True but mannly dude bros have more negative effect on gaming

What are dude bros and what effect are they having on gaming?

Playing the same shooters every year and the majority in multiplayer.

So, they're ruining gaming because they play games other than what you want to play?

Not really...the problem is how they drive the market. They are largely a casual userbase who is deeply ingrained in certain franchises (Call of Duty, Madden), however, the market clamors for their attention. This can be seen in the FPS war that took place over the last generation, which featured a lot of games that were extremely similar, had very high budgets (and high marketing budgets) and often were considered disappointing for players and for the companies.

I wouldn't say that they are really doing harm, just that the AAA market is harming itself by trying to chase this market.

Perhaps you could say that they are doing harm by allowing certain franchises (mostly sports related) to be annualized by continually purchasing them regardless of quality. They allow these games to be profitable without much work, which discourages the companies from actually taking the time to make a good game (why put in effort to make a good game when you can just slap a new number on a box and make money off of it).

Overall, I'd say the effect that the "Representation Pressure Groups" and the "Dude Bros" have are both fairly minimal, and while they are good things to be generally aware of (for when you see an example of pandering that is over the top), they don't actually matter that much at the end of the day (imo).

I said "no" in the last post to make a point. This whole notion that criticism "limits" creativity is nonsense. Criticism is CRITICAL to the creative process. A creator or team of creators only have their own experiences and biases to draw from, and this can often result in a poorer product. The best creations are the ones that have been tempered by harsh outside criticism and forged into something better and stronger than one man or team could have made on their own.

Professional writers need criticism. Movies need criticism. Any creator worth his or her salt understands this and embraces criticism, and understands when to apply it and when to ignore it (which in both cases can either harm or improve their work).

This "censorship" the modern-day free speech warrior always harps on about, these accusations of discrimination in games, they are no different. This is criticism. Unfortunately, given the closed off way most of our media is produced these days, this criticism often comes too late (often times only after the product has come out and nothing can be done).

The thing about "discrimination" and "bias" is that it's not always intentional, or that it's done with the intention to sell a product rather than actively attack a group of people. Can critics go overboard with accusations of malicious racism and sexism? Certainly. But you know what? That goes both ways. You need only look at the way Gamergaters attack and boycott anyone who dares question their "movement" to see that. And in BOTH cases, it's a very loud, annoying, local minority, and one best ignored.

That said, unintentional discrimination is a thing, and even though it is not malicious it's still a problem that critics should feel free to address, and that developers ought to at least hear. Was Nintendo actively pushing a homophobic agenda by not including same-sex relationships in their game? I don't think so, their response reflects that, and I cannot remember anyone actually SAYING that. I mean, I'm sure someone, somewhere in the bowels of twitter said that, but for the most part the accusations centered around being out of touch or insensitive (both of which are valid imo) than accusations of maliciousness. And you know what? The next game will now probably have same-sex relationships, and the game will be better for it. It allow the PLAYER to be more creative, and do a little more in their game.

As a gamer, I like having options. I'll often play a woman when given the chance. I'll often move the skin color into a darker shade. And not everyone is like me. Some people want to play as characters of their sex or race, which is understandable. Unfortunately, a lot of games that don't utilize a character creator don't allow for that. They go for their male, white default. Though this is anecdotal, I do find this to be far less of an issue in indie games. But big budget titles? The vast majority feature this default:

http://www.cnet.com/news/the-risk-of-the-female-protagonist/

Only 15 percent of video games feature a female protagonist.

That article goes with what I'm saying nicely, and it's also not from one of the dreaded "SJW" sources like Kotaku or Polygon. I'll paste some highlights from it:

"I suspect the topic of inclusivity, gender portrayal or diversity is not something that is regularly discussed or highlighted in key decisions compared to other AAA games during development. I think a lot of developers probably feel surprised at the level of anger and disappointment being expressed and how much of a hot topic this has become."




The reasons for why this might be the case are well documented: from the belief that games with male protagonists make more money (which could very well be explained by the fact they receive more marketing money) to the fact that games development is massively dominated by men -- women only make up 22 percent of the game industry workforce -- and, of course, the idea that the larger core gaming demographic (men) don't want to play as women.

------------------------------

Like I said, unintentional discrimination. They are not actively trying to exclude people, they just either don't think about it or are purposefully limiting themselves to make more money. I mean, you want to talk about limiting developer creativity? The drive to make a profit (or more of a profit) does that a heck of a lot more effectively than a bunch of people on twitter.

Now this is a story that was everywhere a few years ago. Remember this? Dontnod, the developers of "Remember Me" had issues finding a publisher specifically because some did not want to market a game with a female protagonist:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-19-why-publishers-refuse-games-such-as-remember-me-because-of-their-female-protagonists

And they encountered the problem AGAIN with their second release, the episodic "Life is Strange":

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/other-publishers-told-us-to-make-it-a-male-lead-ch/1100-6424577/

So yeah, hey, many publishers within the industry are actively trying to avoid games that star women, and ask developers to change their female leads to males or they won't take it. Not out of malicious sexism, but out of fear they won't make money. I mean, as far as I'm concerned a publisher is free to reject what it wants, obviously, for any reason. That's their business. But you can't tell me THIS does not restrict developer freedom.

And you know how this stuff gets better? You know the ONLY way developers will start question their broadening their spectrum of video game leads, and publishers might consider going for something more than the white male default? People speaking out. People complaining. People whining. People saying "why does this game not do something to cater to MY preference." Those people might not always be in the right, but it's a discussion they need to initiate with developers and publishers, because they clearly aren't having it internally nearly as often as they need to.


In the end, I guess my biggest issue with this kind of thing, this "SJWS ARE CENSORING GAMES BY COMPLAINING" nonsense, is that it completely ignores how the creative process works, and puts the puts the content maker on a pedestal where they cannot be touched, at least not by THOSE people. But you know what? That is NOT how it works. Even the best works and best creators had help. You ever wonder why the prequel trilogy is such crap? Because George Lucas no longer had help from his wife, who's criticism and work brought a crucial perspective to his movies that he was not capable of:

http://tumblr.austinkleon.com/post/93223751106

http://www.blastr.com/2011/03/3_ways_george_lucas_wife.php

Not to mention the rest of the team behind:

http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/star-wars/245709/star-wars-10-unsung-heroes-behind-a-new-hope

Criticism aint censorship, it's a natural part of the creative process, brings in an outside perspective, and when utilized well can make a creation much better than it could have been without it. And that is EXACTLY what these calls of bias and discrimination are. It's criticism. I think the articles I posted earlier demonstrate that the criticism not only has a point, but it clearly is not having the effect you think it's having in forcing inclusiveness on a massive scale. We only just got a Call of Duty game with an optional female protagonist in a gender neutral game. We MAY get our first playable female character in an Assassins' Creed game that is not a spin off this year, in response to Unity. If you feel strongly about developers being able to make games with white, male protagonists, I don't think you have much to worry about. That's still what most big budget developers do. With luck, though, this criticism may be causing them to start thinking twice, and having internal conversations about the race, sex, and gender of their character. That would not be a bad thing. It'd only add another facet to a game's creative process.

Of course it is. Every developer has to fear the twitter backlash for anything that's not "including" enough.
The current way is to oppress any creator that does not produce agreeable content instead of supporting the ones that do. Because catering to only certain demographics is suddenly wrong and should be banned only from video games and not any other medium where it is socially accepted.

Last time I checked people can play what they want to play...

I'd like think its the opposite in that devs actually open up their horizons and don't just follow a rigid formula, but it will of course very by case

The worst case of this in recent memory actually came from the dude bros forcing Suckerpunch to change the design for Infamous 2's character because they thought he looked "gay". I thought suckerpuch submitting and literally changing the character entirely+voice actor was so weak. I wasn't in love with what they revealed at E3 but I want devs to follow their own creative ambitions. Would have actually loved for them to go for one of their earlier more "riske" designs with the platinum hair.



Back to your specific point, In some cases omitting certain things isn't down to "creative freedom" as much as oversight/not caring. I mean people are allowed to complain about lack of beards in character creation so why can't we ask for gender/race/sexuality options too? Sometimes development teams simply aren't diverse enough for these things to really arise as meaningful question. Fable is one of those games where the lack of character freedom made no sense, your character never speaks, has no personality, can marry men+women. has completely customizable attire but you can't be female or black in spite of their being black+female character assets in the game. That to me seems like oversight, something the developer simply couldn't be bothered to address.

If the dev made their game being very self aware, conscious and forthright of their choices in what they're offering and what they're not offering, then power to them!....but I'm not sure how often that is the case. And people should be vocal about changes they want to see, but again devs shouldn't feel forced into it and should have some backbone.

Underlying the question in the OP, is actually another more interesting quetstion.

Is feeling that they must first cater to white, heterosexual males restricting developers creative freedom?

You must exclusively play open world RPGS :p