Which ethnicity is the new majority under the age of 5?

They are still majority white. It's just that the percentage has fallen to ~50% white, for the first time in history.

Thank you for the graph.

So the general consensus amounts to, "It doesn't matter if we think it's an issue or not. The bottom line is profitability. Target only the people whom we believe will turn a profit and ignore everyone else...literally...until, of course, we believe that they represent a significant majority in the market--which by our reasoning means that they will turn a profit." Oh, the world of business. I should remove my rose-colored glasses. I guess marketing==game design.



For what it's worth, MMOGs seem to have the closest thing to "diversity" among characters (which are created by players). If I wish to create a game that's both profitable and diverse, that's currently the only option I have I suppose. But that's a saturated market.

From a realist perspective this is probably true for games costing $100 million to make.. but certainly not for all games. Also considering the huge market I don't think it's like that either really.. there's money to be made from many types of games.

If you design a good game I doubt the ethnicity you make your characters will make much of a difference for profitability.. but if anything I would suggest trying to stand out and be different rather than conform, as if you mimic the AAA games then you will also be compared to them, and always lose. It's much easier for games with lower budget to appeal by standing out. (Unless you target a specific smaller market).

Also, these "general society" demographic targeting strategies tend to have close to zero meaning unless you can spend enough millions on marketing to turn profitability into mathematical statistics. This isn't the case for most games.

Instead, "The default race for different regions needs to match; Indian version should default Indian, Korean version should default Korean, ..."

I think that this underestimates the ability of people to empathise with people of other races: I don't think that an average Korean person would necessarily fail to connect with an African protagonist.

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.

... an item like a game that only exists purely for entertainment that has no meaning at all.

I take exception to this idea: games can very much be meaningful, just as can any other artistic endeavour. Some, of course, are just fun--are the "summer blockbusters" of the medium--but that doesn't mean that all are.

I still very much value an individual who wants to give good entertainment to minorities, but not someone who is demanding that others should do the same.

If people don't ask for changes, don't express their displeasure with what they're getting, how will creators--and publishers--become aware that anything other than their current output is desired? If we can critique the mechanics or narrative elements of a game, why not the representation in it?

Doing that only works if you create exactly what appeals to you, employing what you know, and targeting people who feel the same.

"What you know" needn't be limited to "people just like you", however--as I believe that someone else pointed out, it's quite possible, I hold, to write characters--even protagonists--quite unlike oneself.

I think that sometimes creators "default" to certain stereotypes--the "brown-haired forty-ish white guy" being a current common default in AAA games. But such defaults aren't necessary--they're simply obvious, and jump readily to mind.

So the general consensus amounts to, "It doesn't matter if we think it's an issue or not. The bottom line is profitability. ...

Honestly, I'm not sure that we have a general consensus in this thread yet.

At any rate, I don't agree with that sentiment, for one.

I do think that it's a prime motivating factor for large companies, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's all that matters, and not all games are made by large companies.

I take exception to this idea: games can very much be meaningful, just as can any other artistic endeavour. Some, of course, are just fun--are the "summer blockbusters" of the medium--but that doesn't mean that all are.

etc..

I disagree with nothing of that, and in some ways I think my underlying reasons for my argument are identical to your reasons, just applied to different sides of the argument.

Not sure if that means we disagree on an underlying reason or just apply them differently...

Like another poster said of something else in this tread, it's just semantics now..

A couple of things you seem to have taken away from my posts that I think is opposite to my actual opinion:

Art being meaningless. I think it's 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..

That I would be against asking for changes. I'm not at all. I'm sort of against 'demanding' _systematic_ change. I think it's good you express that you personally prefer change.

My only real problem with the arguments in this thread is that people seem to stray towards an opinion that not caring about content diversity is racist, whereas I think that the only thing that can be racist is if people are discriminating against people trying to create games with alternative content.

The quote about artists creating what appeals to them may have been inadequately expressed by me.. I absolutely do not mean it as that "what appeals to them" must match themselves at all.

I may have mixed arguments about content created for profit with arguments about content created by vision (art) too much.. hard to really say which is which to be honest.

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

I very much like games, and often even more so movies to mention another example, especially lower budget creations where there's actually an individual behind it whose vision I can experience. 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).

Where there are artists who want to create different content then promoting their ability to do so is very positive.

Where there is content created for profit everything is irrelevant, this is where this is a "first world problem" without real meaning. 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?

Where there is content created for profit everything is irrelevant, this is where this is a "first world problem" without real meaning. 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...

I'm not sure that's a good analogy for what we're discussing here. That particular issue isn't just about feeling equally represented. It's also that presenting unrealistic role models (in general, but especially in this case) leads to self-esteem issues and unrealistic expectations. If society expects a beautiful woman to look like an airbrushed, slim, big-boobed model, and you're a woman who doesn't look like that, how would that make you feel? 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? Especially when not meeting that standard results in being actively shunned or mocked?

Many otherwise perfectly attractive people have self-esteem issues because what they see in the mirror doesn't match what society tells them is beautiful or "what they should look like."

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. Surely there has to be some realistic limits, but I don't agree that the root cause of these things are models being unrealistically beautiful. I've watched so many Brad Pitt scenes in the Troy movie on repeat... and I can't say that I'm extremely happy to not look like that.. but if that gives me a problem the right course of action is finding a way to be happy with who I am, not ruin the movie.

The problem is when we become willing to introduce practical restrictions on other people's freedom just because their lives make us feel worse. Some realistic practical exceptions are often required, but they are few and far in between.

If a person feels that they have to be among the most beautiful people in the world.. then I think they will unfortunately live most of their lives quite unhappy if they can't solve that no matter what the billboards show, and it's much better to try to help them with that than to remove pretty images.

Trying to avoid the problem by removing what triggers it is just attacking the symptoms. Everyone is of course free to do that, in their own home, but we can't expect other people to change just cause we feel bad. We have to accept that in that case we simply have to choose not to look, or join a club or something that works to provide us with TV shows or commercials that show more realistic images. I would be surprised if such don't already exist.

But you're right that it wasn't the best example.. for practical considerations... depending on the size of the billboard and its placement I may agree it should be produced with some consideration for society as a whole.

I think the principle directly applies to video games however, as they are easy enough to avoid if they offend you.

Especially when not meeting that standard results in being actively shunned or mocked?

That is a very real problem, and should be actively worked against. Such behavior is just wrong, and exactly the problem with discrimination in society. When people push other people down it's a very real discrimination that needs to be stopped to ensure everyone's freedom to lead their own lives.

It should be solved by supporting building up alternatives rather than by tearing things down. Most things can coexist peacefully in the areas we're discussing now.

(I don't think anyone is trying to tear anything down here, just important to keep in mind, because it's very easy to find ourselves in a situation where we're so sure that we're doing the "right thing" that we blind ourselves to all kinds of unintended consequences).

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).

When you talk about "changing content", are you talking about alterations to extant works--switching the protagonist of Far Cry to be black, for example? If so, then I don't think that I've seen a call for that in this thread, although I may have missed it.

As to it being "racist to not want to change content", I think that this depends somewhat on what you, and the posters to whom you're responding, mean by that. I think that if an individual artist has a particular liking for a specific type of character, and is intentionally depicting stories that feature such characters, then that's fine--and I don't support telling that artist that they, individually, must depict more characters of other types. What concerns me is that there seems to be a general preponderance in the characters and narratives that we see, which I suspect reflects underlying assumptions and associations, in some cases on a cultural level. For example, if an artist unconsciously associates "protagonist" with "white male", then they may not think to look for stories in which the protagonist is not a white male, or may operate on the assumption that the protagonist of a story is a white male, even if they're not depicting white male protagonists out of intentional preference.

On top of that, I want to see at the least a significant weakening--perhaps even removal--of certain ingrained cultural norms, these insidious associations that get taken for granted--things like "men being active and women being passive", "men as the rescuers and women as the rescuees", or, well, a number of gender roles in general.

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. 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.

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. We don't have a duty to create content that people like (but usually will for economical reasons, the capitalist argument). Also that there are different alternatives to reach the same goal, we don't have to tear down to build up.

Usually prefer solving problems by first building an alternative, in this case games with more diversity, and then serve as an example for others to change. If they then choose not to.. well it won't matter anyway as now there's an alternative anyway.

But in general I have no problem with anything you say.

EDIT: + of course if you're part of a game studio then working to change that particular place from the inside is a very good idea, or otherwise move to another place that better fit your views. Again the capitalist argument, by more attractive studios being able to obtain more valuable employees.

It isn't just about profits. It is also about where the game is being released. If you are selling a game in a region, and you want the game to match that region's demographics, I see no problem.

Selling the game in Korea, and you want to make all -- or nearly all -- of the characters and art to appear Korean? Go for it!

Selling the game in Japan, and you want to make all -- or nearly all -- of the characters and art to appear Japanese? Go for it!

Selling the game in the US and Europe, and you want to make all -- or nearly all -- of the characters and art to appear Caucasian? Go for it!

Selling the game in central Africa and you want to make all -- or nearly all -- of the characters and art to appear African? Go for it!

What if you're selling your game globally—as most AAA titles are these days?

You've effectively just said "there's more of us than there are of them, so why in hell should we care about what they want?"


And that, right there, is the very essence of racism.

I disagree very much with this when it comes to entertainment content. If we're talking about the ability to find employment or other "real things", then you are very right, but for an item like a game that only exists purely for entertainment that has no meaning at all. I still very much value an individual who wants to give good entertainment to minorities, but not someone who is demanding that others should do the same. Saying that there's a "right way" to handle content in entertainment gives me a very bad feeling.

People who don't have to deal with entertainment that excludes and doesn't represent them love to say that it "doesn't matter," but it does. Entertainment is culture. Entertainment is propaganda. Entertainment projects and disperses subtle notions about The Way Things Are™, such that Asians and Eastern Europeans who had never met a black person nevertheless associated them with criminality because that's what the 1980s Hollywood films projected. (And today they associate them with gangsta rap and NBA basketball. »sigh«)

The reason you can assert that entertainment is "meaningless" is because a.) it mostly reaffirms what you already believe/know about the yourself and the world; and b.) society extends you the benefit of the doubt, such that you are not by default judged by the worst examples/expectations of people who fit your demographic category.