| vkaraujo said: I agree. The FF XV devs having to explain why the party is all male was dumb. |
True but that was strictly from "women, homosexuals or minorities". There were a lot of straight dudes calling it a sausage fest :p
| OttoniBastos said: OT: Yes! Developers are too desperate trying to put "token" characters on their games to satisfy Tumblr or whatever, instead of focusing in important things like gameplay,Story or even character develpment. |
Where has this been the case?
The true culprit of what you're describing is cinematics and big set setpieces in my opinion
teigaga said:
|
There's nothing wrong with cinematics or set pieces.
"Say what you want about Americans but we understand Capitalism.You buy yourself a product and you Get What You Pay For."
- Max Payne 3
If anything the opposite happen, female, kids, visible minorities and sexually ambiguous people are phased out by way of focus groups, this is restricting creativity as some devs will pre-emptively put a mostly white male without anything "out of the norm" cast to ease funding.
This is not creativity.
alternine said:
|
No, but devs feel compelled to force it into games even if the story is shit, even if the set piece is just a lazy QTE fest, even if the game doesn't suite it. SO many games I played last gen had terrible dialogue and cinematics that I just skipped. Even if they are great these are the demanding things that distract devs from core gameplay components, not including female/minority/homosexual characters.
The order is game where we know gameplay suffered from their cinematic tunnel vision, can we say the same about a game suffering through inclusion of more diverse characters? Not to say its never happened, but its really not a visible issue.
| nuckles87 said: "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. 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." |
"Yes, I agree, we all want to weed out discrimination. But we should be very careful when we accuse others of being biased. If the issue is simply us not getting what we want, then we should not accuse. What we should do is judge the person’s actions/motives and see if the individual is discriminating. If the individual is found guilty, we should act immediately because no one has the creative right to discriminate.
On the other hand, if the developer is not discriminating, one can simply make a request or a suggestion to the said developer to include your group in their game. The game developer still retains their creative freedom and as such, could choose to accept or respectfully decline your suggestion. There should be no coercion.
Using threats and false accusations is the tactic of a bully. This is why developers are beginning to feel pressured to include females, homosexuals and minorities in their games, even though creatively, they may never have intended to do so. That I believe, is infringing on the creative freedom of game developers and it should be exposed for what it is."
I hilighlighted a few words and phrases to make things a little clearer for you.
I believe that making a character that fits a minority just for the sake of filling that "requirement" is almost as offensive as not including them. But again, I'm a straight man in my 20s, so what do I know?
Shackkobe said:
You are aware that by saying "can force an artist's mind to expand", you are implying that an artist who doesn't act in this way is limited or narrowminded. That is the genesis of the problem. One must not assume that his/her point of view is superior. An artist has the right to do whatever he/she wants to do without fear of being viewed as narrowminded, old fashioned, limited etic. |
I implied the potential of one's mind to expand if forced to take on different subject matter and allow oneself to be vulnerable. It won't happen with everyone, and personally I feel that if they get burnt out and start hating the process of writing or developing for new subject matters, then they shouldn't continue to be forced to. It could be enlightening for some however in small amounts. They don't even have to put them into practice; just being exposed to them a little (books, movies) and they can take or leave what they want within those new ideas.
I wouldn't want them to end up hating their profession.
Lube Me Up
sundin13 said:
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). |
See, where they're not having the same impact is that this group doesn't demand certain ratios or have things removed from games. They just buy what interests them, which is how the market should work. If they aren't interested in something, they don't go campaigning to have it removed, censored, etc.
You can claim that developers are shoehorned into making games for this audience because it's profitable, but that's a very different argument than changing a game's content as to not offend or meet some arbitrary quota.
No, not really I don't think. I haven't seen too much catering to those groups personally. It happens occassionally but it doesn't seem to be a big thing.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
