By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Is Catering To Women, Homosexuality and Minorities Restricting Game Developers' Creative Freedom?

Psychotic on 18 May 2015
Porcupine_I said:

You can't restrict my creative freedom by telling me to exclude words.


Good one



Around the Network
Psychotic on 18 May 2015
Qwark said:


Depends if there was a lord of the rings in Africa or brasil or another fantasy series in the medieval I would have a issue with a white protagonist even in most greek movies I think a white guy doesn´t fit to well he shoudl at least have a light toned skin. Why, because it doesn´t fit in the fantasy not because one is white and the other is  black. I also have issues with the white jesus sonce obviously he would look arabian like considering he lived in Israel and god is Morgan Freeman ±p.

I would have issues with historic inaccuicies which limit the possibility to get sucked up in a fantasy, like those awful english speaking germans in WW movies. So I took them more as an example which sounded fitting but those wheren´t the smartes choises after all. 

Then you are just extraordinarily sensitive and catering to you would be self-defeating.

Wait... what? Lord of the Rings in aFrica?? What the hell do you mean by that?



Shackkobe on 18 May 2015

I think it's only you who aren't aware of how you are coming across.

Your conclusion that the developers being narrowminded is an implication of the premise stating their minds/perspectives are broadened simply is not valid logic. It's a personal assumption yes, but the action where a perspective is broadened does not definitively dictate what the initial state of the mind was.

If the developer was killed, that would imply that he or she was alive in the first place because the state of life is binary. You either are living or you're dead.

However, the broadness of something is relative and it lies on a spectrum. A doorway can be more broad than another doorway and the doorway's broadness is relative to the person walking through the doorway.

So the correct implications would be both that a narrow mind was made less narrow OR an open mind was made more open (the perspective broadened further) -- not one or the other. Because of this, you are wrong to accuse the post of claiming such developers of essentially being narrowminded. It could have meant either or and there'd be know way to prove one implication more valid than the other without further information.

Sorry to nitpick but your last sentence came off a smug despite you arriving at an incorrect conclusion (your biased assumption of what the post meant). This is why internet debates end badly so often. And of course, it's prevalent for the person with the bad sense of logic to try and blame/shame the other poster for not being clear.

If you aren't clear, you can't blame the other person for arriving at an incorrect conclusion. Neither can you accuse the other person of having bad logic. It is your responsibility to be as clear as possible especially when it deals with sensitive topics.

You are definitely cutting yourself too much slack here sir. If you would like to be a positive force in these infamous internet debates, dedicate time to clarity because there are many different personalities reading your material/comments.

Food for thought.



generic-user-1 on 18 May 2015
Qwark said:
Psychotic said:
Qwark said:


One individual or group might believe his view/point is superrior to that of the artist (which makes the game,) but that doesn't say it actually is. The artist must produce within the boundaries in the law, but not including a race in a game isn't by defenition racism or discrimination, unless that person says I didn't put a female gay black etc. in my game because I hate them. In this case the artist remains superior since he has the power to do whatever he thinks is best for the game. I f a certain individual is not going to play it, that would be his loss as sometimes forcing a certain character in a game negatively affects the story and reviews resulting in more then one thousand less copies sold.

If the artist simply says this type of character didn't fit in my vision of this product, he shouldn't be (profesionally) critisized for that, that some action groups do, that is there right but an artist shouldn't be in any right obligated to bow for them and addapthis work to their vision. Imagine a God of war with censored boobs or a partly black cast in lord of the rings or partly white Africans in Resident Evil 5 (oh wait they did do that). By adding things that seemingly don't belong there, you get kicked out a game which sucked you in at first. Sure later on you get sucked in again, but why should we get kicked out in the first place, an atmosphere must seem natural at all times. Having some races which don't belong somewhere is almost  as bad as putting a rainbow and colourful flowers in a Bloodborne area.

if we take lord of the rings for example a black elf, or even Aragon, Boromir, Frodo being black would be disturbing at fist, we might grow to love or hate them but at first everyone would be a bit dazzled for the first 10 minutes, which is something an artist shouldn't want to. Games are eventually an art form and at no point art should be restricted to political corectness which would limit the hard fought freedom of western countries in which most devs are making games anyway. So even if a group might think they have to by law and otherwise they are discriminating, we can still say they are luckily not. 

I can agree with everything in the first paragraph. But only a very small minority of people are accusing developers of racism, homophobia etc. right away. Most simply question why some design decisions were made. For example the Tomodachi Life fiasco - most people were simply asking a very rational question why would the developers not include same-sex relationships in a game that is designed to mimic real-life relationships. They had to specifically decide not to include them and it was actually more work to exclude them than to include them. I think asking why the hell would they do that is justified. If they gave any acceptable anwer to that, I would even give them the benefit of the doubt, but they didn't. And as things stand, it looks like they exluded them, because they didn't consider them "kid-friendly", the implications of which are... bad.

The second paragraph is more questionable. I don't think anyone "forced" Capcom to add white people to RE5's Africa - they simply saw the reaction was negative and they changed it. Maybe they didn't care enough to stand by it? Some people didn't like it, it wasn't important to the designers, so they changed it. If it was a big deal to them, they wouldn't. Are you saying an artist can't change his or her work in a minor way if the reception is negative and the change doesn't impact anything at all? BUT I do agree that there is nothing inherently racist about a white guy killing a bunch of black dudes in Africa and the uproar was out of proportion. But.. what did you say about not assuming my opinion was better than someone else's?

I think that only racists would be dazzled by a black Aragorn - I don't know if his skin color was ever mentioned in the books, maybe we just assumed he was white anyway.

BUT THE MOST INTERESTING THING IN YOUR POST WAS:

It's strange that you think artists shouldn't be limited by people moaning about race (in RE5)... and then you do want artists to be limited by people moaning about race (in LotR). The only difference I see is... the people moaning about race in RE5 aren't... you.


Depends if there was a lord of the rings in Africa or brasil or another fantasy series in the medieval I would have a issue with a white protagonist even in most greek movies I think a white guy doesn´t fit to well he shoudl at least have a light toned skin. Why, because it doesn´t fit in the fantasy not because one is white and the other is  black. I also have issues with the white jesus sonce obviously he would look arabian like considering he lived in Israel and god is Morgan Freeman ±p.

I would have issues with historic inaccuicies which limit the possibility to get sucked up in a fantasy, like those awful english speaking germans in WW movies. So I took them more as an example which sounded fitting but those wheren´t the smartes choises after all. 

but the ancient greeks, atleats the dorer were alot whiter than todays greeks.and  alexander the great looked much more like a southern german than todays greeks.  i would cast someone with the skin colour of thomas müller(just google him he is a football player, you will find pictures) for the ancient greeks.

not white like northern europeans, but not realy as brown as southern europeans. 

 

and jesus wouldnt look like an arabian dude, the closest would be some christians from iraq or syria.   and yes they look different and they are not arabs, they are aramaer or assyrier and they dont look too different from europeans.

 

tzhe worst think i saw till know are just blond blue eyed germans in movies about the time before ww2.

sure you can make the SS blue eyed, big and blond, but  the rest well not so blond and not so blue haired



FragilE^ on 18 May 2015
Shackkobe said:

 

If you aren't clear, you can't blame the other person for arriving at an incorrect conclusion. Neither can you accuse the other person of having bad logic. It is your responsibility to be as clear as possible especially when it deals with sensitive topics.

You are definitely cutting yourself too much slack here sir. If you would like to be a positive force in these infamous internet debates, dedicate time to clarity because there are many different personalities reading your material/comments.

Food for thought.

I really, really shouldn't. But I will. Your response here? Here's a tip for ya! Don't be an asshole! If people did that, every debate would be better.



Around the Network
Shackkobe on 18 May 2015

FragilE^ said:

 I really, really shouldn't. But I will. Your response here? Here's a tip for ya! Don't be an asshole! If people did that, every debate would be better.

 

Aggreed.

That will help as well.

Thank you for you contribution.



pepharytheworm on 18 May 2015

Jesus would not be white. LotR takes place in middle earth during the end of the third age, not in medieval Europe. Black people were in Europe during the medieval era.



danasider on 19 May 2015
Shackkobe said:

I think it's only you who aren't aware of how you are coming across.

Your conclusion that the developers being narrowminded is an implication of the premise stating their minds/perspectives are broadened simply is not valid logic. It's a personal assumption yes, but the action where a perspective is broadened does not definitively dictate what the initial state of the mind was.

If the developer was killed, that would imply that he or she was alive in the first place because the state of life is binary. You either are living or you're dead.

However, the broadness of something is relative and it lies on a spectrum. A doorway can be more broad than another doorway and the doorway's broadness is relative to the person walking through the doorway.

So the correct implications would be both that a narrow mind was made less narrow OR an open mind was made more open (the perspective broadened further) -- not one or the other. Because of this, you are wrong to accuse the post of claiming such developers of essentially being narrowminded. It could have meant either or and there'd be know way to prove one implication more valid than the other without further information.

Sorry to nitpick but your last sentence came off a smug despite you arriving at an incorrect conclusion (your biased assumption of what the post meant). This is why internet debates end badly so often. And of course, it's prevalent for the person with the bad sense of logic to try and blame/shame the other poster for not being clear.

If you aren't clear, you can't blame the other person for arriving at an incorrect conclusion. Neither can you accuse the other person of having bad logic. It is your responsibility to be as clear as possible especially when it deals with sensitive topics.

You are definitely cutting yourself too much slack here sir. If you would like to be a positive force in these infamous internet debates, dedicate time to clarity because there are many different personalities reading your material/comments.

Food for thought.

I wasn't the one who wrote the post that you were responding to. I just didn't think it was unclear as you had stated and also noticed (if you ever took a class on logic) that your logical reasoning was invalid in stating that the poster was implying the developers were narrowminded. He/she wasn't, nor was it the point of the sentence you were picking apart. It was just stating that developers doing such things would expand their perspectives. That doesn't necessarily mean they had narrowminds in the first place. There was nothing unclear about it, you just came to the wrong deduction.

Food for thought.



Shackkobe on 21 October 2015

Revived by OP due to very pertinent circumstances



hershel_layton on 21 October 2015
spemanig said:
No one is being forced to include anything.


It is when the third wave feminist zombies come pounding at your door for showing a female character that shows her body.



 

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

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.