Diversity in games
I am way to tired to write a wikipedia the only thing I say is that I am oke with female leads so long it's not inconsistent with the time period if you try to stay true to the history itself. I am oke with gay characters and everything else but if I open my mouth on this particular subjects when I am right people want me to stfu or I start a war just watch the video I agree with this video.
And no I did not start this thread because of Mass Effect I thought about a certain character in AC Syndicate and I got a link to a article about diversity
Now I am gonna take cover
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Except maybe the end part of the video is subjective
I'm all for diversity in video games regardless of the time period it is set in because diversity has always existed in the real world.
that sounds like a good reason
Yeah forced diversity is bad...however as @prink34320 rightly states...diversity has always existed. In the war for Independence...there were Blacks who picked up a musket and helped fight the Brits...there were gays who also did. Diversity is one of the constants in history.
There were also Russians and Germans in World War II.
You don't mistake Russians to live in Germany and Germans to live in Russia just because they both existed.
Constant and significance are two different things.
Religion was a constant and still is. But many argue that it has no significance. I'd don't happen to agree but that's not the point.
Similarly, you don't put diversity in situations where it is completely irresonable or irrelevant. Pretty much all the soldiers who fought in WW1 and 2 were men. Even for the very few women who did, their role was too small to be considered.
I mean, if this stuff took place anywhere else in the world where white people weren't prodominant, nobody would demand diversity because culture. At least I wouldn't see why people would demand that. I'm not ashamed of the fact that most of the people who fought in WWI were men. Why should we feel obligated to include others?
Tell that to the Soviet Union...nearly 1 million women were in the fighting...snipers...mg...thank crew...pilots...front lines. Hell they flew in combat for the Czar in ww1.
And there were blacks in the British military during ww1. Plus the colonial powers used many different people's during each world war.
Try 800,000 women in the armed forces, majority being in the medical field or support positions. NOT in front lines combat. Some where. But most were support units such as gun batteries or medical personal, or communication officiars.
That 800,000 made up about 3% of the total armed forces in the Union.
And that's one nation out of many.
So the point still stands.
That may be a small part, but they were there...they did fight..they did die...you cannot just brush it off as being insignificant when they did fight in some of the worst battles of ww2.
If a game depicts a woman as winning ww2 all by her lonesome...then sure that is inaccurate...but if a game has women as pilots machine gunners...thank crew....political officers...snipers or partisans...then yes...that is accurate. As well as being artillery and anti air gunners.
I'm sure rockstar learned their lesson and next gta will not have all three playable characters be male. Diversity feels like its a good thing because we can get experiences from different perspectives, but it gets ridiculous when games are attacked because their story does not include x y or z.
I mean naughty dog had to come out and respond to sexism claims over last of us... wtf?
And then some people put out shitty games and feel they should be immune from criticism because they are "inclusive"
I have a question, one which is legitimate.
Why is diversity in gaming important?
It depends on what kind of game it is.
Perhaps. And that would make sense.
But in a multiplayer game like Battlefield 1 it would just feel weird to have the setting of World War 1 be filled with women, when they played a small tiny role in comparison. Story mode I'm all for, go right ahead, if you wanna tell the story of the Soviet Union of WW2 and have it be a woman, that's fine.
But ratio is important to consider. WW1 is a historical war, unlike some of the recent stuff that has come out. Even then our times were much different and we can make stretches in statistics, but I feel there is a certain amount of respect in both the World Wars, that we ought to get it right from a historical perspective, and the ratio in that regard was low in terms of gender.
Because gaming is a huge part of our culture and diversity within gaming can hopefully help us be more accepting of other people. Not to mention that its probably a big deal for some people to be represented in games, something us white straight males don't really have to think about that often.
And if it's well done and not shoehorned in then why should anyone be bothered by there being a gay minority character? And as i said earlier, not playing as a straight white guy every game gives us some different perspectives, which can be interesting to some people.
Doesn't mean i think its acceptable to go after developers because their games arent inclusive enough for you. I welcome diversity within gaming, but not a list of boxes every game has to check to avoid calls for a crusade.
Every nation around the world seems to have a central culture, but for some reason, regions like the United States or most nations that involve white people must have some sort of diversity because "we don't understand other cultures enough".
America has no central culture anymore. It wasn't really founded on any, it was a land for the free and it continues to be regardless of culture. But I'm sick of having culture shoved onto me because I'm a straight white male.
I want to study cultures because it's important, not because of the color of my skin, the preferences of my sexuality, and the gender of my body. Wasn't that the whole idea for us in terms of diversity to avoid that? Isn't that the whole point of avoiding discrimination?
I agree diversity has a place, and certainly should. But I'm sick of people complaining about too much white people. America is more than 60% white. If a game is set in America or a white majority country it only makes sense to see mostly white people. Same as in Japan or Korea: if you go there you're probably going to see a lot of Asian people. What's wrong with that? Likewise, the population is a majority straight. Thus if there is no represented homosexual, it's not an aberration. The majority of the population also have their gender correctly linked to their sex.
It seems we are obsessed with inclusion, so much so that we are willing to bully people into doing so and see it as a priority. I do not think it is a priority. I'm afraid this behavior will become more and more accepted and justified, because "We are straight white males we don't know better".
Well sure...but in a multiplayer game..some of those players are female...and they may prefer a female skin..and in Battlefield 1 multiplayer...all pretense of real historical accuracy is abandoned for multi player mayhem.
Except that there's a likelihood that there were Russians and Germans in Germany and Russia, if not purely at the time then it's possible they were by decent - people who did trades, undercover spies etc. I would also include into the possibility.
There are some cases where diversity in a certain time and place is unrealistic, that is true albeit being debatable, but why limit gaming to pure reality? They are, more often than not, meant to hinder between the borders of realism and surrealism, so that they are unique stories that we likely won't ever experience for ourselves but still find very believable enough to get attached to emotionally.
For varying reasons, many people are attracted to games like RPGs because of diverse characters for one instance, if every character in an RPG was a tanned human woman, do you believe that would attract millions of people to play it? Especially when you look at the very diverse games out there - which have made millions - big ones like Bioware's RPGs, The Witcher, Telltale's own games, The Sims series etc.
Some people like to see a portrayal of someone similar to them in games, sometimes as a way to feel inclusion. Some people just like something new rather than everything being similar, they want new experiences, new characters with varying identities, features and bodies. Diversity in gaming spans farther than the characters themselves even - things like diverse game-play are big draw ins for players as it means they can play the game their way rather than just one person's way.
I don't even need to delve into the importance of diversity in gaming if the game is an adaptation of a diverse show (Naruto, Dragon Ball etc.).
Mass Effect has always had a female protagonist. And I won't let anyone tell me otherwise.
Though I've noticed that all these 'egalitarians' say "I don't care if the protagonist is male or female, I just care if the narrative is good," but in reality the second there is a female or minority lead, they're the first in line to scream 'shoehorning! shoehorning!' (I don't mean you specifically).
So basically it's either shoehorning or limiting creative freedom, either way they get to bitch.
Exactly, you can't say you don't care but then proceed to care when the character is a specific gender or enithecity you have an issue with.
It's fine when not forced.
Who cares if the player may be female?
What does that have to do with anything?
"They may feel offended or ousted because they can't play as a female."
Give me a break, this is the definition of a Devouring Mother. If people can't accept that males were almost exclusively put into front-lines combat and can't respect historical context, then I've lost all hope in this generation of humans.
Putting females into the front lines when that just wasn't a thing for most nations is like putting Darth Vadar in WW1. Sure Battlefield 1 is not supposed to be accurate in the sense that it is telling an actual account, but I think it's absurd to say "Well it's a game so we can do whatever we want" when playing around with a historical time period that has actually happened.
We have a multitude of Sci-Fi, Fantasy, and even Alternative Universe games where women are of equal or higher footing to men. Why can't we have a game with historical context and not have progressives ruin the immersion by shoving in their inclusiveness for bunk reasons?
What's next? Games won't be allowed to say n***er even if the context of the word is completely normal for the set time period? Because it may be offensive?
My objection comes when people start adding a bunch of female soldiers in front lines combat in WW1 because "It's not progressive enough".
Meddle with your own fantasy and time periods. Leave historical context out of the picture, unless it is some sort of alternative universe, but as far as I am aware that isn't what Battlefield 1 is shooting for (pun intended).
I don't mind diversity, really. If a creator's got an idea for a character and decides to make them gay or black, or some other minority, that's fine as long as it isn't forced in just to please the politically correct bunch or if it's unrealistic. Like, if someone were to make a game of Ireland's war for impendence, it's just a simple fact there ain't going to be any black people. That's not racist or offensive, it's just historically accurate. Other than that, I've got no problem with diversity.
What does annoy me, though, is if a game, movie, show or whatever, doesn't include diversity with it's cast, it automatically generates a big backlash from the SJWs and a calling for them to include some. If the creator didn't want to have diversity in his/her creation, that's their choice. In the same way if they did want to have some, that would also be their choice and neither is in anyway worthy of getting butt hurt over.
You are being rather butthurt over cosmetic choices...it is giving paying customers, as in they paid cold hard cash, choices to customize their avatars.
I think, I understand where you are coming from though. It sucks being shot by a girl, probably hurts your pride. Male inferiority complex syndrome is a growing issue.
Life for boys became harder when their little sisters began to play video games. Why oh why couldn't they have stayed with the Barbie dolls? Suddenly we had Laura Croft, but you consoled yourself with the fact she had great big tits and a shapely ass....well until the reboots when she turned more normalish, as normal as video games allow.
I personally blame Samus from Metroid. Why she was not at some home waiting to be killed by some space pirates and not cruising the universe killing pirates? What was Nintendo thinking?!
In Battlefield1 you do not have to deal with it...so what is your problem? That people want these models? Fine you win...have your sausage party in the trenches as the tanks speed around like race cars. But this seems like an awful lot of butthurt over female models in a game. Sure women did not fight in great numbers in the wars....but if you are using that logic then we should be seeing mostly Indian troops in WW2 games. Or Asian troops.
Having female models does not change the historical fact that war is misery. Women did fight...they did die in a war that ultimately was a pointless waste of life.
"Why limit a historical event to history?"
That's essentially the question you asked.
The hell are you rambling on about?
I give you factual arguments discussing the ratio between the male fighters and female fighters, and I'm met with this? What even is this? Not even sure how I can deconstruct this argument; where to begin?
I am not butthurt about cosmetic options I am against cosmetics that make no damn sense. I do not care what you say: women in these wars were so few that it is insignificant to add them in; due to the ratio, it would just look out of place with the time period.
You wouldn't have a game set in America and have every one but a select few be white. No. The ratio is about 60% white and 40% other races. The cosmetics, the diversity, matches the sensible ratio.
But then you go on a tangent about masculinity, making straw man arguments and accusations about my character based on the stereotype of men that was somehow constructed into your mind.
Battlefield 1 is based in WW1, WW1 historically had millions of men die, and women historically speaking worked as support, or took over the jobs back in the countries that men couldn't do due to the war.
Women had their part in the war and in economic growth. But they were an aberration in the front lines if you ever saw them.
It seems I am not the one who is butthurt here. I was simply making factual arguments with some opinion thrown in. You're the one that seems to be triggered by this.
Shhh it's ok, it's ok. You can have your WW1 game. Though I do have to wonder about you claiming it would "feel weird" if there were a lot of female soldiers....most of your combat is from great distances..besides if seeing a female model distracts you, then you have some issues that video games are never going to help you with.
So yes it is WW1...but so what? It is a video game...no one plays them for the history lesson do they?
Well the paying customer might
They paid for a game?
Never said that...just said they may prefer to play as a female if there were the options
This is the definition of butthurt...you bring up some nonsense to support your idea of why it is insane to include female soldiers in a game that in no way is historically accurate.
Well unlike Darth Vader...there were women in combat on the front lines...so I once again point out that this seems to be the wailing of a little butthurt boy.
WoW and here it is folks...the women have taken the cool jobs in SPAAACCCEEE
Obviously you are inferring two things that are different. Pretty stupid argument.
How about this, your stupid Red Pill Philosophy is picking a fight that is just stupid. If there was a game that Had a woman winning the Great War by herself or some such idiocy...I would agree with you. But multi player model choices? Really?
"People paid money for the game."
Paying money for a video game does not make you entitled to the content within. That's stupid.
"There were women in the front lines"
You clearly can't understand what I mean by ratio.
"The game isn't historically accurate."
I'm sure they just made all the historical weapons, tanks, armor, locations, and other such things up in their head, right? The weapons in the game may not have been as common in the actual war, but they existed, and for the purposes of variations, it was allowed. However, there is a different between things that are made an exception due to ga me play and an exception just because. Yours is the latter. It meddies with history for no damn reason other than you want to play as a girl. Fine: done play Battlefield 1 then, and don't demand that a game based on a historical real event where millions of MEN died should have women because cosmetics.
"Multi-model choices..."
Isn't my objection. You don't seem to get my argument. I have no problem with it on a content level. My contention is on the legitimacy level.
Personally I do not care..the tanks are real...but their speeds are not....you argue that some of the weapons were not common(an understatement for quite a few of them) But they were there...hmmm wait...isn't that my argument for female soldiers? They were there. Now personally I don't give a shit if female models are in a game...but I know some people do. That is my point...female soldiers did exist...and some probably in greater numbers then some of those weapons in the game. But this is a moot point as Battlefield has no female soldier models. Nor does Verdun.
Again, I take you back to the point where I said "exceptions for gameplay is different than exceptions just because."
Cosmetics is not as important as gameplay, thus historical leeway was to be given on that regard. But if they kept going they were going to piss a lot of people off because they muddled the historical context of the war.
There were deployed women, but the Soviet Union deployed the most in WW2, and I pointed out that 800,000 women only made up for 3% of the total Soviet forces. All the other nations, especially during WW1, deployed FAR less, the US only went as far as 13,000 women for stateside duty, if I am reading correctly.
Canada:
Australia:
Great Britain:
Finland:
Ottoman Empire:
Russia:
United States:
Great for a single-player story. Nightmare in any other larger-based context. Just because something is multiplayer doesn't mean all consideration for accuracy is out the window.
Why limit the adaptation of a historical event to our limited knowledge of history?
Fair enough. Diversity is an attractive thing to have.
I am more concerned with diversity in terms for Social Justice instead of for enhancing the quality of the game. There are games that shove a woman side-character in, either because they think they're being progressive, or they are afraid of NOT putting a female character in there, or a black character, as a significant side character or the main lead.
Diversity for Social Justice is cancerous and restricts expression.
Our knowledge of history isn't exactly limited...
If we go far back enough yes more interpretation is needed but definitely not for WW1 and most certainly not for any time afterward.
There's a difference between believably in adaptation and plain adaptation. You want to maintain belief in adaptation and if you have a bunch of women running around the battlefield when there were only... what a few thousand deployed to any actual combat at the time of World War One? Yeah that's a problem. Not something you can just glaze over, like more common use of exotic weapons or increased tank speeds in the game.
I wouldn't care if this where any other game in modern times or based in any fantasy setting... but not for historical contexts.
So just to be clear...you have an issue with females soldiers in a ww1 game even though they did fight, because you are afraid you will see nothing but female soldiers in a game? So you are willing for those women who died in the battles to be ignored? Because you do not want to see a multiplayer game with nothing but female soldiers in it? I mean I am confused by your argument which is it would cheapen the men who died in the actual wars...but you have no qualms about ignoring females who died in combat?
That was a strawman accusation; when did I say that I didn't want remembrance for women who died?
In any case the women who died is insignificant to the MILLIONS OF MEN who died.
Not to mention that this game isn't a memorial.
This argument is getting tiring.
That depends on what sort of game this hypothetical WW1 game is.
It is it pretending to be an ultra-realistic portrayal of the conflict? Or is it an over-the-top shooter that has more in common with an action movie than the historical war used for the setting, like some of the Call of Duty and Battlefield games?
If it's the latter I wouldn't see an issue with having a female character. You could probably find forty other things in the game that were also complete fantasy. There would be no reason to single out just the female character, when the entire game bore only the slightest resemblance to reality.
Some war-based games with historical settings could also have a female protagonist, without deviating from history. The Red Army in the Second World War had female pilots, tank crewmen, and snipers for instance. A game set on the Eastern Front could feature a character based on those women and not be at odds with history. No doubt however the usual voices would whine about pandering.
Now a game set in ancient Rome on the other hand, couldn't get away with having a female protagonist in the Roman Army, at least if the devs were aiming at a realistic portrayal. That would kill suspension of disbelief and come across as rather ham-handed, since female Roman soldiers did not exist. If the game was more similar in style to the movie 300 than the TV series Rome? Sure, why not? At that point it's more comic book than history.
It all depends on the game, the setting, and whether or not the setting is being portrayed in a realistic or fanciful manner.
The Assassin's Creed games fall into the latter, by the way.
The Majority of Foreign Volunteers (coughs some conscripts) within the German Army were Russian. So much so the Germans formed an independent Russian liberation Army, with it's own uniforms, own insignia, own flag, etc. I say Independent loosely however.
Large numbers of Germans served with the Soviet Army as well. Mostly Pro Communist, and Anti Hilter/Fascist POWs who chose to serve with the USSR than rot in a POW Camp. If they didn't already defect before they were a POW of course. To boot, before the war there were a lot of Germany Colonies you can say within the borders of the USSR, immigrants which moved to Russia during the time of the Russian Empire. Ironically the Nazis shipped most of these German colonies back to Germany when they came across them, but you can imagine, many were already conscripted into the Red Army before the war started.
So that being said, having Russians and Germans fighting against their own people in a video game set in WWII is very very historically accurate. As long as the story is presented correctly however surrounding the cast of characters. Just like women pilots existed on all sides during the War, for some more than most of course. USA and USSR had the most, UK/Britain had the least. And racial minorities fought on all sides even in Nazi Germany they had ethnic minorities like Asians and Africans in uniform, though making up such a tiny % of the population, you rarely see images of them, outside for foreign volunteers & conscripts.
So plenty of room, again, if the characters and story are presented correctly.
Well of course if a game wants to accurately depict a major historical event, then it would be rather ridiculous to change major aspects of it when it comes to diversity, but that doesn't mean the game has to limit itself to historical context unless the game is attempting to accurately depict what is being adapted. i don't see anything wrong with a game changing aspects of historical events, it's been done before and will continue to be done. Alternative story-telling is just as good in my opinion (if done nicely).