TheDarkShape said:
bugrimmar said:

This is a rant. Sorry.

 

I love diversity. I love equality. I love representation.

I think it's great that the world is recognizing the need for women to receive equal treatment at work. I completely agree that homosexual couples should be able to get married. I am extremely against racism in all forms and I believe every person is equal. It doesn't matter where you're from or what religion you are.

BUT STOP INFECTING OUR ENTERTAINMENT WITH YOUR SELF ENTITLEMENT.

 

1. TALENT is what matters. Not your race or your sexual orientation. So if you aren't as talented as a male developer or director, you still should get the opportunity just because you're female? If you want to get a spot, IMPROVE. Let your work speak for itself and don't use your being female or Hispanic as a reason for your lack of success. It's garbage that less talented individuals are given work just for the sake of diversity. Diversity is good! But not if you're hiring someone just to prove your workplace is diverse and not because of talent!

2. STOP BENDING STORYLINES FOR THE SAKE OF INCLUSION. If your story calls for a homosexual character wherein his/her homosexuality has something to do with the story, then go for it. I would love to experience new storylines that explore these real world issues. But if you're just making a character a female just for the sake of showing inclusion and diversity and her feminine nature has nothing to do with the story, it's just stupid! Why make an all female Ghostbusters cast with a stupid ass male supporting character? Does their being female have anything to do with the story? Or did you just want to show people how "gender friendly" you are? The end result is the story becomes stupid! Did you cast black homosexual Achilles because it adds to the story? Does it? Or does it simply seek to rewrite an age old story unnecessarily just for your diversity dreams?

3. STOP USING STEREOTYPES. Not all Asians are math geniuses and not all African American characters are jacked up gangstas. Characters in games are just placed there as token pieces to fulfill a checklist. "Have we included the obligatory blonde skinny sex symbol? Check. What about the muscle bound black guy who swears every f@$#ing sentence? Check. What about the dumb Hispanic guy who talks like a meth addict? Check." It's like these people are just casting characters to fulfill obligations. Why do we have angelababy in Independence day? Not for her acting, but because she's a hot Asian chick who can appeal to viewers in China! Yeah! Cast her so we can show our movie has mass appeal!

 

 

All you have to do to fix your diversity problem is to NOT CHANGE EXISTING STORIES AND CHARACTERS just to fulfill your agenda. You have every right to make NEW STORIES AND NEW CHARACTERS. Just don't fucking change the ones we already like and we are already invested in. It's been mentioned in this thread so many times already. There's no problem with playing female or black characters. BUT DONT FORCE THEM INTO CHARACTERS THAT ARENT LIKE THAT. 

IF A CHARACTER WAS WRITTEN WHITE, THEN HES WHITE. IF HES STRAIGHT, HES STRAIGHT. IF HES A MAN, HES A MAN. LIKEWISE, IF A CHARACTER WAS WRITTEN AS FEMALE, ASIAN, BLACK, HISPANIC, OR WHATEVER, THEN STICK TO IT! DONT CHANGE IT!

Just like you don't want people to mess with black, Asian, and female characters, it shouldn't be done to any characters at all. When Scarlett Johansson was cast in ghost in the shell, it was called whitewashing. I agreed and I thought it was a bad decision. But it's also a bad decision to turn the human torch black! It's also a bad decision to turn the Ghostbusters cast totally female without even a nod to the originals!

 

End of rant.

Your rant breaks down to white+straight+male is the default, and you need a specific story-driven reason to deviate from that.

Call me crazy, but even as a white straight male, I have enough empathetic capability to be able to play as, say, a black lesbian female and not freak out about it.

Your comment sums up to didn't understand OP snf topic.



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

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

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"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994