. . .what part of the tool does that?
I assume you're not as stupid to infer that my point meant the tool was aware itself and creating these things itself. I have to specify that because I've read your other posts. If you are then our conversation is over.
As to the other point, just read the article:
Addendum: The objective of using the tool is to uncover unconscious bias by identifying existing norms in representation and acknowledging opportunities for growth in inclusion.
In 2016, King began developing a method for guarding against unconscious bias and exclusion when it came to the creation of their games and characters. At the time, this idea existed as an intangible philosophy, but the potential was obvious.
As a result, hopefully we will create more characters that break the mold, and better represent women, non-binaries and other under-represented minorities in the industry.”
The idea of a “tool” to make characters more diverse and inclusive may seem a little hard to wrap your head around. [..]....it can then weigh new character designs against it to measure their diversity
while also helping creatives look closer at their designs, so they can dissect their own assumptions and presets.
Indirect creative influence:
So in summary, you have a tool that is there to guard against certain types of designs (at the end of the day these are basic numeric profiles). It is meant to directly influence character creation by changing exerting pressure on developers to change things that score higher on the matrix. The tool's purpose is described as primarily to make characters more diverse and inclusive, and lastly it's meant to make creatives iterate on their designs until it reaches an acceptable level on whatever scoring metrics they decide to use. It's basically saying 'Whoa there boi, that's not how you create a diverse character, look at this radar chart and the score, and we'll show you how to get a better score and therefore make the character more diverse.
Direct creative influence:
This doesn't even consider automated workflows (e.g. procedurally generated NPCs) where they can remove certain profiles from the generation workflow if the score is below a certain threshold. It's just similar safeguards that prevent procedural NPC names like Dick Splash or Slutty McVayJay. And to be honest there are good use cases for this, when you would want to limit your NPC generation in one region for authenticity or 'sense of reality' (e.g. procedurally generating a Navajo town that has 40% orange faced Floridian population)
Is your position that this tool will not/is not meant to influence character creation/revision based on its outputs?
Saw the news and immediately came to Gaf. Thread did not disappoint lol
To be fair, is any major site/community reacting to this with anything other than laughter and derision?
Good for Blizzard though for trying to make a more diverse cast of characters going forward. I don't know if it was necessary though because their stuff was already pretty diverse. Especially Overwatch.
The tool is telling me Lucio is a terrible character though to illustrate diversity. Even a cliche like a white, muscled dwarf with an eyepatch and a white, pink haired Enbie is more diverse.
Also, generally, how are the diversity profiles set? Are they set against real world demographs? Set against video game demographs? How are abilities factored into role synergised games compared to realm populations.
It's a disaster, and a hobbyist idea from attention seeking needs that has no place on professional creative design. You could build a form in excel in half an hour that does the same. And it would equally be laughed at.