I'd also like to like to pick out 'time period' in specific as that is basically the 'historical accuracy' argument. How does setting your creative work during a certain time period excuse the exclusion of minorities? Did minorities not exist during that time period? 'Historical accuracy' is not a blunt object with which you can bash in criticism.
The question should never be 'why should I include minorities?', because that question operates on the assumption that inclusion is not the default. The question should be 'why shouldn't I include minorities?'. 'Historical accuracy' is on its own not a good answer to that question, because minorities have always existed. 'They're not in the source material' is also not on its own a good answer to that question, because past creative decisions are not immutable or binding. 'Historical Accuracy' and 'Source material' are not the answers themselves, they are jumping-off points for more questions, the answers to which combine to form an actual argument.
It's 2017 and the only playable latino protagonists I can think of in AAA games are Garcia Hotspur and Rico Rodriguez. It's sad when Japan cares more about putting latino characters in fighting games and supporting roles than devs in the West.
Speaking for myself... I don't care if Link is female either, it's not defensiveness at all. I'm not even a fan of Link at all. Actually I think that's why I don't want a female Link xD Link is just... whatever. It's Link.
Not making Zelda playable in her own game (other than the CDi abominations) is the real lameness here. Moreso because the games are actually called "The Legend of Zelda"! And they've made Zelda do cool stuff in some of the games (like Sheik, Tetra, etc) so there's plenty of potential for her do go on cool adventures. But noooo always gotta be Link. Pffft go away Link
It's 2017 and the only playable latino protagonists I can think of in AAA games are Garcia Hotspur and Rico Rodriguez. It's sad when Japan cares more about putting latino characters in fighting games and supporting roles than devs in the West.
I think much of this stems from the simple fact that throughout human history, "combat" has typically fallen on the shoulders of men. We can argue whether WHY this is the case all we want, but that doesn't change that base fact.
Because most video games include combat, then the idea of a male protagonist is the easiest choice.
I'm not saying that this shouldn't be changed or even if its logical (as its a video game, not real life), but I think that's how we got here.
As for inclusion. Give me awesome compelling characters and I'm on board...male/female or whatever.
It's 2017 and the only playable latino protagonists I can think of in AAA games are Garcia Hotspur and Rico Rodriguez. It's sad when Japan cares more about putting latino characters in fighting games and supporting roles than devs in the West.
It's 2017 and the only playable latino protagonists I can think of in AAA games are Garcia Hotspur and Rico Rodriguez. It's sad when Japan cares more about putting latino characters in fighting games and supporting roles than devs in the West.
It's 2017 and the only playable latino protagonists I can think of in AAA games are Garcia Hotspur and Rico Rodriguez. It's sad when Japan cares more about putting latino characters in fighting games and supporting roles than devs in the West.
I think much of this stems from the simple fact that throughout human history, "combat" has typically fallen on the shoulders of men. We can argue whether WHY this is the case all we want, but that doesn't change that base fact.
Because most video games include combat, then the idea of a male protagonist is the easiest choice.
This partly raises the point of the prevalence of violence in games and how that is also an area we should look into to diversify the gaming landscape, but this is not something Im going into detail on because it is not the main point of the thread and I believe Jim Sterling said it better anyway: Being Slightly Critical Of Violence In One Particular Way.
But lets get more into the historical accuracy-argument ( as a heads up; not all of this may be specifically pointed at you, Raven117, so please do not take it as such .w. ). Since were focusing on combat, lets work with WW1 as an example, as its a decent bit in the past and we recently had a major AAA game release set during it. Ill focus on women as that was the point most discussed in relation to a part of that game.
Yes, there is absolutely no question that the soldiers who fought on the front lines were near exclusively men. I dont think anybody is seriously disputing that. But there were also women who fought in WW1. Yes, yes, absolutely, their number is statistically near insignificant next to the amount of men who fought in the war, but fact still is that there were women who fought in WW1. Women also played a part in the war as nurses ( Great War nurses | British 'angels' who braved WW1 trenches ) and at home ( Womens work in WW1 ). Women existed during this period in time and they were also part of this war.
Taking that into account, some people's idea that a work set during WW1 cant feature female characters is almost insulting. Women were part of that war too. There is more than enough to work with. If you want to, you can abso-fucking-lutely make a game set in WW1 featuring a female ( main or not ) character and have it be historically accurate. Setting your story during WW1 does not in itself make inclusion impossible, and suggesting that it does is frankly insulting because it ignores the fact that women were in fact also part of / affected by this war.
And hey, lets look at two recent games set during WW1 that acknowledged these things; Valiant Hearts: The Great War by Ubisoft Montpelier features both an African American and a female main character. One of the war stories in the Battlefield 1 campaign is based around the Harlem Hellfighters while another features a female rebel fighting the Ottoman occupation. Battlefield 1 also has codex entries specifically about women ( Women Rise ), African Americans ( African American Troops ) and colonial troops ( Colonial Troops ). Valiant Hearts also includes historical facts on those topics. Both these campaigns acknowledge that historical accuracy is on its own not a blanket excuse against inclusion and acknowledge the actual history of minorities / women and their part in the war.
As for it being easier to go for a male protagonist; sure, but thats not an argument against inclusivity. Now, to be absolutely clear; You can absolutely tell an all-male WW1 story. Nobody is arguing that you cant or shouldnt or that doing so is wrong. What we want to point out is that telling an all-male WW1 story is a creative decision made by creators - not a default result of a supposed impossibility to be inclusive due to historical accuracy. ( Certain ) creators of creative works and ( some ) fans of those works should acknowledge that instead of crying a blanket historical accuracy excuse at any criticism or push for diversity. Sure, considering historical accuracy can be part of that creative decision, but it should never be the starting point. We cant, because historical accuracy is never really true. We wont, because thats not the story we want to tell is the actual reason, and people should stop trying to hide that by using historical accuracy to deflect.
Which brings me to the bad part of Battlefield 1; the complete exclusion of women from multiplayer and EAs reasoning for it. From what I can find, they either deflected to well, but the singleplayer is diverse or to historical accuracy. Im not going to touch on that first one, because it should be obvious that that is deflection in the purest sense and not an actual argument. Historical accuracy in general I already addressed in this post, but lets touch on Battlefield 1 multiplayer in specific for a bit.
It is very clear that the multiplayer mode is not going for historical accuracy as a whole. The game features weapons of which fewer than 100 were ever made. Vehicles are much more efficient and present than they actually were. You can fly an airplane upside down, switch to the empty gunner seat, shoot down another plane, then switch back to the pilot seat. You run around with a magic syringe that can instantly revive dead people and somehow fix their wounds. The general flow of a multiplayer battle is not representative of how battles in WW1 were actually fought. At the end of a match you are presented with a scoreboard with a K/D rate and a score in points. All of that is somehow okay, but then an arbitrary line is drawn at the inclusion of female avatars - despite there being cases of women fighting in the war and the game itself openly acknowledging this in the campaign. Basically:
Invoking historical accuracy here just makes no real sense considering the context of the rest of the multiplayer mode.
Part of pointing out these issues / statements / flawed arguments is to get developers and publishers to take responsibility for their decisions instead of having them deflect that responsibility onto flimsy excuses. Claiming you cant do something because of historical accuracy is a flimsy excuse for all the reasons explained in this post. Claiming that the market doesnt want it without backing that up is nonsense for all the reasons explained in OP and also because of the general point that game industry executives are often clueless on what people actually want ( oh hey, another relevant Jim Sterling video: Game Industry Executives Are Fucking Idiots ).
Developers / publishers / fans should stop excusing creative decisions by claiming that it wasnt really a creative decision, but something external that prevented them from doing something. We cant be inclusive, because historical accuracy / source material / the market prevents it.. Its not our decision, its [ general non-specific concept ].. That kind of disingenuous crap has to stop. Just say what you mean and mean what you say.
Generally agreed. Understanding and acknowledging why certain things are the way they are is important, whether you support the status quo or not. Using the status quo itself as an argument is a no-go though. 'Things are this way currently' is not an argument for or against something, it is purely an observation.
I can see you mean well, but why do you need compelling characters to be on board? I understand bad writing in general isnt something anybody wants, but how is bad writing in any way connected to inclusivity in specific? If you support inclusion, just say I support inclusion.. Simple as that. There is no need or reason to add arbitrary requirements to that. You can support inclusion and oppose bad writing, but putting the two together like this makes it seem that you think there is somehow a specific connection between bad writing and inclusivity.
Ah yes, I remember this one. It always struck me how Tauriq seems to imply that Azar Javed is "not white" in name only. Maybe he did not remember, maybe he did not play the game altogether (which may very well be the case, given the note at the end of the article), but Azar very clearly has a darker skin compared to any other character.
