I’m afraid nothing in that article tells me why it’s important to cater for representation, other than that the author says it is.
Look, the piece is about asexuality. I simply don’t understand why that needs to be catered for in a game. I’m not trying to be difficult, but I just don’t see the big deal. My point is why bring sexual preference into it at all? Take Moxxxi: she’s bisexual, but how does that cater for bisexuals? All I take from that is that she’s a free spirit. I don’t identify with Lilith or Roland on the basis they once had a relationship, so why should I feel some connection with Moxxxi because she has broad horizons? Zero seems fairly androgynous, but on the other hand the voice suggests he’s a man. But I play him because I want to try his skills out, no other reason. I’ll do Gunzerker next, but only because his playstyle is different from everyone else’s. Why does everything have to have a deeper meaning? It’s just a game!
I guess I don’t understand why some people have a need to identify externally to make them happy. I like certain musical groups or artists because of their music, not because I either pretend to be them or want to marry them. I don’t get that kind of hero worship. I will watch a film because of the genre, or because of reviews or PR, not because I identify with a character. I will see a film that has Will Smith in it, but I will also see one which has Robert de Niro or Jackie Chan: their ethnicity is not in any way relevant to why I’ll watch their films. I think the most watchable character in Modern Family is gay, because he makes me laugh the most. But he’s closely followed by the husband/wife couple. I used to watch Gilmore Girls which had mainly female leads, and Boston Legal which centred around two male stars. And I don’t “identify” with any of them. That’s not why I watch and their sexuality is in no way an influence on my opinion of them.
If sexual preference or race is a fundamental part of the character, then fine. Why not. But what I’m saying in my own wordy way is that I don’t understand the need for it if it doesn’t enhance the story or gameplay. It just strikes of tokenism to me and that’s something I don’t agree with.
Okay, I just finished reading the 40th post of this thread. So… let me think for a bit…
First off, Ewoks are ■■■■■■’ legit, yo! If you think you can just walk into Endor and front in their ‘hood with your cheap crotch-rocket speeder bikers and AT-STs walkers with chrome spinners and your whack-cloned Storm Troopin’ posse, then you’ll just end up getting ganked from above, and side to side, and then have your head chopped off and used as a serving bowl of Endorian nachos, ‘cuz them Ewoks are straight up gangsta’, yo! They will cut you, steal your ride, and make you be a bitch for the Wookie.
She’s got a Cryo-themed action skill tree, yo! Plus, she’s a Baroness. And she’s the 6th playable Vault Hunter, available only as a DLC or as part of the Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel Season Pass. Download her now!
Okay, any of the straight guys here hit on a girl? I have, and sometimes it can get kinda awkward if the girl is a lesbian. I mean, if she’s got a boyfriend, then yeah, she can blow you off and you can claim that your mojo just wasn’t enough to counter her fidelity. But if she’s homosexual, then I start thinking, “Damn, she’s kinda cool, but do I just bail because I have no chance in hell of getting into her pants? I mean, that would make me look like a misogynistic douchebag who’s only interested in objectifying her obvious female physical attributes instead of considering her other positive traits that are independent of sexual attraction. I don’t want to be a douchebag. Okay, just play it cool, don’t say anything about her being a lesbian, and things will be okay.”
“Lesbian, eh? So that mean you’re gay, right?” says Teo.
“%$#@!”
That’s how it seems to me how Janey’s sexuality is being portrayed. You got these guys who seem interested in Springs, but then either blow her off or feel overly self-conscious when they find out she’s gay. I find that Janey’s sexual orientation is really only highlighted when she is obviously attracted to someone or when someone overreacts to that revelation. For me, at least, it comes off as one of those awkward rom-com situations where straight guys don’t really know how to act with lesbians they find attractive.
Side note: I have since learned to properly socialize with lesbians, and have become good friends with a couple of them. We drink Guinness, talk game, and check out that smokin’ hot blonde in the hot pants. Hey, I was even called “my best lesbro!”
Neither did I. I did notice that she’s got a big booty, but that is hardly an indication of her racial background.
I’m not sure, either, but I think it is because people are stupid and they have access to the Internet.
Sure, he may seem as a caricature of the Black African-American Negro Man of that time. Hell, that streetwise image is present today, decades since then. In fact, it seems that Black American media still does emulate that image and thus further propagate it now.
But is it a bad caricature?
I would say it is a dated caricature, but not necessarily a bad one. The character of Barret seems to take cues from strong positive figures that inspired that image. One example is Mr. T. I can totally see how the Japanese makers tried to model Barret on Mr. T, who is a great positive figure for Black Americans. Sure, he was coarse, and his grammar was not always precise, but he still spoke eloquently and forcefully. The guy was tough as nails, with the attitude to back it up. And though his style was definitely unorthodox, it was a style unique to him, a style that has been emulated, parodied, and copied, but rarely with the same success that Mr. T did.
I personally don’t see it as bad or racist. It’s much like having a character modeled after Elvis Presley or Bruce Lee. Is it racist if a character was a parody of the King in a popular cartoon? Would it be a bad stereotype against Chinese people if another game had a playable character that made high pitched battle cries while practicing Jeet Kune Do? Hey, as long as there are jackasses like Kanye West, Chris Brown, and Floyd Mayweather Jr. held as celebrity role models, then I see no problem with another tough-talkin’, ebonics-speaking, hard-nosed tough guy with high melanin-concentrated skin stereotype.
Ha-cough**cough-some Jack…
It’s for escapism and entertainment value. If I want to vicariously experience the highs and lows of romance and love without actually getting into a relationhip, then I’ll pop my copy of Pride and Prejudice into the DVD player and pretend I could be Mr. Darcy looking for my Miss Elizabeth Bennett, while drinking up a 6-pack (if I’m feeling really bad and self-destructive, then I’ll also get my copy of 500 Days of Summer and some Grey Goose). If I just want to vicariously experience bustin’ a nut without forking over cash for a hooker, then I’ll look up porn on the Internet, while drinking up a 6-pack.
There’s always a target audience for both high brow and smut. Plus, it’s an art form. It’s one thing to see a stripper shaking it around a pole, and it’s clearly something else altogether to see Dita Von Teese perform on stage!
Technically, humans can also create other humans (sometimes by accident, like I was!). Also, entertainment can serve a function, as a tool to keep the masses sated and distracted, placated and pliant, so they can be more easily controlled. But that’s being more or less hit-picky on my part. Otherwise, I concur.
I have to disagree a little here. Despite being a minority myself, I didn’t feel completely comfortable with affirmative action or diversity quotas. Hey I didn’t turning down any scholarships awarded to me just because I wasn’t a “white” dude (hey it’s not my fault if the silly rich white men want to give me money just because I’m not white), but it also felt disingenuous on my part because I didn’t “earn” them solely on my ability, but also on a trivial and ultimately irrelevant trait that I have no control over. I never really fit in with the diversity and ethnic clubs at school, despite having membership in them for several years (I used them primarily to check out the cute chicks).
HOWEVER, that’s just my experience. In time, I learned that one’s ethnicity, skin color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, even social status could be very much connected to one’s identity. And this connection is usually not one made by personal choice. When one is labeled, marginalized, and identified primarily by one of these “irrelevant” traits, then one starts to internalize these traits, and for better or for worse it becomes linked to identity. This identity is then used to find others of a similar identity, supposedly as a way to create a new community where there was none available for them. For these individuals, this “irrelevant” trait could not simply be ignored, because others who lacked this particular trait did not simply ignore them. These individuals were being discriminated based on an irrelevant trait, which can no longer be ignored by them. If you didn’t have this trait, then you got the major hook up. But if you did, then well it sucks to be you.
That is why the “token character” is sometimes needed. It is an attempt to include these people who have been left out by discrimination. Because discrimination had left such a culture gap between these communities, and because lingering prejudices don’t die quietly, small steps would be needed to begin reintegration of the separate communities. Exposure first needs to be established, so the minority community could then be acknowledged. Once acknowledgement is achieved, then regular communication needs to be established and maintained. Once communication lines have been made, the exchange of ideas, culture, art, identity could commence. It won’t be a smooth process. There will be those who will resist these changes, and there will be clashes due to misunderstandings, but as long as there is effort put forth, progress will be made.
At least in mainstream American media, the “token black man” is no longer needed (or at least I don’t think it does). Yes, there are still racist attitudes and stereotypes, but it is not likely that a Black African-American Negro man would simply be included just so there’s a non-white dude in the cast. However, the same cannot necessarily be said of the LGBT community and the Muslim faithful.
This is incorrect, at least within the United States. Yes, the phrases “Men are simply more interested in it, and we are catering to our audience” are partially true. It is more accurate to say that “men’s athletics makes more money than women’s athletics.” There has always been a desire from the local women population to participate, but it wasn’t simply an issue of just “If you build it, they will come.” Why invest in women’s sports when one can get a greater return from investing in men’s sports? It was a matter of economics, not availability.
This has been demonstrated in the effects of Title IX on collegiate athletics. Women participation in athletics soared since Title IX was implemented. However, it also caused the demise of several men’s athletic programs as well. Title IX was a boon for women’s athletics, as it put into law how a school’s funding would be split between men’s sports and women’s sports. Women’s athletic programs were no longer being automatically shafted in order to provide for the men’s programs. However, because of this shift of funding, some men’s athletic programs were cut in order maintain funding for the big money-making men’s sports (e.g. football, basketball). I know this because I was a high school wrestler, and the wrestling program at my college had been cut by the time I enrolled. Now I know Title IX screwed me personally, but I still felt it was a good thing because it gave countless other women opportunities that they wouldn’t have otherwise.
In the end, it’s about money. It literally took an act of Congress to give women more opportunities to participate in athletics. And even then, it screwed over some other people because some people still wanted to maintain their big money-makers.
I don’t understand; what doesn’t care? Also, the “classic” Golden Rule doesn’t seem to be applicable. Common courtesy doesn’t really address the issue on this thread, i.e. need (or no need) of diversity in video games.
Ah, a corollary to the original Golden Rule (he who has the gold makes the rules)! Yeah, I agree with this. If people like it, you can sell it. If they don’t, then you can’t.
It doesn’t need a deeper meaning. I think I explained this above in part by comparing Jane Austen adaptations with kink.com. If you can make a thoughtful and expressive piece of art that engages the audience and can inspire deeper meanings beyond the surface, then go for it and if it’s good, people will buy it. If you just want to make a mind-numbing spirit-crushing game with fan service and explosions, then go for it and if it’s good, people will buy it.
From what I’m getting from all this is that people are starting to see video games (whether explicitly or not) as works of art, another medium of expression that can go beyond simple bright flashing lights and button pushing. Adding diversity and making some characters “catered” for a minority of the targeted audience is important for the artist and not necessarily important for the consumer. If the consumer is able to find some deeper meaning from this work of art, then more power to her. But if not, and the consumer still enjoyed the product nonetheless, then it’s all good.
Just because you don’t need it doesn’t necessarily mean someone else doesn’t need it. Sometimes, a little validation can go a long way. I’m perfectly fine and secure with my identity in regards to race, sexual orientation, religion, height, gender, eye color, hair length, and fashion style. I don’t need someone to tell me, “Dude, even though you are straight, it gets better.” However, a lonely 15-year-old boy in Utah who was recently ostracized by his religiously fundamentalist family just might need someone to tell him, “Dude, even though you are gay, it gets better.”
One last thing: Who sounds more like a Black man: Roland or Brick?
Just because you don’t need it doesn’t necessarily mean someone else doesn’t need it. Sometimes, a little validation can go a long way. I’m perfectly fine and secure with my identity in regards to race, sexual orientation, religion, height, gender, eye color, hair length, and fashion style. I don’t need someone to tell me, “Dude, even though you are straight, it gets better.” However, a lonely 15-year-old boy in Utah who was recently ostracized by his religiously fundamentalist family just might need someone to tell him, “Dude, even though you are gay, it gets better.” [/quote]
But how does that in any way relate to character portrayal in a game like Borderlands?
[quote=“SpiderTeo, post:42, topic:692899”]One last thing: Who sounds more like a Black man: Roland or Brick?
[/quote]
Ha! Interesting question. I’ve never played Brick so can’t tell you, although it has to be said that Marcus sometimes has the most tortured Jamaican accent I’ve ever come across. I’ve never been able to figure out if that’s intended or not
Handsome_Dad
(Wh-?! A mask?! This is tooootally my face! I... uh... )
#44
When a message is truly important enough to invest energy in delivering it, we are best served to deliver it in a way in which it has a realistic chance of being received. A good goal is to use as few words as possible to deliver maximum value.
You wrote so much, you lost many potential consumers.
Okay, then let me try to help you understand: you are different. It is as simple as that. Some people want immersion. Others don’t. Our personal experiences should not be a litmus test against other’s values and preferences.
For example, I’m not a big fan of the ■■■■. Sure, there are some people out there that love the ■■■■, but I’m not one of them, and I don’t think I could ever understand how someone could ever love the ■■■■. I myself am more into the ■■■■■. Call me weird, but I love the ■■■■■. I wish I could get ■■■■■ every day. But I still have no love of the ■■■■. However, because I don’t love the ■■■■ doesn’t mean that anyone who loves the ■■■■ is any less of a person. I am simply different from those who love the ■■■■, and more similar to those who love the ■■■■■.
It shouldn’t matter, in an ideal world. But this is a less than ideal world. For as long as humans have lived on this planet, people around the world have always been subjected to discrimination for totally trivial reasons, but from being left-hand to worshiping unknown deities with alien names. Even though I personally have done well to trivialize and transcend most labels that could be applied to me, I cannot say the same for someone else. I am secure in my own identity that I can be myself while “forgetting” that I’m straight, or male, or short, or a Flip, or totally awesome, or totally crazy, or any other label that can be applied to me. But that is about me, not someone else.
Yes, it’s not good to subconsciously create barriers based on ethnicity or visual phenotypes. But such barriers are not created purely internally, but rather, result from external pressures. That’s how discrimination and prejudice works. Repeated events of being marginalized and shunned can and will cause most people to feel different and separated no matter how inconsequential the difference. You and I probably don’t need a “token character” to reaffirm our own identities, probably because we both have not suffered that much from discrimination. But others might, because their sense of identity has been shaped and warped for several years, and the “token character” is at least one step to affirming that their differences do exist, and that their differences ultimately do not matter. And, hopefully, after many shed tears and gnashing of teeth and misunderstandings put aside, the token character will then no longer be needed. But we’re not there yet, not by a long shot.
Uh, yeah. Didn’t I just say that, as well as several others on this thread?
Read the title of this thread. Then read the linked articles and relies that follow. Sometimes, a little inclusive diversity can go a long way in helping others feel more secure in their own identities.
Dude, you don’t need to have ever played Brick to know what he sounds like. I asked who sounds more like a Black man, not which character handles gameplay more like a Black man.
Others read too little, so they lost many important insights and opportunities for growth.
I write long and heavy because writing one-liner wise-cracks won’t fully deliver the message I am trying to convey. Sure I can simply say, “Damn, all you niggas’ be crazy!” And I would be completely truthful in saying so. But I know that the message will be misunderstood by more than just a few people, understood by even fewer individuals, and possibly confuse everybody else. Thus, I tend to be verbose, in order to fully articulate my simple concepts that have proven to be very difficult to understand.
My aim is for those who would be willing to listen, and possibly gain something from my insane ramblings of a tired cynical bitter old man. Sure, my posts are long and hard, but just like sex, it’s totally worth it if you can last through it all.
I also try to insert humor to ease the struggle of reading my tomes.
If one is willing to listen, then one is most likely willing to learn and change.
If one is unwilling to listen, then one is most likely unwilling to learn and change. So screw those guys!
[quote=“SpiderTeo, post:45, topic:692899, full:true”]
Okay, then let me try to help you understand: you are different. It is as simple as that. Some people want immersion. Others don’t. Our personal experiences should not be a litmus test against other’s values and preferences.[/quote]
Have to say I find this a patronising answer and as such not worthy of my time.
This is all highly irrelevant. I’ve not said people can’t like different things, but that I don’t see why gaming has to take them into account unless it’s relevant to the game itself. In fact, if people like what you have described why should a game maker plaster them all over his/her games?
An example: As great as Peter Jackson’s version of LOTR was, he ruined it for many by creating female characters which simply didn’t exist in the original story. It was so obviously an attempt to create a strong female but IMO it backfired because it actually spoiled the immersive experience. It took people out of the story because somebody completely gratuitous was performing actions and saying lines which a male character had done in the books. There was no need to do it IMO. It didn’t add to the story in any way and it was just a token. Do it if the story needs it, but if it doesn’t don’t do it just to tick a box.
[quote=“SpiderTeo, post:45, topic:692899”]
Uh, yeah. Didn’t I just say that, as well as several others on this thread?[/quote]
No
[quote=“SpiderTeo, post:45, topic:692899”]
Read the title of this thread. Then read the linked articles and relies that follow. Sometimes, a little inclusive diversity can go a long way in helping others feel more secure in their own identities. [/quote]
Patronising again. I have read both the title and the articles. My point is I don’t agree with it.
Tone down the aggression, “dude.” I was thinking more of the original game rather than the sequel. But now that you mention it, I’ve never associated Brick with a Black man. As I’ve already mentioned, Marcus stands out for me because he doesn’t look particularly Black to me but when he speaks he pften sounds like a very poor imitation of a Black man. This makes him seem unnatural IMO
I think I can characterize what I like, thanks. I certainly don’t need your permission.
To me he sounds like someone trying to sound like a Black man but doing a poor job. Whether you agree with that or not is immaterial. It’s how it sounds to me
Claiming that tone makes the message less important is silly. If that were so you could easily go shout at any organized protest that they’re just ~making their message less~ because they feel strongly about it.
Here:
The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the
tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in
question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand.
Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can
allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in
that statement, thus undermining the original party’s attempt to
communicate and effectively shutting them down.
Feel free to read that : )
Uh. Does your self image of a black man involve him having a jamaican accent?
Marcus stands out for me because he doesn’t look particularly Black to me but when he speaks he pften sounds like a very poor imitation of a Black man.
