Quantcast
IGN takes issue with white male lead in Days Gone.

Forums - Politics Discussion - IGN takes issue with white male lead in Days Gone.

Mr Puggsly said:
CosmicSex said:
He was trying to say that initially he thought the character was going to be a troppy scruffy one dimensional white male stereotype. He was glad that he was not.
Stop the outrage. He said nothing wrong.
As a black man, if he said he was worried that a black character would be a troppy black stereotype. I would understand and I do not find that offensive. Stop looking for opportunities to become a victim. It is very unattractive and just tire at this point.
The wave in 2019 is a victim pity party trying to attract white men into wanting to play the victim. Pretending that anything that isn't some stereotype white male is an attack on the white race... White people in and of themselves are far more complex than that. Please stop.

"While I’ll admit that I initially rolled my eyes at yet another Gruff White Male Protagonist™ in a grim world - especially one with such a Gruff White Male Protagonist™-ey name as Deacon St. John."

I'm calling bullshit. He's flat out saying he saw a white guy and assumed the worse. Why even mention race and gender? Its not something that would have even crossed my mind.

On a side note, Crackdown 3 should get praise from IGN for having a gruff black guy as the lead. But I guess we only attack games for not doing that.

 

pokoko said:

"While I’ll admit that I initially rolled my eyes at yet another Gruff White Male Protagonist™ in a grim world - especially one with such a Gruff White Male Protagonist™-ey name as Deacon St. John - I ended up getting far more invested than I’d initially expected."

This is what the writer said.  It's right there.  I have no earthly idea how people are trying to downplay the ignorance of this sentence.  He made a baseless assumption based on the appearance of the character, period.  The very fact that he admits to being wrong perfectly illustrates just how idiotic such assumptions are.  

Even beyond that, where is common sense in the first place?  How the bloody fuck is a survivor in a post-apocalyptic world supposed to look?  Oh, no, he didn't shave this morning!  He looks awfully gruff!  Is he supposed to be wearing a tuxedo?  Maybe a sturdy sweater vest?  

We know what this is about.  The character is a white male.  Take the same character and change the race or gender and the writer wouldn't be complaining about "gruff" anything.

Forget that, though.  It's kind of laughable that this kind of generalization is only acceptable because he's a white male but it's not what bothers me.  As a reader, I come across something like this and all I can think is that I can't take this writer seriously.  Before he even begins, he's going to assume that he knows all about the character?  That's more than just ignorance, that's flat out stupidity.  How about learning about the character BEFORE MAKING IDIOTIC ASSUMPTIONS?  Why not try THAT?  The same with all these, "oh, he looks like a boring character because there are other characters who look generally similar."  I mean, the fuck?  What a character looks like is often one of the least important aspects.

Yes, ultimately the writer was just trying to be witty while scoring a few brownie points with his direction of choice but the end result is that it makes him look less than intelligent.  Not really a criteria that I seek out with reviewers.  

I completely agree with both of you.



Around the Network
DarthMetalliCube said:
ArchangelMadzz said:

From what I can tell from your quote they seem to go on to say how they grew to like the character despite their original reaction to a very common character canvas?

 

Edit: Yeah the write goes on about how much they empathised with him etc. 

 

People seem very quick to get outraged at any sort of mention like this, when it doesn't take much to think that he clearly meant that a white guy beardy scruffy main character has been beat to death. 

Fair enough, but then why add the description "white" at all? 

What ever mental gymnastics people use to justify it - it's a racist statement, made by a writer of a major publication, which is absurd that that's even allowed - and yes I realize we're probably overrepresented in entertainment, and that as a whole, we have it pretty good in the West, but that's besides the point.

Because there aren't a million games out there with a gruffy gravel voice bearded Asian dudes. 

It's not a racist statement. When I watch a TV show and see a character and think 'oh great, another loud angry black female character'. It's not racist to say that, it's okay to be tired of a character trope that's been over done because the first thing you think of is the lack of imagination that went into it. If I said 'oh great anther black female character' or 'oh great other white male' that would be racist. 



PS4 and PC gaming

 

PC Specs:
AMD Ryzen 9 3900x
Zotac Nvidia RTX 2070 Super
32GB DDR4 Corsair Vengence Ram 3200 mhz
1TB Samsung Qvo SSD
Corsair Spec-Delta Case
Asus ROG B450-F Motherboard

morenoingrato said:
Kerotan said:

Skin colour should be irrelevant. If someone met me would they say "oh great another generic white person with a beard. BORING". IMO this thought process is deeply flawed.

Definition: "Outrage is an intense feeling of anger and shock."

Yeah sorry buddy but I'm not feeling that. On my holidays chilling on a canary island beach 😂 

Man, those must be some lousy vacations if you find time to create and respond to this thread.

Currently doing rehab for a knee injury so those fun holidays I usually do are off the list. Chilling by the beach is just what the doctor ordered. Nice gym here to do my rehab as well. 



0D0 said:
Regardless, I reckon nobody's allowed to say "yet another Black character" in any circumstance whatsoever without being called racist. Even on the right context, there are certain criticisms that can only be said about white people.

Yesterday on Twitter I saw I tweet saying something like "only shitty white males like it". I wonder if we can tweet something like "only shitty black males like it" without being called the police upon.

Yet another black guy or yet another bassy voiced hulking character using street slang?

See, the first one is bad.  The second one is a character trope.  People get tired of character tropes.  Remember the bald, space marine trope? The shirtless, bandana wearing Rambo trope? Or the buxom busted chick with attitude trope?  It's not their race.  It's not their sex.  It's not the their demeanor.  It's their trope.  A combination of character traits that may start off interesting but then itself becomes a generic character type that gets boring after the nth iteration.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

ArchangelMadzz said:
DarthMetalliCube said:

Fair enough, but then why add the description "white" at all? 

What ever mental gymnastics people use to justify it - it's a racist statement, made by a writer of a major publication, which is absurd that that's even allowed - and yes I realize we're probably overrepresented in entertainment, and that as a whole, we have it pretty good in the West, but that's besides the point.

Because there aren't a million games out there with a gruffy gravel voice bearded Asian dudes. 

It's not a racist statement. When I watch a TV show and see a character and think 'oh great, another loud angry black female character'. It's not racist to say that, it's okay to be tired of a character trope that's been over done because the first thing you think of is the lack of imagination that went into it. If I said 'oh great anther black female character' or 'oh great other white male' that would be racist. 

Well that's where we disagree then I suppose. A simple observation or describing attributes is one thing, but if it's inferred that the color of one's skin somehow makes for a negative attribute (or even a small factor), I don't see how that can be construded as anything other than a racist observation, at least to a small degree. 

I totally get that there are certain "tropes" that I feel would be a positive for arts and entertainment to steer from and utilize more unique, underrepresented attributes. But I don't know.. for my money at least - a person's (real or fictional) personality, actions, overall character, etc is far far more important than simply the way they look, especially with baked in traits like race. But maybe that's just me. 



Around the Network
Walbert said:
IGN, Polygon, Kotaku and all the rest can go F themselves.

This. They have weasled their way into gaming fandom and tried to tear it apart, some times it looks like they are succeeding too. The only way they can stay relevant, even if this is not a case of it, is to insert politics in and hoard of certain demographics through that such as women. We'd be better off if they failed and just pissed off, gaming should be one of those things where politics should naturally fall away given how you engage with it, how people bond with it across divides but no, these outlets continually pump politics in from their spirally little duck dicks.



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

John2290 said:
Walbert said:
IGN, Polygon, Kotaku and all the rest can go F themselves.

This. They have weasled their way into gaming fandom and tried to tear it apart, some times it looks like they are succeeding too. The only way they can stay relevant, even if this is not a case of it, is to insert politics in and hoard of certain demographics through that such as women. We'd be better off if they failed and just pissed off, gaming should be one of those things where politics should naturally fall away given how you engage with it, how people bond with it across divides but no, these outlets continually pump politics in from their spirally little duck dicks.

You think those online magazines had an evil plot to bring politics into the gaming community?

What's now going on in gaming already happened in literature and cinema it's just the natural evolution of every medium.



Last edited by Welfare - on 06 March 2019

Won bet with t3mporary_126 - I correctly predicted that the Wii U's LTD at the end of 2014 would be closer to 9 million than 10 million. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=6673287

SpokenTruth said:
0D0 said:
Regardless, I reckon nobody's allowed to say "yet another Black character" in any circumstance whatsoever without being called racist. Even on the right context, there are certain criticisms that can only be said about white people.

Yesterday on Twitter I saw I tweet saying something like "only shitty white males like it". I wonder if we can tweet something like "only shitty black males like it" without being called the police upon.

Yet another black guy or yet another bassy voiced hulking character using street slang?

See, the first one is bad.  The second one is a character trope.  People get tired of character tropes.  Remember the bald, space marine trope? The shirtless, bandana wearing Rambo trope? Or the buxom busted chick with attitude trope?  It's not their race.  It's not their sex.  It's not the their demeanor.  It's their trope.  A combination of character traits that may start off interesting but then itself becomes a generic character type that gets boring after the nth iteration.

But why does it have to bewhite? Why can't it be a biker of any colour? He could have said this instead.   "“While I’ll admit that I initially rolled my eyes at yet another Gruff Protagonist." I removed the white and male. Gender and skin colour shouldn't be an issue. 



SpokenTruth said:
0D0 said:
Regardless, I reckon nobody's allowed to say "yet another Black character" in any circumstance whatsoever without being called racist. Even on the right context, there are certain criticisms that can only be said about white people.

Yesterday on Twitter I saw I tweet saying something like "only shitty white males like it". I wonder if we can tweet something like "only shitty black males like it" without being called the police upon.

Yet another black guy or yet another bassy voiced hulking character using street slang?

See, the first one is bad.  The second one is a character trope.  People get tired of character tropes.  Remember the bald, space marine trope? The shirtless, bandana wearing Rambo trope? Or the buxom busted chick with attitude trope?  It's not their race.  It's not their sex.  It's not the their demeanor.  It's their trope.  A combination of character traits that may start off interesting but then itself becomes a generic character type that gets boring after the nth iteration.

We aren't even talking about a trope, we're talking about the attempt to create a trope in order to satisfy an agenda.  "Gruff White Male Protagonist" is nothing but smoke and mirrors.  We're supposed to believe that "Gruff" is the primary descriptor?  Bullshit.  What is that even supposed to mean?  That the person fighting to survive in a living hell isn't dancing and singing as they fight zombies?  A serious character in a serious game isn't a trope, it's just common sense.  

Looking at a character and deciding that they're boring just because they look kinda-sorta similar to other characters is shallow and unimaginative.  I'm reading a really good book right now where one of the characters is a beautiful princess with long, golden hair.  Gosh, how boring--except, of course, that she's one of the best characters in the book because events turned her from a spoiled child into someone ruthless and unhinged.  

Last edited by pokoko - on 06 March 2019