But, some might say, doesn't that argue against the complaints of women or minorities lacking protagonists like themselves? I don't think so: the problem, as I understand it, is not with an individual work, but with works in general; the problem isn't that Far Cry has a white, male lead, but rather that there are so few leads that are not white and male. It's in works in aggregate expressing certain stereotypes and assumptions--"the man is the hero, the woman the one saved"; "white people are the heroes"; etc.

Boom.

It is a problem because our markets have globalized, so people in regions largely comprising of Others are essentially being asked to embrace entertainment experiences and narratives that don't reflect them; and because our countries are increasingly heterogenous, so even domestic consumers react to the absence of their representation, even as their entertainment revenue is expected; and because of the histories of explicit, overt, inhuman discrimination and abuse that have marred our ability to reasonably extrapolate the likelihood that any given homogenous group other than the dominant majority could have produced competitive, self-representative works within a reasonable time period.

I think [Art is] very meaningful, and in many ways the pinnacle of human achievement. My argument as it pertains to that would be closer to "it's so important and meaningful that we can't ask artists to change" than what you seem to have taken away. I would probably have to write half a book to explain my feelings on the matter adequately so take that with a grain of salt..

...

In general I couldn't care less about content created for profit.. it is what it is... whatever.

Why introduce the "art" argument, then, since we are talking about commercial entertainment products? The fact of the matter is that once you commodify and sell your art, you have responsibilities and obligations to more than just yourself.

I think the only actual problem I have with the arguments in this thread is against those saying it's "racist" not to want to change content. I think asking artists to change content is a bad idea (again, now we're talking about art created from vision, not content created purely for profit).

Again, you are opportunistically conflating art and commerce to create a burden of unreasonableness on the people that you are selling to.

Commercially, a video game is really not very different from a hamburger, and the demographics of characters in the game aren't very different from the demographics of actors in a commercial to sell the hamburger. Do you think it is wrong for minority consumers of McDonald's hamburgers to demand that advertisements for Big Macs and McCafé feature minorities? Because that is the argument you're making.

It's like when people expect models on billboards to have the right skin color and proper body-fat percentage, just so we can feel equally represented or something... it's just... sad to me.. when such things become an issue. Do we really have so little real meaning in our lives nowadays that we have nothing better to work for than that?

You clearly don't understand the issue. Specifically regarding female models, it is about socio-cultural standards of beauty and an enormous beauty industry that spends billions every year convincing women that they need to look a certain way. This creates unhealthy pressures that have been shown to lead to eating disorders and other illnesses, because of the homogeneity of the models presented.

The problem is not that there are skinny models on billboards. The problem is that there are only skinny models on billboards. The problem is that it says only skinny, pretty women are valuable enough to be physical role models—but that simply isn't true.

If society expects a "real man" to be well muscled, tall, and do "manly" things, and you're none of those things, how would YOUR self-esteem fare?

If it makes a difference then that's a psychological problem with me.

No. We humans are social beings. Group identity and acceptance, peer pressure, ostracism, visible difference: these all have significant effect on us, and this is why diverse media representations are a desirable outcome. If media and society appear to only validate people, based on their looks, who you can never look like, is it unreasonable for you to conclude that society doesn't value you?

Young (white) men are so constantly validated, and so much of what is presented is from and for their perspective, that they have no real understanding of how emotionally devastating marginalization can be. As a result they tend to overemphasize individualism—"that's a problem with me"—and underrate collective effects.

I was not referring to changing existing content, but telling people creating that content to change. I have no problem with suggesting it to them, but I don't think they have an obligation to do so.

Why not? They create their content for audiences. If their audience is telling them to change, why shouldn't they? If they refuse to change and suffer audience loss as a consequence, what's wrong with that?

This is what I mean with helping different people build their own alternatives. If a hundred new game studios start up with different views, then existing industry won't have to change at all for the problem to go away.

That would be nice, and that's one way in which the game industry collectively can address the issue—by finding, encouraging, funding and promoting works and even new studios created by people fitting underrepresented demographic categories. But that still means the industry, collectively, changed the mix of what they created. They did what you said you feel is wrong, just not at the individual level.

Not saying that it's wrong to suggest change to existing studios, nor for them to change, just that I don't think it's right to _expect_ them to change.

You only feel this way about demographics (and likely only in cases where the balance shifts away from a status quo that happens to favor you). But there are hundreds of thousands of cases in which product designs and specifications are altered in response to market demand every year. American cars are bigger. American houses are bigger, and their interior design trend is toward "open concept," a reaction to shifting household roles in gender relationships. American portion sizes are bigger. American food manufacturers are starting to label the presence of absence of gluten, nuts and other increasingly common allergens overtly. In my previous post I mentioned the growth in "ethnic" advertising by retailers from McDonalds to Walmart to Chevy to Swiffer.

Why should video games be immune to this?

So the general consensus amounts to…

Nothing. There is no general consensus yet.

I think the RPG character generators are a red herring. You can change appearance but not anything about the game. Essentially all the character interactions are colour/gender blind. Maybe that's a positive thing, buts it's not really reflecting the experience of those ethnicities/genders.

The last Tomb Raider got some abuse for putting Lara in a potential sexual assault situation but at least it acknowledged that the character was female, not just a white dude with boobs and long hair.

Sleeping Dogs was about a Chinese guy and it told a Hong Kong story.

But Mass Effect didn't really care what my character looked like. In a game that tackles Space Racism head on, that's disappointing.

As to the "censorship" argument, no-one is saying that a creator can't tell a white male story, just that we have plenty of them already and maybe other stories would be good.

If their audience is telling them to change, why shouldn't they?

It's a non-question in my opinion, there are zero reasons for them to not change. I certainly wouldn't lift a finger to try and make them remain the same.

At the same time I see no justification to expect someone to make them change. If they look at your reasons and skip it, well.. that's their prerogative. My argument is just with the idea of the absolute "right" vs "wrong", not with trying to change it.

I think we may accidentally have an argument where we don't really disagree.. but not entirely sure. :)

Do you think it is wrong for minority consumers of McDonald's hamburgers to demand that advertisements for Big Macs and McCafé feature minorities? Because that is the argument you're making.

I guess that depends on the definition of "demand", I may have used the word wrongly. I have no problem with stating that you want it and if you don't get it you can boycott McDonalds all you want.

I object to the idea that McDonalds is some God given right that must exist and must exist in the form you see fit. If you don't like it, tell them, and if they don't change then create your own alternative.

I don't think you argue for that though.. so I somehow doubt we actually have to disagree on anything except personal choice of hamburger restaurant. Hopefully there will be one for you and one for me.

If there are groups that are significantly under-represented then I support helping them create representation for themselves. I just consider this discussion as pertaining to the symptoms of an underlying problem and not a problem in itself. If we accept attacking the symptoms with a ferocity that should be reserved only for serious underlying causes, underlying causes such as discrimination preventing people that want a different alternative from creating such an alternative, then we set a very dangerous precedent, in addition to the underlying problem remaining unsolved and hidden.

Part of my posts may not necessarily be an argument as such though.. but just a personal philosophy.. not sure if I've mixed things up too much. I'm sort of in a part of my life where I'm moving towards believing in pacifism except in direct self-defense situations. I haven't come to any real conclusion yet though, so will be a few years before I really know about that :)

Also that only applies to direct confrontation, building your own alternatives next to the existing ones is like a free pass on pretty much anything, which is why I support that route above all.

I may not be too good at expressing these things. I remember a study I read about long ago that showed that we think we know what people writing to us in e-mails actually mean in 90% of cases.

The study also showed that for our friends the reality was 50%. For strangers it was less, though I don't remember that number...

I think the RPG character generators are a red herring. You can change appearance but not anything about the game. Essentially all the character interactions are colour/gender blind. Maybe that's a positive thing, buts it's not really reflecting the experience of those ethnicities/genders.

The last Tomb Raider got some abuse for putting Lara in a potential sexual assault situation but at least it acknowledged that the character was female, not just a white dude with boobs and long hair.

Generators are mostly meant to inspire or provoke further thought. If someone were to cut and paste a generated character, then I can see that happening. Otherwise, it shouldn't be of consequence.

I vaguely heard about the "Tomb Raider controversy" a while ago. I'm not an avid follower of the series, so I can't really say that I'm too familiar with the story behind it.

As to the "censorship" argument, no-one is saying that a creator can't tell a white male story, just that we have plenty of them already and maybe other stories would be good.

This.

Part of my posts may not necessarily be an argument as such though.. but just a personal philosophy.. not sure if I've mixed things up too much. I'm sort of in a part of my life where I'm moving towards believing in pacifism except in direct self-defense situations. I haven't come to any real conclusion yet though, so will be a few years before I really know about that
Also that only applies to direct confrontation, building your own alternatives next to the existing ones is like a free pass on pretty much anything, which is why I support that route above all.

I may not be too good at expressing these things. I remember a study I read about long ago that showed that we think we know what people writing to us in e-mails actually mean in 90% of cases.
The study also showed that for our friends the reality was 50%. For strangers it was less, though I don't remember that number...

Which is why emoticons are so widely used. When we're speaking to others in person, we can use their facial expressions to aid in interpreting their intentions. I suppose emoticons serve the same purpose, although they don't always help. But I digress...

That would be nice, and that's one way in which the game industry collectively can address the issue—by finding, encouraging, funding and promoting works and even new studios created by people fitting underrepresented demographic categories. But that still means the industry, collectively, changed the mix of what they created. They did what you said you feel is wrong, just not at the individual level.

I read this again and may have missed the most important part of what you wrote, at least the part most important to me.

I probably expressed myself badly, I only object to one person expecting another person to change at the individual level.

I do apply that recursively though to organizations, in the sense that an organization of individuals resisting change is acceptable.

An industry that doesn't contain organizations of people thinking differently however I see as a very bad thing (provided there are people in society that both think differently and also want to be part of the industry).

EDIT: And to be extra clear, again, no problem with suggesting or encouraging change in such organizations, just the "expecting" part.

Not sure if everything should be super-absolute either.. but in general at least..

I guess that depends on the definition of "demand", I may have used the word wrongly. I have no problem with stating that you want it and if you don't get it you can boycott McDonalds all you want.
I object to the idea that McDonalds is some God given right that must exist and must exist in the form you see fit. If you don't like it, tell them, and if they don't change then create your own alternative.

In other words, your position is that laissez faire capitalism will solve all forms of discrimination?

That's... distressingly naive. We've had capitalism for hundreds of years at this point, and I don't recall it ever solving a form of discrimination.