By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HylianSwordsman said:
DevilRising said:
No, they aren't.

However, putting female (or "minority") into games JUST to check off those boxes and manufacture a sense of "diversity", is creatively bankrupt, and is pandering, dishonest game design. If you're making a game that organically stars a woman, or a non-white human character? And it fits, and makes sense, and they're a cool character that the players will/should care about? Awesome. But sticking them in there JUST to have them in there, is just as lame as it is in ANY entertainment medium.

Things should be in a piece of entertainment because they belong, and fit that specific piece of entertainment. Not merely to fit an agenda or earn brownie points with people who largely don't like, or care, about said entertainment.

I'd have to agree there. I mean usually when you talk about putting a character in just to have a black/female/etc. character, people call that a token, and say it's honestly just as bad as deliberately not putting them in because you're prejudiced against them. There are a lot of people that seem to get upset even when it does fit though, like with Ellie in TLOU2. The first game has you taking care of her and sacrificing to make sure she gets a chance to grow up, so why wouldn't the second game have her grown up, and let you play as her? Yet people were mad that she was the main character. Then people were mad that she had a lesbian kiss, but like, that's so rarely done that if they play that right it'll be interesting in and of itself. It could serve to emphasize her coming of age and growing into her sexuality in a really striking way. I say why not. Other people just get mad. I don't get it. It's not some blatant example of "token such and such demographic character because we gotta meet the diversity quota", it's an interesting and well done character.

Didn't see complains about having Ellie, but saw about no sight of Joel. Also on the kiss the majority of the negative I saw was they focusing that on E3 instead of just being part of the game (that goes on those complains about doing it just for brownie points), it didn't upset me to have it and I understood it was to give contrast between she fighting for life and actually having a life.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."