Adventure Gamers - Forums
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
Post Marker Legend:
-
New posts -
No new posts
Currently online
What themes would you like to see more of in adventure games?
Just seems like a double standard to me, you could easily replace spawn or blade with a white guy, black panther not so much bc of where he is from. But spawns origin is a guy who gets killed. I dont think it should be done but to not consider it, is hypocritical at least to me.
As to historical games/movies you are correct in principal, but if you were making a king henry the 8th movie, you wouldnt replace all his wives with husbands for obvious reasons.
I guess it all boils down to what is sacred to you or not, i know a crap ton of fans hated the synder version of superman bc he was so angsty and not the wholesome boy scout. For the record i dont care if there is a black superman, if there is good characters and a great story, but if im being honest seems like a publicity stunt by WB. Kind of like what they are doing with he-man
Well I was thinking that with Spawn, it might indeed work. But he’s rather uknown hero compared to the others, and really just one of three I could even remember, so he still falls in the category of being rare. I think it’s rather obvious that changing one of the very few minority heroes into majority heroes would raise more concerns. I don’t think that’s a double standard, this context matters to me much more than any “historical accuracy” when we are not talking about a documentary. Never I said it couldn’t be considered, the whole point is understanding these issues while considering it.
And I still think people are way too eager to paint things as publicity stunts, tokenism and pinkwashing and whatever when it comes to considering diversity. It happens, of course, but often it is not forcing or pandering, people can be genuinely onboard. And even if the idea has sprung from something else, the result could be done well. What isn’t a publicity stunt these days? Do people think the other choices these studios make are not? Like with “historical accuracy”, a character being a minority seems to be a huge issue here while other “stunts” often go unnoticed.
What did they do with He-Man? I’ve watched She-Ra a bit and liked it quite a bit. All those brown people and sexual minorities seemed to fit in there very well and I did watch He-Man when I was younger.
Currently Playing: Dragon Age Origins: Awakening
Recently Played: Red Embrace: Hollywood, Dorfromantik, Heirs & Graces, AI: The Somnium Files, PRICE, Frostpunk, The Shapeshifting Detective (CPT), Disco Elysium, Dream Daddy, Four Last Things, Jenny LeClue - Detectivu, The Signifier
I’m not saying what they should be, I’m saying it’s reasonable that they are. If there’s a small percentage of transgender people, there will be a tiny percentage of not just transgender writers, but also those who are interested in making in adventure games with transgender character. The percentage of people who aren’t transgender AND are interested (genuinely) writing about transgender characters in their games will also be small, because more people tend to write about either stuff they have familiarity with or personal experience, or they have to have really sincere interest in writing (and hence learning) about that experience. It would also be naturally small, just like percentage of people writing about people with disabilities. It’s normal. We should celebrate those that do it already and realize that it will never be a huge number, just like it will never be a huge number of people writing of the hardships of living in a remote island community, or with some obscure mental disorder. Anything short of that will be coming to people and say – “Hey, that’s what I want you to write about” and get upset if they planned for a different thing, like a “dreaded” white straight male protagonist, even though that was the story they wanted to write to begin with. And I’m not saying that you’re getting upset, but plenty of people do.
People can write transgender characters even if they are not themselves. While I agree that many straight men in reality only write about straight men and already their female characters are horrible, good writers can write about any gender or sexuality or race. And I think we do celebrate those who write about minorities. It’s not common asking any person in particular, that “you need to write about subject X”, we are talking about in general to be brave enough or think outside of the box a bit, and maybe add characters that are not all white, straight, young and fit. And not think “oh no, as a white man I couldn’t possibly know anything about this”. We are also talking about hiring those minority writers who certainly do have knowledge.
Also I’d like to remind that many LGBTQIA+ minorities are not so minor, I’m pretty sure everyone knows several people that are bi or gay, a few that are trans or nonbinary etc. One might not notice them as they are not shouting it from the rooftops. And even if some minority is just 1 % of people, already in US that means more than 300 000 people. I think it is important that these people would be seen in more than 1 % of entertainment. And surely there are ways to include them without huge effort. It doesn’t have to be a case study, they can be a smaller side character too, who just exists there like normal people exist. Which gets us back to this:
Because those qualities, in my opinion, do not represent anyone to a degree that matters. I haven’t met anyone who wants to be known as “gay that is also good at comedy”, or “amputee who is also fantastic family man”. I did meet people who are good comedians who happened to be gay though, and great fathers who happened to have amputations. By putting qualities that people had no control over at the front, the important ones get lost. I know both people I wrote about above in person, and I had conversations with both. Both expressed the same sentiment – “I wish I’d be known as a good comedian and people come to my show, give me audience feedback and just stop talking about me being gay at all. It’s my personal business and it has nothing to do with my life’s work or my writing” (along the same lines with the amputee dad). So I don’t know if that is something, like you said, “everyone should be requesting”. Up to an individual here, not a chorus of people.
Come to think about it – we are all representatives of something. No one escaped diversity or losses. Be it being ethnic minority or dealing with a mental issue or physical issue or a social one. I don’t look for personal representation in instances when I experienced something tragic or where I really differ from majority. It doesn’t matter to me if there’s a character with the same issue in film or games. I know what I am, and I don’t need validation from external sources, I’m comfortable being me with all the issues even if nothing will ever represent it, so I’m genuinely not looking for it, and I think it’s safe to assume that not everyone does.
It matters. To be seen as something that does exist and is normal and human, it matters. You are comfortable being you, but many people are not, and having seen themselves represented can make a world of difference to them. (I never meant to imply that all of us would need all of our sides represented.)
Like having a doll that’s in a wheel chair. Is that insulting somehow, or maybe it’s just cool? (My favourite barbie was black btw, it was super cool, and I had probaly seen like 10 black people in my life when I turned 12.)
The way minorities have to represent their groups and how easily they will be painted as activists is not a problem of us having too much minority representation. On the contrary, having more representation and normalising anything will make it easier to just be a person, and not be seen as someone who “carries trait X”. This is one of the main reasons I say I need more representation. I am an activist in a way, I’m on of the organizers of the Pride event here and I’ve lead a LGBT board game group etc. but I wouldn’t want my face to be widely known or having to talk about these issues publically, I’d rather be doing the background work. So many of us are often keeping quiet about these things in work etc. because we don’t want to represent. I’d love if fictional characters would do that for us, and we could just be people like everyone else, and not bombarded with intrusive questions.
Currently Playing: Dragon Age Origins: Awakening
Recently Played: Red Embrace: Hollywood, Dorfromantik, Heirs & Graces, AI: The Somnium Files, PRICE, Frostpunk, The Shapeshifting Detective (CPT), Disco Elysium, Dream Daddy, Four Last Things, Jenny LeClue - Detectivu, The Signifier
It’s a strange thing to want in a person because it has nothing to do with their character whatsoever. It just doesn’t. It’s not going to make them a better cop or meaner witch, so requesting just that makes it odd to me. I want a mean witch, and if she’s lesbian – cool. But I don’t just want lesbian whatever-character-as-long-as-they-are-lesbian – that makes no sense to me, because in first case I get the idea of general qualities, and in the second – only that a person prefers to sleep with women, which I could care less about, I care about exactly how mean she is as a witch.
Gender is a social construct, so sure, one can switch it any day they like these days, and it’s whatever floats their boat. Sexuality though… I haven’t personally met people who consciously chose to be, say, gay. Most of the LGBTQ+ I know tell me they never had a choice – that’s how they were born.
Gender is not chosen either and people do not “switch it every day”. That is insulting.
Otherwise I think you are approaching this from a very different angle. You are constantly talking about some one specific character that people would like to change. That’s not what it’s about, it’s just including all kinds of characters into stories. People want stories about lesbians, they don’t want to you to change your protagonist into a lesbian.
Again, you’re either assuming here for the entirety groups of minorities or only happen to talk to those who want to be represented and not the others.
I don’t think we should be “normalizing” unique authentic things, so I think that’s where we differ. I think we should keep them that – unique and authentic and celebrate exactly that about them, the fact that there aren’t many of them. Majority of people from all kinds of races and ethnicities in extremely multi-cultural Los Angeles that I personally meet are actually don’t want to be “normalized”, they always show me what the music/films/books are in their country like and love talking about specific of their culture and aren’t looking to be a part of mainstream, they like to be “far few and between” and stand out. To be quite honest, many don’t think about it at all – they just living their lives. That’s just my personal experience YMMV.
I’m sorry, do you mean that some people should be allowed to dictate that they should not be represented in the media? Of course I am talking about the people who want representation, those who don’t, they don’t. But surely this is about people asking something to be done and not about denying others doing something else? Because there are still many all-white and all-straight stories out there too, and no one is saying there should be none.
Does normalizing have some other meaning that I don’t know, because I’m talking about just showing a variety of people being people. It’s not about “mainstreaming” everything.
Ah, so you do ask for yourself. It makes more sense to me now, but I’m just surprised that the ask is not for a particular game or experience along the lines of “I’d like to make a game about coming out to conservative family” (random example) – which is a wholesome story where sexuality and gender would play prominent meaningful part and have value as a base of a story, but rather for – “just make more people in games gay”, which adds zero value to those people in terms of what kind of human beings they are.
There should be gay people also in stories that are not their coming along stories. You know, just some random friend or colleague etc. It’s not about adding “extra value” to those characters. Just because they exist, you know. Don’t wipe them out.
Where are these minorities who are “just fending for themselves”? Minorities whose representatives I meet are pretty outspoken people. Assuming they need your support is assuming that they are inferior to you and don’t have what it takes to stand up for themselves. Give people more credit, they are much more capable than you believe them to be. That’s precisely why it’s called “white savior” – when a white person decides that someone is poor and weak and helpless, and there they are – they will step in and help them like superior being of some kind. Minorities of any kind in general, especially those people in them who are true survivors are incredibly resilient, and I’ve met a lot of them who are resistant to the “let me help you, you are a minority” mentality. Support sometimes comes from stepping back and letting people voice what they want for themselves - letting them speak instead of speaking for them. I think it has been a whole lot of yelling going on behalf of others lately in the world, so much , as matter of fact, that “the others” aren’t really being heard anymore, especially their discontent for being relegated to a category of “spoken for” instead of “listened to”. That’s a very personal take, though, so this is subjective, of course. And it also may vary by the country as well.
Are you really saying that when I say I want more gay men in my games I’m infantilizing gay men? I’m not allowing them to speak for themselves? I’m somehow thinking I’m better than them? I really don’t understand this aspect. I’m in a minority of a minority myself, and I’m very happy if even straight cis people defend my rights and ask for my representation. I feel supported then, not discredited. From your text I’m reading that any support is speaking on behalf of others. One can support and still let the supported act and speak for themselves too.
Currently Playing: Dragon Age Origins: Awakening
Recently Played: Red Embrace: Hollywood, Dorfromantik, Heirs & Graces, AI: The Somnium Files, PRICE, Frostpunk, The Shapeshifting Detective (CPT), Disco Elysium, Dream Daddy, Four Last Things, Jenny LeClue - Detectivu, The Signifier
I guess no one could also imagine a game like Danganronpa existing, before the vision for it was hatched in its creator’s mind.
At times it seemed like it might or might not have involved acid
When interacting with a black person, I have to assume that (s)he was most likely a victim of racism at least on occasion during their life. When interacting with a white person, I have to assume that (s)he was privileged in life when compared to this black person. I cannot view people regardless of the color of their skin, because color tells us something about the experiences that these people have had.
.
Have to? Why? Do you have presuppositions when you approach Asian people or Hispanic or Arabic? This is like a civilian version of racial profiling.
Skin color tells you about experiences? Seriously?
Have you never met a successful black man born into a wealthy family who lives a comfortable life? Have you never met a white person who was born into such shitty circumstances that it’s heartbreaking to even witness how they struggle?
I mean just think about it – you look at someone’s skin color and ASSUME you know what they went through. Lebron James is black and Aileen Wuornos was white, do you think she was privileged compare to him?
Another way to look at this is to not think about the number of players who belong to this or that minority, but to consider the number of such developers instead. I am saying this because a friend of mine (for whom I have a lot of respect, although this doesn’t mean that he is necessarily correct), told me recently that the reason we are seeing so many ‘diverse’ characters in movies and episodic (ex-TV
) shows, is because most writers working in these industries in fact belong to certain social minorities. And being truthful to their art (and supported by executives, who support the creation of such characters because of the current PC, socio-political climate), they do not care that most of their viewers are not actually part of such minority groups.
I think the same reasoning can be applied to video-games, if many developers are, in fact, ‘diverse’. Is that true, though? I don’t know, probably not…? However, if it were true, these developers would be compromising the integrity of their stories if they intentionally weren’t creating such diverse characters (and going against their artistic instincts while doing so), for the sole reason of believing that creating such characters would be statistically unrealistic, and thus wouldn’t make them enough profit because of the players’ demographic.
I work in film, I will agree with your friend. As a matter of fact what goes in front of the screen, and what goes behind it are two completely different worlds. It is rather astonishing!
And that second part… If I understood it correctly – I think I expressed something along similar lines earlier in one of my posts, or at least it seems so : )
To comment on some other ideas mentioned here:
I’d also love a game where the protagonist would be a small kid, and had to overcome some very simple obstacles - for adults. This could be really fun.
Wasn’t this the idea with Among the Sleep? I haven’t played it so I don’t know if it fulfilled that function.
There are probably more games of this kind than we think, where the player has limited capabilities - whether as a cockroach or a goose or an incorporeal ghost.
You’re right, I bet it is used in many ways. I think I have Among the Sleep but I haven’t played it yet but as it was said already, it’s a horror game so not exactly what I was looking for. But yeah, I think many puzzle heavy adventures actually play with this idea. For example, I think in Puzzle Bots there were several fun puzzles about just along the line of getting a door open.
Currently Playing: Dragon Age Origins: Awakening
Recently Played: Red Embrace: Hollywood, Dorfromantik, Heirs & Graces, AI: The Somnium Files, PRICE, Frostpunk, The Shapeshifting Detective (CPT), Disco Elysium, Dream Daddy, Four Last Things, Jenny LeClue - Detectivu, The Signifier
Gender is not chosen either and people do not “switch it every day”. That is insulting.
I work with gender-fluid person for the past 6 months. Yes, he/she does switches it on daily bases on occasional weeks. Sometimes it lasts longer than a day, but daily switches happen. I have no idea why you think it’s insulting
People can write transgender characters even if they are not themselves. While I agree that many straight men in reality only write about straight men and already their female characters are horrible, good writers can write about any gender or sexuality or race. And I think we do celebrate those who write about minorities. It’s not common asking any person in particular, that “you need to write about subject X”, we are talking about in general to be brave enough or think outside of the box a bit, and maybe add characters that are not all white, straight, young and fit. And not think “oh no, as a white man I couldn’t possibly know anything about this”. We are also talking about hiring those minority writers who certainly do have knowledge.
People have to WANT to write about transgender characters first and foremost. You can’t make someone want to do something. And if they do want - they most definitely should.
Also, it seems like you have a personal vendetta against white straight males for some reason. I don;t understand it.
I think it is important that these people would be seen in more than 1 % of entertainment. And surely there are ways to include them without huge effort. It doesn’t have to be a case study, they can be a smaller side character too, who just exists there like normal people exist.
Sure. Shouldn’t you be talking to those minorities mainly though? To encourage them to write more about what you think is important for you and them? That would be authentic diversity.
The way minorities have to represent their groups and how easily they will be painted as activists is not a problem of us having too much minority representation. On the contrary, having more representation and normalising anything will make it easier to just be a person, and not be seen as someone who “carries trait X”. This is one of the main reasons I say I need more representation. I am an activist in a way, I’m on of the organizers of the Pride event here and I’ve lead a LGBT board game group etc. but I wouldn’t want my face to be widely known or having to talk about these issues publically, I’d rather be doing the background work. So many of us are often keeping quiet about these things in work etc. because we don’t want to represent. I’d love if fictional characters would do that for us, and we could just be people like everyone else, and not bombarded with intrusive questions.
I don’t think any normal human being thinks of anyone as of someone who “carries trait X” until this trait X keeps being brought up and you get beat over the head with it again and again. I already repeated endless amount of times that I don’t care if a person is of any diversity, I care about their personal qualities only - which means exactly what you’re saying - seeing them just as a person, not as someone who “carries trait X”.
It matters. To be seen as something that does exist and is normal and human, it matters. You are comfortable being you, but many people are not, and having seen themselves represented can make a world of difference to them. (I never meant to imply that all of us would need all of our sides represented.)
I’m sure they can also differentiate when this representation is genuine, and when it’s not.
Otherwise I think you are approaching this from a very different angle. You are constantly talking about some one specific character that people would like to change. That’s not what it’s about, it’s just including all kinds of characters into stories. People want stories about lesbians, they don’t want to you to change your protagonist into a lesbian.
This is like beating a dead horse. I’m OK with stories about lesbians, I’m just not seeking them out and I wouldn’t ask a game developer “hey, please, include a lesbian in your story”, I would ask to include cool character, and if the developer decided she’s also lesbian - i’m down with that. It also comes down to the fact that this issue really matters to you, and doesn’t matter to me. I’m sure you have issues you don’t feel any kinda way about.
I’m sorry, do you mean that some people should be allowed to dictate that they should not be represented in the media? Of course I am talking about the people who want representation, those who don’t, they don’t. But surely this is about people asking something to be done and not about denying others doing something else? Because there are still many all-white and all-straight stories out there too, and no one is saying there should be none.
Yes, you heard me right - that’s precisely what I’m saying. There are plenty of people that don’t want to be tagged along for an activist ride simply because they happened to have something these activists are passionate about. They swept by the wave of someone trying to represent them when they just want to be left alone. I’ve seen what’s it like to be a trans and keep refusing conversations about being trans with every activist and their momma. I know someone who left the city for that very reason. I also know one trans who regretted the transition and was so publicly shunned by community that we had to very literally take him off the ledge. You constantly talk about representation, I’m talking about leaving people alone. And if you think those that don’t want representation don’t get mixed in all of this - you’re mistaken. It’s a hot issue, in LA at least, and some people are tired.
Does normalizing have some other meaning that I don’t know, because I’m talking about just showing a variety of people being people. It’s not about “mainstreaming” everything.
It’s the opposite of unique. I already stated that’s where we differ. You want to normalize everything. I want to keep unique things unique. You can’t normalize unique. The best is to let person decide for themselves, like I think everyone should
Are you really saying that when I say I want more gay men in my games I’m infantilizing gay men? I’m not allowing them to speak for themselves? I’m somehow thinking I’m better than them? I really don’t understand this aspect. I’m in a minority of a minority myself, and I’m very happy if even straight cis people defend my rights and ask for my representation. I feel supported then, not discredited. From your text I’m reading that any support is speaking on behalf of others. One can support and still let the supported act and speak for themselves too.
I know several who would tell you not to get involved, yeah. I was talking about overall “speaking on behalf of others trend”, not just in games. And no, I didn’t say “any support” I said “support, sometimes”.
Term white savior, by the way, usually used racially. If you’re LGBTQ+ and you support/speak for gay men - it’s pretty much within the community you’re already a part of.
And yes, coming across more and more minorities (gay men are most numerous in my industry, so I talk to them the most) who more and more express the sentiment of being tired of all this - talks about representation, gay Captain Americas, incessant stream of attention. Majority of gays I know for a long time, no longer go to PRIDEs, by the way. Take it as you will, but they’d rather the world shut up about sexuality issues for a second, but activists keep it in motion.
They help other side, sure. But there’s two of them on a coin.
Alright, I had decided (my role in) the discussion was over. I think I stated what, from my perspective, needed to be said. I’ve had a couple of instances where I thought: well, this response is begging for some feedback, but I let it go.
The way this is going, I need to get a couple of things off of my mind, or they’ll be stuck in my head while other people just keep on saying whatever they want to say.
How can you shut down one argument by saying the person shouldn’t be “speaking for minorities” whilst arguing people belonging to these groups “don’t want this” and “just want to be left alone”? If you feel this way, why speak for people in this particular way? What’s the difference?
I’ve been asked to personally account for my circumstances and personal life, for Dcast to judge whether my ideas were valid, or some disconnected, well-meaning but ultimately self-serving bubble talk. I have some ideas about why the opposing side might hold certain ideas, but I’ve managed to keep statements or demands like that for myself, to keep the focus on the argument, rather than some ad hominem reasoning why someone shouldn’t be taken seriously. And I think not confirming the expectation (that was supposed to invalidate my argument) did nothing, while it would’ve been an validation the other way around.
I don’t think Baron_Blubba was the most reasonable person in the discussion. In fact:
No one will ever be happy. To be happy is to lose a crusade, to lose a crusade is to lose a sense of purpose. To lose a sense of purpose is to lose a part of your identity, and also to lose a way to fill the timespace and headspace in one’s life. On and on down the rabbit hole…Some people will never let go of a thing that their intellectual comfort and identity depend on, no matter how obsolete it’s become. It’s like an argument where one side made the winning case a long time ago, but the other side keeps coming up with idiosyncratic hypothetical but-sir-it’s-the-principal-of-the-matter reasons to keep the conversation going.
..is rather a dismissive way of not looking outside of your bubble, disregarding opinions that might be well considered as some sort of hobby or occupational therapy. I like the Baron, but I don’t think this is his finest moment.
Regarding the “PC, socio-political climate”, I get that some of these discussions have been popping up on your radars and this makes you feel some kind of way. I don’t think it’s cool to consider yourself a sane, independent thinker and those who disagree with you as part of some hive mind. There’s a lot of discussion, with input from the right, and so called centrism a plenty. When I pointed out misgendering in another thread, I was the only one. Some people asked if I maybe misunderstood, others said things about PC culture gone mad. It wasn’t some comfortable position that scored me brownie points or whatever, it was awkward and made me worry if people would continue to disregard me in general.
There’s an Aggie Award for “Best Non-PC Adventures”. There are no awards for representation or whatever. I’m not asking for those, but there’s probably a reason why some people don’t register one and would make a fuss about the other.
edit: not saying this stuff proves anything.The whole “the whole climate is so PC now” rhetoric is just a bit tired. It is in some places, in many places it isn’t. It’s risky because it easily becomes a way for people who dislike political correctness to assume an underdog position. It also helps them to pretend other people don’t hold certain views because they’ve thought about these things, but because of some in vogue mode of thinking. It can actually be quite tricky to defend a notion considered PC, and not being PC is still considered a merit in some cases. And sometimes, it’s the other way around. It’s very situational. In this discussion, I think the PC-crowd was more subject to things like questioning of motives than the other side. On this forum, I think “neutral” is the favoured option.
I have a headache and I have to go to work. This might’ve been a bad idea, but if this is going to be on my mind and other people are going to continue arguing, I might as well put in my final two cents. I do hope the discussion will.. diversify again. (badum tss) There’s plenty of themes to discuss.
edit: during work, I wondered why I posted this and why I thought this was a bad idea. I’m not one to just speak my mind for the sake of it. If I get involved in a discussion, I want to add something, represent ideas I find important and focus on that. My brain tends to filter out irrelevant dynamics and stuff neutral observers could figure out for themselves. I try to say things I can stand by, from compliments to arguments, not to trigger a certain response. In this case, I think a couple of things I noticed did make me wonder how and why.. from that perspective, I’m glad I gave a little pushback, the response made me a little wiser.
How can you shut down one argument by saying the person shouldn’t be “speaking for minorities” whilst arguing people belonging to these groups “don’t want this” and “just want to be left alone”? If you feel this way, why speak for people in this particular way? What’s the difference?
Shut down an argument? Are you referring to the statement that I identified as a personal subjective take that may also vary by the country? That’s me expressing opinion, not shutting down an argument. I don’t speak for minorities to the world, media and entertainment and, most importantly, I don’t represent anyone - that would be me speaking for someone. I have related a sentiment to someone who says is an activist to present another point of view for consideration. This is “about” not “for”. I’m not pushing ideas.
I’ve been asked to personally account for my circumstances and personal life, for Dcast to judge whether my ideas were valid, or some disconnected, well-meaning but ultimately self-serving bubble talk.
That’s a hell of a pompous way of saying that I asked you a question. You don’t have to answer. If you do - it’s your choice. Thanks for providing MY reason for asking it, by the way. I’m glad you know exactly what it was.
I have some ideas about why the opposing side might hold certain ideas, but I’ve managed to keep statements or demands like that for myself, to keep the focus on the argument, rather than some ad hominem reasoning why someone shouldn’t be taken seriously. And I think not confirming the expectation (that was supposed to invalidate my argument) did nothing, while it would’ve been an validation the other way around.
Managed to keep that for yourself? Sounds like it was really hard.
I’m not worried whether you do or do not take me seriously. I’m just having a conversation with everyone on game-related topics. However, after your PM and now this - you do come across insincere.
..is rather a dismissive way of not looking outside of your bubble, disregarding opinions that might be well considered as some sort of hobby or occupational therapy. I like the Baron, but I don’t think this is his finest moment.
This is precisely why I want to give him a mini-award. Great words!
I don’t think it’s cool to consider yourself a sane, independent thinker and those who disagree with you as part of some hive mind.
Where did this come from? There are several of us talking here. Like what - 8 or so? And everyone brought their personal opinion to the table. Also, it a game forum. Just saying.
There’s a lot of discussion, with input from the right, and so called centrism a plenty. When I pointed out misgendering in another thread, I was the only one. Some people questioned if I maybe misunderstood, others said things about PC culture gone mad. It wasn’t some comfortable position that scored me brownie points or whatever, it was awkward and made me worry if people would continue to disregard me in general.
What are you saying here? That someone needed to point something that you pointed out for company, not because they thought it? That you needed to be comforted on adventure game forum because you didn’t like that it so happened no one thought the same way you did at the moment?
There’s an Aggie Award for “Best Non-PC Adventures”. There are no awards for representation or whatever. I’m not asking for those, but there’s probably a reason why some people don’t register one and would make a fuss about the other.
What???
Are you referring to one-off funny name for a Silver Aggie? I had to Google that, by the way. So what’s the reason? I always thought people make fuss about something important to them, and not making a fuss when they don’t consider it fuss-worthy.
I have a headache and I have to go to work. This might’ve been a bad idea
This was definitely a bad idea.
Gender is not chosen either and people do not “switch it every day”. That is insulting.
I work with gender-fluid person for the past 6 months. Yes, he/she does switches it on daily bases on occasional weeks. Sometimes it lasts longer than a day, but daily switches happen. I have no idea why you think it’s insulting
Gender fluid person’s gender is gender fluid. Their expression or the feeling of where they are in the spectrum may indeed vary even daily, but I think it’s rather dangerous to talk about it as “switching genders” especially when not specified you are talking about a gender fluid person. Also, gender fluid people don’t “decide” they are rather female today, they just are, it’s not a choice to be fluid and it’s not a choice how it fluctuates. You were initially talking about those switches being by choice. Trans people are constantly dismissed with the idea that gender is a choice for them.
Just to clarify, a gender fluid person can definitely say: “I’m a boy today” and someone else can say “they’re a boy today” that’s completely different than saying they switch their gender. And while some gender fluids might also be okay with talking about switching, it’s not a good word regarding gender minorities as a whole.
How can you shut down one argument by saying the person shouldn’t be “speaking for minorities” whilst arguing people belonging to these groups “don’t want this” and “just want to be left alone”? If you feel this way, why speak for people in this particular way? What’s the difference?
I’m really feeling this too. When I’m asking for representation of people I’d just plainly like to see more, and feel that it would also be important to see more, I am somehow here talking over these people, somehow apparently rising myself as better than them. How is this not a way to try to invalidate what I am saying? It’s not saying “shut up” but it’s saying “by not shutting up you are this and this and this”.
While others saying how they think actually minorities feel that they don’t want more, and somehow that’s not talking for them. And I think it’s more demeaning to suggest that because other people talk about minorities in support or defense, they’d be unable to voice their own opinions or they’d become unable to fight for themselves. My experience is that it is easier to voice my opinions among allies and it’s not very hard to correct over eager allies either. Instead it is very hard to defend your position when you are said that you “can’t ask for this unless you belong to this minority”. That’s basically just forcing people to come out.
I’ve been asked to personally account for my circumstances and personal life, for Dcast to judge whether my ideas were valid, or some disconnected, well-meaning but ultimately self-serving bubble talk. I have some ideas about why the opposing side might hold certain ideas, but I’ve managed to keep statements or demands like that for myself, to keep the focus on the argument, rather than some ad hominem reasoning why someone shouldn’t be taken seriously. And I think not confirming the expectation (that was supposed to invalidate my argument) did nothing, while it would’ve been an validation the other way around.
Yup, I’m seeing here that while I don’t need to casually debate my existence, I need to casually debate my right to voice opinions and wishes about representation. While others all free to go on saying: “no, there’s really no need for more representation”.
I also said that I’d really like more games with elderly people and feel they should be better represented. Why am I not told here:
“But it needs to be done well, not just pandering!”
“I don’t get why people want elderly in their games. It doesn’t add anything.”
“But people don’t want to write about elderly, why should they be forced to?”
“Are you an elder?”
“Maybe elderly don’t want to be represented.”
“Why are you speaking on behalf of the elderly?”
Currently Playing: Dragon Age Origins: Awakening
Recently Played: Red Embrace: Hollywood, Dorfromantik, Heirs & Graces, AI: The Somnium Files, PRICE, Frostpunk, The Shapeshifting Detective (CPT), Disco Elysium, Dream Daddy, Four Last Things, Jenny LeClue - Detectivu, The Signifier
Just seems like a double standard to me, you could easily replace spawn or blade with a white guy, black panther not so much bc of where he is from. But spawns origin is a guy who gets killed. I dont think it should be done but to not consider it, is hypocritical at least to me.
As to historical games/movies you are correct in principal, but if you were making a king henry the 8th movie, you wouldnt replace all his wives with husbands for obvious reasons.
I guess it all boils down to what is sacred to you or not, i know a crap ton of fans hated the synder version of superman bc he was so angsty and not the wholesome boy scout. For the record i dont care if there is a black superman, if there is good characters and a great story, but if im being honest seems like a publicity stunt by WB. Kind of like what they are doing with he-man
Well I was thinking that with Spawn, it might indeed work. But he’s rather uknown hero compared to the others, and really just one of three I could even remember, so he still falls in the category of being rare. I think it’s rather obvious that changing one of the very few minority heroes into majority heroes would raise more concerns. I don’t think that’s a double standard, this context matters to me much more than any “historical accuracy” when we are not talking about a documentary. Never I said it couldn’t be considered, the whole point is understanding these issues while considering it.
And I still think people are way too eager to paint things as publicity stunts, tokenism and pinkwashing and whatever when it comes to considering diversity. It happens, of course, but often it is not forcing or pandering, people can be genuinely onboard. And even if the idea has sprung from something else, the result could be done well. What isn’t a publicity stunt these days? Do people think the other choices these studios make are not? Like with “historical accuracy”, a character being a minority seems to be a huge issue here while other “stunts” often go unnoticed.
What did they do with He-Man? I’ve watched She-Ra a bit and liked it quite a bit. All those brown people and sexual minorities seemed to fit in there very well and I did watch He-Man when I was younger.
So far it’s a rumor so take it with a grain of salt, but what is being reported is that they are rebooting the show and making Tila a lesbian character in an interracial relationship. the show is being done by Kevin Smith and will be on Netflix in July but like I said it’s just a rumor so far. But if true, that screams desperation to me, why not just create a new lesbian character for the show why change an existing character?
All I can say is, from my perspective is that wanting more representation is fine and in fact wanted on my end. My favorite genre besides adventure games is Japanese role-playing games which is never starring a white guy lol. I like the first life is strange because it was a well-written story. I love the fact the second game stared two Hispanic kids, but then they completely crapped the bed with the overly simplistic and poorly done political message. I have no problem that the devs for encodya wanted to include a trump parody but what I do have a problem with is them denying it after the fact, that is cowardly.
What I hate is the true virtue signalling, like when people go well this game doesn’t have enough women or enough people of color, then go make that progressive game, you can’t force people to make them or buy them, if they don’t want to play that type of game. I do however think most people do not mind a character who is black,gay, trans etc… If the characters are well-written and not shoehorned in to a story to meet a quota, or to appeal to twitter.
As I’ve already said max to me was a well written transgender character in technobabylon, however the way the police were portrayed in life is strange 2 was not, They were protrayed as a one-note caricature not a character and that’s the difference to me.
Last thing I’ll say about minorities is that you can’t be more offended than the minorities themselves, for instance Sucker Punch got a whole bunch of backlash because it was a western developer making a Samurai game called ghost of tsushima, meanwhile the people of Japan praised the game and it sold very well. Most were thankful to the West for making the game.
I like what Millenia said on page 6. ‘Personally, I’d be over the moon if someone made a gothic gay romance game’ (paraphrasing…sorry).
I think this a healthy way to phrase a lot of (not all of) what we’re asking for here. It’s a sentiment we can all identify with, even if the particulars differ.
Millenia would like to play games in a certain setting involving characters with certain characteristics. The way that sentence is phrased, the only thing I can deduce about Millenia is that he(?) is interested in playing games involving (not necessarily ‘about’, but involving) those subjects.
He (? I apologize, I just don’t know) might or might not identify as gothic or gay, but he’s interested in playing a game in that world, so to speak. Looked at from this perspective, his choice of ‘what themes would you like to see more of in adventure games’ is no different than my desire to play a game based on The Count of Monte Cristo.
Of course, if there is a more societal reason for wanting to play more games (or see more games) about gothic gay romances, then what I’ve written so far could correctly be interpreted as dismissive if taken on its own.
Which leads to an interesting distinction that maybe we should make here, because it might clarify some ‘arguments’ and mend some fences: The distinction between the desire to PLAY more games featuring certain themes, and the desire to SEE more games featuring certain themes.
The desire to play speaks to a personal preference, and is local to the person stating the preference. Hey, I want to play more games about superheroes, you want to play more games about sci-fi, and you want to play more games about selling fine leather jackets. Fantastic, to each his own, we’re all just expressing harmless wishes here.
By contrast, the desire to see more games based on certain themes speaks of a desire to see the world, -or society- shift in a particular direction, or take certain steps, or evolve, or open up, however you want to put it.
When we say ‘I want to see more media about X themes’, are we not saying ‘I want to live in a world where these themes are accepted widely enough to be commercially viable?’
The expression ‘commercially viable’ might ring of detachment and egads! capitalism! but all it means in this case is that there are enough people cool enough with the theme to make it worth someone’s while to create a piece of media based on it. If there are, then the world is, or has become, more of the kind of place that the speaker of the ‘I want to see…’ phrase wants to live in. The existence of the media is not what’s important. It’s the fact that the media exists that is important. It is symbolic of a world in which the social soil is conducive for such a piece of media to grow.
Past this point, I’m afraid, is Here There Be Dragons territory. This is where we discuss what should and shouldn’t exist, what is harmful, what is beneficial, and what is innocuous. Please note: I did not say ‘what has the right to exist’, only what a person might subjectively say, according to his own values, should or should not exist—if not in the world in general, then at least in his household, schools, religious institutions, and in public areas (people draw the line in different places with this last half sentence).
Before anyone jumps on me, I am not speaking for myself here; I’m speaking about the way the the world *is*.
On the same subject but different, I’d like to share a story from my childhood, which I think presents two interesting perspectives on inclusivity.
I used to have a friend named Eli. We were friends from kindergarten through middle school (4 - 13, approximately). Eli had a big brother who was born perfectly healthy. One day this brother told his mom ‘I don’t feel well, I’m going to lie down.’ He woke up with severe brain damage (I’m not sure of the diagnosis, so I’m just going to leave it at that). This boy, around 11-12 years old, lost most of his cognitive and motor functions. He could walk, but only to shuffle akimbo, wearing what looked like an old leather rugby helmet. He would ask the same irrelevant questions over and over again, “What’s your name? Are you married? How old are you?” His mom and siblings needed to feed him, clean him, clean up after him, and basically attend to him as if he were maybe two years old. Onward. Once or twice a week, our school would coordinate with a local school for Children With Hidden Intelligence. They would bring about a dozen special needs kids to our school, to spend a few hours in a normal classroom, attend a normal school lunch room scene, and play with us at recess.
One day Eli and I are kicking a soccer ball around during recess. I see a few of these special needs kids who are around our age wandering around the yard. I was in one of my less hell-raising fifth grade moods, so I told Eli that I was going to ask them to come play with us. He said no, don’t. I was kind of surprised, because Eli was a really good natured, kind, sensitive kid who you would expect to be all about including these kids in our game. I asked him why, and what he said has (obviously) stuck with me to this day, and I think of it often. He said ‘Mike, when you go home, you go home to a place full of normal siblings. When I go home, I go home to a place where I have to live with and take care of a brother who is just like these kids, only worse.’ (Sigh, I feel like I have to disclaim: The word ‘worse’ means medically worse, not less valuable as human beings.)
To bring it back to media, we can extrapolate some meaningful things from this story, many of which will be subjective to each individual.
A) Some people who live in or with certain conditions might not want to play games that are about those conditions. Eli, for all of the endless patience and love I have seen him show his brother, does not want to play games about his brother. TBC
Player, purveyor, and propagator of smart toys and games for all ages.
Facebook.com/weplayfaves
IG @weplayfaves
(Continued from my last post)
Likewise, it’s possible that some people who live in wheelchairs, for example, might not want to play games in which their avatar is stuck in a wheelchair. Games are escapism. I think that this point is more true for people with disabilities than it is for people in communities that they feel are subject to exclusion or persecution.
In those cases, it can be a double edged sword: On the one hand, would someone who lived through the Freedom Ride really want to relive it in an adventure game? On the other hand, perhaps someone who is struggling with coming out to his family might find inspiration or means to do so, or at least self-affirmation, by playing a game with similar themes, or a game about someone who has already come out and everything turned out totally cool.
And from the perspective of a straight white upper-middle economic class person, perhaps playing such a game would help me understand what it’s like to live in the shoes of a friend of mine—or a stranger, makes no difference- who went through a similar ordeal. Do I *need* such a game? Some might say I do. Do I actively *want* such a game? No, not in the same way I want a game about the Count of Monte Cristo. Would I actively avoid such a game? No. In fact, if it was a good game, I would play it. And the word ‘game’ could be substituted for any type of media.
Getting back to the story about me and Eli:
I was happy and eager to ask those kids to play, because I don’t live with those circumstances every day. It’s an interesting way to look at it, and I think it is very telling of the public’s fascination with certain subjects that they have no real connection to in real life. Whether it’s a story about a ‘strange’ religion, or about a tragic domestic situation, or about mental illness, or about war, or about living with a disability, or a nigh endless array of other things, people are curious about *stuff* and happy to escape into those worlds. But, to use mental illness as an example because it’s something I have experience with (don’t we almost all?), I turn off when I hear about games that ‘deal with mental illness.’ I’ve been there and done that, in my own head and with friends and family members. It’s incredibly painful. Mental illness in myself and others is the cause of the worst times in my life. I have no desire to revisit that in games or movies, and in most books. I certainly don’t want to play as an anxious and existentially depressed avatar.
Okay, I’m neglecting customers to write this, so enough for now. Have a great day everyone!
Player, purveyor, and propagator of smart toys and games for all ages.
Facebook.com/weplayfaves
IG @weplayfaves
You are here: Home → Forum Home → Gaming → Adventure → Thread
