going to have to suffer through a few mediocre games to show those games can be supported by the market.

Yeah, Watch_Doge was a paint by numbers endeavour. Doesn't that just reinforce that forcing them to make such a change would be done in the most lazy way possible? Bioshock, I agree wouldn't have been made on that time scale and budget if it's predecessor wasn't a success, much like games with minority protagonists sometimes need to see lower skill/budget/time games succeed before the AAA version is green lighted.

Okay, I see your point. I was assuming you were expecting self-censorship from the game developers to cater to your demands while in reality you were making demands with no idea or plan to actually achieve them. You want change, but you don't want to be a part of that change. As I said in post #2, bitching on the internet is the least effective way of getting this change. Go out there and spread the word when games do take a chance. Go and but games that make the leap. If companies see those games as profitable they're capitalist ventures and will jump right in and try to claim some of the profit-pie no matter how inherently sexist/racist ect you thing they are.

 

[Vault101]

Transistor didn't do that well. It was an indie game with fairly low sales and a tiny cost allowing it to make a profit.

well I assume it would have done well enough for an indie game given that it had the hype of bastion attached to it and was a critical darling

[quote/]
Nobody is being forced to do anything, and you're unwilling to financially support games which attempt to make that leap, yet you expect large game publishers putting millions of dollars into a single project to see your hesitancy to support smaller games as "Well they're just waiting for a AAA game first". That's not how the world works. If you want that change you are going to have to suffer through a few mediocre games to show those games can be supported by the market.[/quote]
when have I ever indicated THAT? I buy the games I think I will enjoy based on many factors...

[quote/]Yeah, Watch_Doge was a paint by numbers endeavour. Doesn't that just reinforce that forcing them to make such a change would be done in the most lazy way possible? Bioshock, I agree wouldn't have been made on that time scale and budget if it's predecessor wasn't a success, much like games with minority protagonists sometimes need to see lower skill/budget/time games succeed before the AAA version is green lighted.[/quote]
and when exactly is it thr "right" time for it too happen? why just different protagonists? why not another genmre of game or gameplay? y I don't see any reason why we couldn't have saaay....a female lead Assasins creed game...thats almost as safe as you're gonna get (yes liberation was a thing, and while people generally liked it it was relegated to a handheld)

[quote/]Okay, I see your point. I was assuming you were expecting self-censorship from the game developers to cater to your demands while in reality you were making demands with no idea or plan to actually achieve them.[/quote]
oh for fucks sake....

[quote/]You want change, but you don't want to be a part of that change. As I said in post #2, bitching on the internet is the least effective way of getting this change. Go out there and spread the word when games do take a chance. Go and but games that make the leap. If companies see those games as profitable they're capitalist ventures and will jump right in and try to claim some of the profit-pie no matter how inherently sexist/racist ect you thing they are.[/quote]
yeah yeah how many times have I heard this? you wouldn't be telling me that were it anything else...like...you know "innovation" or whatever

your saying "bitching on the internet" is pointless and ineffectual yet you're scared of the strawman feminist comitee

that said bitching on the internet actually isn't a bad idea....it got the ending to ME3 changed, if I recall it got us female avatars for (I think) colonial marines (though in retrospect..yeah) it gave Ubisoft bad PR for saying stupid things, the PC police won't stay silent

 

[Auron225]

I only have 1 save-file in Skyrim and Fallout: New Vegas, but in both games I played as black females. Note: I'm pretty fly for a white guy.

I mean, it made little difference (especially in Skyrim). Fallout had a handful of acknowledgements; the Black Widow perk, the way staff at The Tops casino addressed me, the attitudes of the Legion, but still not a whole lot. It was mostly for option sake - I would certainly like to see more varied protagonists.

 

[Single Shot]

Transistor didn't do that well. It was an indie game with fairly low sales and a tiny cost allowing it to make a profit.

well I assume it would have done well enough for an indie game given that it had the hype of bastion attached to it and was a critical darling

[quote/]
Nobody is being forced to do anything, and you're unwilling to financially support games which attempt to make that leap, yet you expect large game publishers putting millions of dollars into a single project to see your hesitancy to support smaller games as "Well they're just waiting for a AAA game first". That's not how the world works. If you want that change you are going to have to suffer through a few mediocre games to show those games can be supported by the market.

when have I ever indicated THAT? I buy the games I think I will enjoy based on many factors...

[quote/]Yeah, Watch_Doge was a paint by numbers endeavour. Doesn't that just reinforce that forcing them to make such a change would be done in the most lazy way possible? Bioshock, I agree wouldn't have been made on that time scale and budget if it's predecessor wasn't a success, much like games with minority protagonists sometimes need to see lower skill/budget/time games succeed before the AAA version is green lighted.[/quote]
and when exactly is it thr "right" time for it too happen? why just different protagonists? why not another genmre of game or gameplay? y I don't see any reason why we couldn't have saaay....a female lead Assasins creed game...thats almost as safe as you're gonna get (yes liberation was a thing, and while people generally liked it it was relegated to a handheld)

[quote/]Okay, I see your point. I was assuming you were expecting self-censorship from the game developers to cater to your demands while in reality you were making demands with no idea or plan to actually achieve them.[/quote]
oh for fucks sake....

[quote/]You want change, but you don't want to be a part of that change. As I said in post #2, bitching on the internet is the least effective way of getting this change. Go out there and spread the word when games do take a chance. Go and but games that make the leap. If companies see those games as profitable they're capitalist ventures and will jump right in and try to claim some of the profit-pie no matter how inherently sexist/racist ect you thing they are.[/quote]
yeah yeah how many times have I heard this? you wouldn't be telling me that were it anything else...like...you know "innovation" or whatever

your saying "bitching on the internet" is pointless and ineffectual yet you're scared of the strawman feminist comitee

that said bitching on the internet actually isn't a bad idea....it got the ending to ME3 changed, if I recall it got us female avatars for (I think) colonial marines (though in retrospect..yeah) it gave Ubisoft bad PR for saying stupid things, the PC police won't stay silent[/quote]

You might not have suggested anything, that's half of my problem, but I was explaining that given how capitalism works you need to provide companies incentive to change. If you don't they will keep doing what they do now. Come on, argue against capitalism with me.

A female led Ass creed would be a safe venture, but why would they take even that small risk when A) there is nothing to gain and B) There are literally millions at stake. You need to show these companies that the risk is worth investment and the places you'll get to show that are not AAA games but smaller indie developments which have slowly been making that point.

"Oh for fucks sake" is your answer even when asked specifically you don't actually have a plan to get this change that doesn't revolve around bitching on the internet.
Innovation is change. Innovation in games are constantly needed and strived towards by the majority of game producers because without innovation you're growing stale. Changing the protagonists gender or race is not innovation because the entertainment industry can continue for decades more attracting it's statistically largest demographics as it does now, through good writing that appeals to RPers and demographic similarity with their largest markets.

As I said, I'm not scared, and the fact your using that strawman is ironic given as how you keep strawmanning my arguments into a twisted form of "MALE STRAIGHT WHITE PROTAGONSITS ONLY!" when everything I've said was "you're going about chance the wrong way, change will happen when the companies see it as profitable because companies exist to make profit!". I also dislike censorship in all forms and most of this debate comes down to A) force them to write more X games or B) Hate them for putting Y in a game.

A new ending to ME3 was cheap and simple (and didn't really fix much). You can't really compare it to the full development cycle for a AAA game.
Colonial marines was crap, I could easily argue that was just a PR stunt. I could also argue that not having female characters was the first sign of trouble given the key and iconic roles of Ripley and Vasquez in the films.