View Post
FentonCrackshell said:
So which way can diversity be put into something for it not be seen as "forced"? Because whenever even something isn't lead by a SWM its always seem as pushing something "down our throats". I remember a hospital show starring Jada Pinkett Smith some years ago that featured a black female Nurse lead, her Indian best friend, and white male doctor. This is probably a great many hospitals with a staff like this but people called it "forced diversity". It's pretty much whenever a cast isn't 90% white with a token minority that this sort of complaint occurs. I really don't GAF if there's diversity or not. If it's good I'll watch it. But many of you have to admit you all steer clear of vehicles helmed by a mostly minority cast. It's why there's Asian/Black/Indian Cinema and no "White Cinema". White is seen as the norm and therefore needs no category. And if seeing "forced diversity" makes you less accepting of diversity then you were never doing to accept it in the first place.

But look, if it makes you softy non-minorities feel good please note that most of us are all FOS as you are. We cry about made up sh!t like "cultural appropriation". The folks who always point fingers and whine about this are the ones who have no issue with "forced diversity" (AKA real-life BTW). And the people who decry mentions of cultural appropriation will argue against more than 3 minorities in a cast of characters. Anyway, cultural appropriation is often mentioned by the same folks who want us to accepts each other's cultures and differences. But it seems this doesn't extend to white people. This is why Nicki Minaj, Beyoncé, etc. can wear blonde hair weave with no consequence but Kylie Jenner is lambasted for braiding her hair. It's why a white teenage girl is blasted for wearing an Asian dress to prom but Taraji P. Hensen (black woman) was cheered for wearing the same dress. It's all such bullsh!t! Things like this are why I've become so misanthropic. People are disgusting and find the most ridiculous things to use as division.

And I see a poster on here talking about how Horizon forced them to play as a woman and didn't give them a choice. GTFOH with that bullsh!t! What you wanna do is play as a SWM a la Nathan Drake and seeing the woman as the hero made you uncomfortable. Similar to how Chloe and Nadine as mains in Uncharted was met with "you expect us to believe 2 women can overpower an army" but SWM Nathan Drake did so for over a decade with nary an eye-roll. It's why I've had the argument that Zazie Beets' Domino has an impractical Afro and it's dumb because all bad guys have to do is grab her by her hair. As if they can't also grab Thor and Widow by the hair. People are absolutely full of steaming piles of sh!t! But feel free to say the same to me. Good day!

I agree with most of what you said, and although I don't care if a show have only black people (even though that is 0 diversity) or have a lot of different ethinicities even if completely off of demographics on the place... but I agree with the notion that it is a distortion to make a population that is like 90-9-1 into 33-33-33 on a show, but as long as it is good I don't care (of course if that wasn't just forced change on previous materials).

VGPolyglot said:
Azuren said:

Montana doesn't have that many black people. Representing that many black people in the game is not indicative of the known population of Montana. It's an example of diversity for diversity's sake.

Again, it's not a real-life version of Montana, it's a fictional version of it with creative liberties taken, they're not going for complete accuracy.

So why call it Montana and not just give it a city in a country that doesn't exist?

HomokHarcos said:

I remember when an uncle of mine complained about there being too many black people in the crowd in the NHL video games, probably a most extreme example of somebody complaining about diversity in a game.

I haven't been in a Hockey game, but was him right that there is very few black on the crowd for the RL game?

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"


Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"