More rules doesn't make you more moral, following more rules does. But that's besides the point; people have less rules these days and they're really don't follow even the ones they have, making them less moral.

Yes, islam has different sets; the largest groups to my knowledge are sunna and shia muslims, and they stick to the dogmas of the religion, because otherwise they wouldn't be muslims. I'm not sure why "muslims for progressive values" would even exist, because if you have progressive values, you wouldn't be a muslim. There likely are some muslims who promote progressive values, but they don't represent any section or movement within islam. The progressive values are forbidden in islam and muslims for progressive values are a small minority of muslims and do not represent the values of even the muslims moved to west. 

Veilguard is the definition of what a woke game is, if you try to act like it isn't otherwise, you are some kind of weirdo, on the other hand, the anti woke crowd needs to calm the fuck down on some things, like Ghost of Yotei, screaming woke because it has a woman, insane. People need to wait for these games to release.

Again, "following more rules" does not make someone more moral.

Philosophers don't even agree on a single definition of what makes someone more moral in the first place.

There are some frameworks that suggest that there is some set of rules that are objectively good, there are some frameworks that suggest that most sets of moral rules are just as moral as each other.

I'm not aware of any system that suggests that "following more rules" makes someone more moral. As I explained before, it's an absurd suggestion in the first place, because the number of rules someone follows is arbitrary. 

Christianity technically forbids homosexuality, female pastors; yet lots of Christian sects are very progressive.

Besides that, either you think all religions are equally valid, or you think most/all of them are made up.

If it's the latter, then you would have to accept that people are going to follow their religion however they want. Even if other versions of that religion forbid them from following it.

If it's the former, then you should still have to accept that different followings of any religion are going to happen. 

Even by your own admission, people have rules they aren't following. So why is it different for religion? Doesn't even matter if you don't want to call them Muslim, if they're some new religion, that must be just as valid. 

is the context still "woke" games?

I thought most muslim countries view homosexuallity as a death penality.
These are not countries or peoples, that are accepting of that sort of stuff, in video games either imo.

Not sure how big a market, the muslim world is for video games or buying them.
But it all circles back to "the consumer is always right" (if you want to sell them something).

or stand on principle, or and ignore that potential market.

Woke is a politically loaded term, and thus conversations start diverging into related political topics.

Especially when we are talking about "why" these games exist/why games are generally becoming more inclusive. 

In a lot of different cases, you make slightly different versions to meet whatever censorship those countries want you to uphold. 

The issues in a lot of these countries isn't that the consumer doesn't want something, it's that the government is enforcing censorship. 

I don't know.... it doesn't take much for a crowd to get kicked up in storms, and start throwing stones there. These places they literally  stone people to death.
Its more than than just "its the governments and enforced censorship", that seems dishonest.

"Especially when we are talking about "why" these games exist/why games are generally becoming more inclusive."


https://www.inverse.com/gaming/corrine-busche-interview-rpgs-dragon-age-veilguard

“I know, and something that’s very important to me, is that games are inherently diverse when you think about the size of these teams and the specializations you have within them. When you have diverse, complex, large groups of people coming together to make something, of course, the game is going to be a reflection of those teams,” says Busche “I think we need to consider that we can make the most authentic, best experiences when we’re tying into what makes us as the developers, and you as the fans, when we can tie into those elements that make us distinctly human, and that means differences.”

"Game developers also need to feel safe in what they do, which ultimately means being able to see themselves reflected in their work."

Its important for this game lead, that they can see themselves in the game they are making.
So the focus is the dev team, that makes the games, are comfortable with how diverse it is..... that's why it was made the way it was.

There's a much more complicated relationship between government and it's people, because no group of people are a monolith. 

There's a two way street. A lot of terrible things happen because the government allows it to happens, or makes it happen. And the government is a reflection of the people - more particularly who has influence. That doesn't have to be a majority of people. And a lot of this feeds back into culture. The government influences culture by censorship and propaganda. 

Someone could write a bunch of books on these subjects. 

This doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about there. I was just saying that political conversations go off into other topics, when we start talking about things like why and how. 

At best, your reply is a good example of why political topics go off the direct subject. 

So now we can talk about, people tend to like "DEI", because people are diverse. People want to make games that have diverse stories. So trans people want to write stories where they're included, and they want to buy stories where they're included.

And black people want to write stories and they want to buy stories where they're included.

And Indian people want to write stories and they want to buy stories where they're included.

And Korean people want to write stories and they want to buy stories where they're included.

And woman want to write stories and they want to buy stories where they're included.

And companies want to sell products, even companies that are the furthest thing from "woke" often want to try selling products to more people; so they make stories that sell to other groups of people. And they hire workers that want to make those stories and are hopefully able to make good versions of those stories. 

And I would add that people hate when they shove politics in your entertainment, especially when you use the entertainment to get away from politics and such matters.

Of course all religions are made up. I'm not saying any of them was more valid than any other, it's just that their values, dogmas and punishment for not following a religion differs from each other. If there was a religion where homosexuality was punisheable by death, it would clearly be much worse than a religion where it's not punisheable by death. If there was a religion where women would need to cover themselves or get stoned or whipped or raped, it would be much worse than religion that doesn't require women to cover themselves. If there was a religion where leaving a religion was punisheable by death, it would clearly be worse than religion that doesn't do that. 

I've used the European natural pagan religions as an example of non-dogmatic religion that based on practicioner's own philosophy and on the other extreme I've used islam as an example of dogmatic religion that has very strict rules and severe punishment for not following them.

The reason why people have hard time following their own rules, but find it easy to follow religion's rules, is that nobody's keeping an eye if you live by your own personal rules or not, but the religious community is watching whether you live by the religion's rules or not, and in case you don't do that, the community is going to punish you the way the religion says you must be punished. 

Surely, when someone says he or she has high moral, you have some sort of idea what he or she means?

I think you're right about people wanting stories where they're included, but that's not how it works. Whether you read a book, watch a movie or play a game, the events aren't telling about you, but the story and representation is supposed to let you to experience the events. You weren't Ellen Ripley in USCSS Nostromo, but the film took you there. Reading Lord of the Rings takes you to Middle-Earth, and watching the movies does the same thing, but film lets you to experience the events of the story in a different way. When you play a game, the character is your avatar and you play with the character that either suits your playing style the best or is the most fun to watch. If you can feel included only by having an avatar that represents you as closely as possible, the problem isn't the avatar.

The developers are a whole different matter and I can understand this being the way how they feel they're being included in the game. This remonds me of Goldeneye on N64 where the developers used their own faces as faces for the game's enemies. 

I dont think I have ever heard a gamer say they feel the need to be "included" in a game. I dont really get what that means. Just a character having the same skin color or sex as themselves? Ive never gone "Oh wait, Im not represented in this game. Oh well...no more Tetris for me."

I can relate more to well written black people or women than poorly written white guys in video games. Like Lara Croft, which woman feels represented by her? or what Chinese person feels represented by Liu Kang?

I think a lot of these "issues" are just people trying to make money off publishers by scaring them into thinking they need to be diverse in order to not be seen as racist. A good game is a good game and a good story is a good story. No matter what the characters look like. Its a human story. That includes all of us.