Forums - General Discussion - I'm tired of this overemphasis on diversity spilling into our entertainment.

Azuren said:
VGPolyglot said:

The game got good reviews and sold a ton, I'm pretty sure they maintained their integrity.

Integrity ≠ Financial Success

 

Unless you're implying Trump has more integrity than you.

Sure, I can accept that, if you can accept what I said.



Around the Network
Azuren said:
Angelus said:

This is spot on

I mean, not really, no. 

 

The population of the US is still majority white, majority straight, and majority cis. Gender is totally split into different genres, as men and women are attracted to different types of fiction. While other groups have expanded since the early days of film, America at least is still mostly white, hetero, and cis.

 

And you can't argue in favor of changing white cis straight males to something else while arguing against changing, say, Miles Morales into a white guy. Its hypocritical.

 

The problem is instead of introducing new characters, they're changing established characters. Don't pretend it's more complicated than that.

 

And finally, he pretty much sums up his entire post, though he thinks he's summing up opposing posts.

Just because the majority of the population is still white, doesn't mean that those other groups aren't becoming an ever larger audience capable of deciding whether or not your product is a success or failure, and the degree of either. For example, just look at what a big deal Black Panther was to the African American community. They basically turned that thing into a national event. So that goes to show you how much it means to some of these groups to really be directly targeted at the highest level in entertainment, and what they can do for you if you do it well. Straight white males are used to being the target audience, and frankly, have come to take it for granted much of the time.

Now, that said, I do tend to agree that one shouldn't necessarily go changing a bunch of existing characters every which way to try and draw in certain audiences. There are instances of it being successful, and that's fine, but I do very much prefer the approach of creating new characters and stories to diversify the portfolio, rather than trying take something with a well established identity and making it fit into your new vision. 



Angelus said:
Azuren said:

I mean, not really, no. 

 

The population of the US is still majority white, majority straight, and majority cis. Gender is totally split into different genres, as men and women are attracted to different types of fiction. While other groups have expanded since the early days of film, America at least is still mostly white, hetero, and cis.

 

And you can't argue in favor of changing white cis straight males to something else while arguing against changing, say, Miles Morales into a white guy. Its hypocritical.

 

The problem is instead of introducing new characters, they're changing established characters. Don't pretend it's more complicated than that.

 

And finally, he pretty much sums up his entire post, though he thinks he's summing up opposing posts.

Just because the majority of the population is still white, doesn't mean that those other groups aren't becoming an ever larger audience capable of deciding whether or not your product is a success or failure, and the degree of either. For example, just look at what a big deal Black Panther was to the African American community. They basically turned that thing into a national event. So that goes to show you how much it means to some of these groups to really be directly targeted at the highest level in entertainment, and what they can do for you if you do it well. Straight white males are used to being the target audience, and frankly, have come to take it for granted much of the time.

Now, that said, I do tend to agree that one shouldn't necessarily go changing a bunch of existing characters every which way to try and draw in certain audiences. There are instances of it being successful, and that's fine, but I do very much prefer the approach of creating new characters and stories to diversify the portfolio, rather than trying take something with a well established identity and making it fit into your new vision. 

My biggest beef with that guy's post was his assumption that changing something into a white cis straight male is not okay, but the opposite is. I get that certain ethnic populations are bigger than they used to be and that there is an audience in them...

 

But it shouldn't be at the expense of the rest of your fanbase. Using Black Panther as an example, no one but actual racists had a problem with that movie. I was sickened at how political people had made it, sure. But it was mostly true to the source material, and pandered to fans of Black Panther- which is what it should have done to begin with. But then you've got garbage like the new Ghostbusters. You can't take an IP with a fanbase of, say, mostly men in the 20'-50's, and then make it a damn chick flick.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

VGPolyglot said:
Azuren said:

Integrity ≠ Financial Success

 

Unless you're implying Trump has more integrity than you.

Sure, I can accept that, if you can accept what I said.

No, I don't actually accept that or believe it to be true. Integrity has nothing to do with success.

 

That amount of bullshit that happens to be is actually staggering.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Azuren said:
Angelus said:

Just because the majority of the population is still white, doesn't mean that those other groups aren't becoming an ever larger audience capable of deciding whether or not your product is a success or failure, and the degree of either. For example, just look at what a big deal Black Panther was to the African American community. They basically turned that thing into a national event. So that goes to show you how much it means to some of these groups to really be directly targeted at the highest level in entertainment, and what they can do for you if you do it well. Straight white males are used to being the target audience, and frankly, have come to take it for granted much of the time.

Now, that said, I do tend to agree that one shouldn't necessarily go changing a bunch of existing characters every which way to try and draw in certain audiences. There are instances of it being successful, and that's fine, but I do very much prefer the approach of creating new characters and stories to diversify the portfolio, rather than trying take something with a well established identity and making it fit into your new vision. 

My biggest beef with that guy's post was his assumption that changing something into a white cis straight male is not okay, but the opposite is. I get that certain ethnic populations are bigger than they used to be and that there is an audience in them...

 

But it shouldn't be at the expense of the rest of your fanbase. Using Black Panther as an example, no one but actual racists had a problem with that movie. I was sickened at how political people had made it, sure. But it was mostly true to the source material, and pandered to fans of Black Panther- which is what it should have done to begin with. But then you've got garbage like the new Ghostbusters. You can't take an IP with a fanbase of, say, mostly men in the 20'-50's, and then make it a damn chick flick.

I think we're mostly in agreement, we just focused on different parts of his post



Around the Network
outlawauron said:
VGPolyglot said:
What's wrong with making someone gay or female for the sake of being that? That's a way to create depth for a character, and even if it doesn't add much to the story it helps bring a sense of liveliness to the world to give mundane details. Also, it seems that in your mind someone being straight or white or male or whatever is the default, so if someone decides to do forego that they're going to automatically get extra scrutiny and will either pass or fail the seemingly arbitrary test of whether or not this diversity is acceptable.

Because something that is done for the sake of being that is not creating depth. It's literally the most shallow thing a trait can be and usually gets placed instead of actual meaningful character development. Multiple viewpoints and having a diverse casts are a good thing, but doing things for the sake of doing is lazy and worsens the product 99% of the time.

There is no provable metric that shows doing something for the sake of it worsen's the product, especially since you yourself also say its shallow and thus, doesnt really matter.

 

Angelus said:
Smear-Gel said:

-this exquisite post-

This is spot on

Yes, I agree.

 

Azuren said:
Angelus said:

This is spot on

I mean, not really, no. 

The population of the US is still majority white, majority straight, and majority cis. Gender is totally split into different genres, as men and women are attracted to different types of fiction. While other groups have expanded since the early days of film, America at least is still mostly white, hetero, and cis.

And you can't argue in favor of changing white cis straight males to something else while arguing against changing, say, Miles Morales into a white guy. Its hypocritical.

The problem is instead of introducing new characters, they're changing established characters. Don't pretend it's more complicated than that.

And finally, he pretty much sums up his entire post, though he thinks he's summing up opposing posts.

Gonna start at the end and say that oh well if you're looking at this as so simple, because every issue on earth is more complicated than it seems. This will be the only part of my comment that is snarky.

Now for the rest, and I dont really get what the US population has to do with anything, because my post was about pandering. No matter the protag, people are being pandered to. I'm saying that people dont care that pandering has begun, they care that more groups other than them are now being pandered to. And even with a majority white population, you're still looking at millions of people of colour, and even more women (isnt the US' population around half women?) and we shouldnt say that these people shouldnt get pandered to as well. Not to mention, and this was gonna go at the end but I put it up here, people still complain about new characters that are created as black. People complain when new games come out with black people and women, they complain when comics have female or muslim superheros, they complain when a cartoon has gay characters even if they are all original.

For the part you have a big problem with, I dont think I'm hypocritical at all, because the two situations simply arent equal. Because I'm looking at the wider CONTEXT. In a world where everyone was always equal from the beginning of time, all instances of changing the race or gender of a character would be equally a problem. In this world, where media was 99% white and male for hundreds of years due to racial and gender biases deeply entrenched in society, things get a bit more nuanced. Making a white protagonist in a movie black will change one movie out of 6 coming out that week. making one black protagonist white will remove probably one of 3 films with a black protag coming out that year. You cant ignore the context of these situations and the wider world we are in, the history, or any of that. Because the reason for so many people being white wasnt just a natural part of society, it was because of certain biases that entrenched that as the default.

It's the same reason Black Panther became political, because a major superhero movie with that budget, that cast, and a black director being so successful is a major deal in terms of representation, and until it becomes commonplace, people will make a big deal about it.

 

 



 

VGPolyglot said:
Aeolus451 said:

That's a bit racist because you're generalizing a race based on no evidence. Also that's nonsensical. Why would white people be bothered by not having as much of a monopoly when they're the ones that allowed it by choosing to share it?

Choosing to share it is a bit dubious of a statement, considering how much backlash there is from more diverse media, this thread itself being an example.

You either don't get it or you're misrepresenting it on purpose. It has been explained to you repeatedly. People do not want politically motivated people who don't appreciate the IP, changing existing an IP to suit their agenda. 



Also, Ghostbusters sucked because it was filled with too much improv and wasnt funny, the female thing is 100% inqonsecuential and even diving into the debate is just getting duped by Sony who manufactured it so people would care about the movie.



 

Smear-Gel said:
outlawauron said:

Because something that is done for the sake of being that is not creating depth. It's literally the most shallow thing a trait can be and usually gets placed instead of actual meaningful character development. Multiple viewpoints and having a diverse casts are a good thing, but doing things for the sake of doing is lazy and worsens the product 99% of the time.

There is no provable metric that shows doing something for the sake of it worsen's the product, especially since you yourself also say its shallow and thus, doesnt really matter.

 

Angelus said:

This is spot on

Yes, I agree.

 

Azuren said:

I mean, not really, no. 

The population of the US is still majority white, majority straight, and majority cis. Gender is totally split into different genres, as men and women are attracted to different types of fiction. While other groups have expanded since the early days of film, America at least is still mostly white, hetero, and cis.

And you can't argue in favor of changing white cis straight males to something else while arguing against changing, say, Miles Morales into a white guy. Its hypocritical.

The problem is instead of introducing new characters, they're changing established characters. Don't pretend it's more complicated than that.

And finally, he pretty much sums up his entire post, though he thinks he's summing up opposing posts.

Gonna start at the end and say that oh well if you're looking at this as so simple, because every issue on earth is more complicated than it seems. This will be the only part of my comment that is snarky.

Now for the rest, and I dont really get what the US population has to do with anything, because my post was about pandering. No matter the protag, people are being pandered to. I'm saying that people dont care that pandering has begun, they care that more groups other than them are now being pandered to. And even with a majority white population, you're still looking at millions of people of colour, and even more women (isnt the US' population around half women?) and we shouldnt say that these people shouldnt get pandered to as well. Not to mention, and this was gonna go at the end but I put it up here, people still complain about new characters that are created as black. People complain when new games come out with black people and women, they complain when comics have female or muslim superheros, they complain when a cartoon has gay characters even if they are all original.

For the part you have a big problem with, I dont think I'm hypocritical at all, because the two situations simply arent equal. Because I'm looking at the wider CONTEXT. In a world where everyone was always equal from the beginning of time, all instances of changing the race or gender of a character would be equally a problem. In this world, where media was 99% white and male for hundreds of years due to racial and gender biases deeply entrenched in society, things get a bit more nuanced. Making a white protagonist in a movie black will change one movie out of 6 coming out that week. making one black protagonist white will remove probably one of 3 films with a black protag coming out that year. You cant ignore the context of these situations and the wider world we are in, the history, or any of that. Because the reason for so many people being white wasnt just a natural part of society, it was because of certain biases that entrenched that as the default.

It's the same reason Black Panther became political, because a major superhero movie with that budget, that cast, and a black director being so successful is a major deal in terms of representation, and until it becomes commonplace, people will make a big deal about it.

 

 

Only going to address the part that we've both acknowledged as the only part I care about (I'm on lunch and I'm not wasting the whole thing debating dumb shit):

 

Changing a fictional character in an established IP into something else for the sake of diversity is a perversion of art. Period. If you want more black superheroes, literally nothing is stopping you from making them. Comic fans (see: actual comic fans, not MCU fans and "OMG im such a nerd" fans) generally don't like it when the main canon of their favorite IPs is altered for no good reason.

 

If you can't make Miles Morales white, you can't make Peter Parker black. If you can't make Batwoman straight, you can't make Bobby Drake gay. Just because a race/gender/sexuality/identity is over-represented doesn't give everyone agency to change then into whatever they want while claiming the reverse is against the rules.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Smear-Gel said:
Also, Ghostbusters sucked because it was filled with too much improv and wasnt funny, the female thing is 100% inqonsecuential and even diving into the debate is just getting duped by Sony who manufactured it so people would care about the movie.

Except the part where most people knew it was going to be trash from the get-go, meaning the improv isn't what liked it.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames