27 minutes ago, frob said:

That's the trick, isn't it?

I'm wary of calling it "lazy" in all cases.  All development has a cost. The cost of assorted skin textures is very low but not quite zero.  For a hobby developer, that cost financially is relatively large. Instead of buying/finding a single texture, they now need several at several times the cost or effort. For programs in the past that needed to fit on tiny cartridges or downloadable bundles measured in kilobytes or megabytes that cost in terms of space can also be large.

For large teams in professional settings who have the resources to change a few skin textures, though, I agree it is mostly laziness. There may be some UI costs and some systems work, but relative to the rest of the game it is small if designed from the beginning. 

 

More versus better is why I said what I did above.   I wrote for WW2-era games realism means predominantly white males (about 80%) if you're striving for a realistic number for the main game.  Critically, that doesn't mean 100% white, nor does it mean 100% male.   A studio building a WW2-era game that claims they chose exclusively white males for historical accuracy is being lazy/cheap.

If you're not looking for a realistic blend and you have the budget, let them be whatever options you can imagine. Pick a mix of races and genders, even skin tones adjusted by a color-picker so you can have blue skin, red skin, green skin, whatever. 

 

"More versus "better" is important both in real life and in game designs.

Better diversity does not mean equally represented, with 50% male and 50% female, and each race or ethnicity represented in equal shares, although frequently that's what you hear from people wanting "more" diversity.  For many reasons (both good and bad) there are socially prevalent gender roles.  In the US, about 91% of nurses are female, about 94% of childcare workers are female, about 99% of bricklayers and stonemasons are male, about 98% of all fire fighters are male. Computer programming is a similar mix to nursing, about 90% male and slowly shifting more female.  While people constantly debate if the ratios are healthy for society, it is foolish to ignore the fact that they exist and are the levels that they really are.

Based on that knowledge, for our real life diversity that means women programmers should be about one in ten and stay at the ratio as studios grow. A studio who has 45 male programmers and 5 female programmers is right on target for gender diversity. Racial diversity depends on location, but again should be roughly those of the demographics around them.  In that environment people aiming for a mix of 50/50, or even 70/30, are pushing for "more" rather than "better". 

Using that knowledge in the game's diversity, I would expect that if visiting an elementary school in the game I'd see an equal gender mix of children but a mostly female teaching staff.  Players visiting a construction site would expect mostly males. Shoppers in a grocery store would be about 3/4 female, shoppers at a hardware store about 3/4 male.  Demographics of the area matter as well, the area outside a building should have a similar racial makeup as those inside the building.  A level designer wanting to make them all equally gendered and equally raced is confusing "more" with "better".

Better diversity does not mean perfectly equal distribution. In games it can mean enabling more choices for skin tones so players have options, but even then it should not mean perfectly equal distribution.  Those who fight for a perfect 50/50 gender balance or equal racial divisions may have "more", but it is certainly not "better".
 

It doesn't need to be just about gender and skin color. 

Many games these days follow a good balance to elements beyond gender and skin color.  Traveling to a mage city has more mages but still a mix of rogues and soldiers, traveling to a military barracks will be mostly buff soldiers but still some mages and rogues.  Or if you've got a mix of humans, elves, dwarfs, rat-men, and treefolk, expect the city in the forest would be mostly treefolk, some elves, and an appropriate mix of others blended in, similarly an underground fortress I'd expect predominantly dwarfs and rat-men but almost no treefolk.  Not "more" diversity, but "better" diversity.

Well, lazy might be the wrong term anyway. It somehow puts the developers in a bad light when they simply might not have the time and resources, and their publishers / investors pushed them to create a more traditional, less risky product.

I feel that is the problem behind many problems in AAA development nowadays. So many interests to take into account yet so little resources to spend.

I absolutely agree with everything you said. Yes, I think we SHOULD show diversity as it is in our society. And to add to that, I understand that there is interest to concentrate more on showing the genders /ethnicities that got underrepresented in games with new releases. I absolutely agree. We need more black heroes (not so sure about female ones... 4 of 5 games I will buy for my PS4 this year feature female protagonists... seems like women are already featured as protagonists quite often, but that is besides the point).

But I feel like often, instead of giving them their OWN story and their OWN games, they get tacked on. Because again, the AAA industry wants to have their cake and eat it too. When they need to sell the product to EVERYONE, diversity as portrayed by these games will often be a frankensteins monster.

I guess we have to look forward to smaller, maybe even Indie releases, to really put minorities and different genders in the spotlight without twisting the diversit into something weird. Or just enjoy the few instances were minorities and different genders are implemented into an AAA game well, like in Horizon Zero dawn (I don't get the whole drama around the matriarchical society of ONE SINGLE faction in the game, really... besides that it handles diversity well IMO).

I'll agree that AAA games development is overly conservative (in the literal sense of the word), when it comes to features and story.  It'd be great if they decided to stretch themselves a bit more, but then again, they're selling well as they are.  Lightly re-skinning the same gameplay over and over seems to be working for them.  BF1 did really well, even if it did hew more to standard BF formula than makes sense for a game set in WWI.  

I still think Gian is getting overly hung up on aspects of the multiplayer portion of the game, when I'm pretty sure CoD developers never claimed anything about it's accuracy in regards to it's multiplayer.  

Also, I see nothing wrong with a developer wanting to depict a portion of society that is oddly sexist, as well, not sexist.  If they want to make a game set inside a game development studio, and have it be staffed by an equal ratio of men and women, I don't see a problem with it.  If you do, you might want to step back and think about why that bothers you.  Too often I see complaints about "It's not historical, or it's not realistic", used as ways to be sexist or racist without having to be overtly so, and sometimes I think the people doing the complaining don't even realize it.

23 minutes ago, ferrous said:

I see nothing wrong with a developer wanting to depict a portion of society that is oddly sexist, as well, not sexist.  If they want to make a game set inside a game development studio, and have it be staffed by an equal ratio of men and women, I don't see a problem with it. Too often I see ....

That isn't what this topic is about.  In fact, it was specifically called out several times as NOT the thing under discussion because that leads to flame-wars and topics getting closed. The original post called that out specifically, with examples of games allowing more options than are historically accurate.

So let's steer away from that before it follows down the ugly path.

The topic is about the relationship between "more diversity" and unwanted results.

Or said differently, about situations where "more diversity" is actually a worse situation than realistic diversity or historical diversity.  More is not the same as better.

The example points are a game where you could create a black Nazi soldier, where in real life that wasn't a thing except for a tiny number of exceptions, blacks were shunned in Nazi doctrine and many had a "forced sterilization" in an effort to end the race through eugenics rather than through direct execution.  That's why there is controversy in some groups regarding the latest CoD game where you could use such a non-historical character.

As swiftcoder stated:  The uniform is auto-assigned by what team one is on.  Is it any better that half of all multiplayer players, people are fighting on the Nazi side?  Isn't that distasteful?  What is it about there being a black guy on the the Nazi team that is the last straw?

EDIT:

Or is it just a game, and the Nazi aspect of multiplayer deathmatch doesn't matter, in which case, why not let them be black?

Yes, the answer is to do nothing and pretend race and gender doesn't exist, all the while racism and sexism still happens.  That works great if you're the one in power already.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand MLK, he fought for rights, he fought to put the plight of black people in the public eye. 

Quote

Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured.

3 hours ago, frob said:

Or said differently, about situations where "more diversity" is actually a worse situation than realistic diversity or historical diversity.  More is not the same as better.

I think there's a delicate distinction to be made here. As I read it, the OP seems to be asking whether the *push* for more diversity can cause problems (and not whether increased diversity itself causes problems).

I'd like to steer the discussion that way a little - keep the discussion on the methods used to achieve diversity, and not whether diversity is a desirable end goal.

I'd argue that having some diversity where none existed before, even if the results are mildly problematic for some, is better than no diversity at all.  In the WWII 'realism' case in a team deathmatch where outfits are assigned, I don't see a nice why of doing it without going to equally squicky lengths, like forcing a certain outfit or team on a player.  (Oh, you black avatars can only play as outfit X or only on Allies)  I think the best option in this case is a "Default Models Only" toggle, that if checked, the player will only see the default models on their screen.  Black guy gets to play as a black guy, 'historical realism' guy gets a toggle so he doesn't have to be bothered by it.

They might even have that option, who knows, it's certainly not a new option, I've seen it other shooters.

17 hours ago, ferrous said:

As swiftcoder stated:  The uniform is auto-assigned by what team one is on.  Is it any better that half of all multiplayer players, people are fighting on the Nazi side?  Isn't that distasteful?  What is it about there being a black guy on the the Nazi team that is the last straw?

 

EDIT:

Or is it just a game, and the Nazi aspect of multiplayer deathmatch doesn't matter, in which case, why not let them be black?

And in what way does auto assigning stop you from going the extra mile and integrating more diversity on both the axis and the allies side by giving people appropriate uniforms? Extra work? Yes. And this is exactly my point. A little bit of extra work would make for a much better form of diversity.

After some thinking, I will not even go into the whole "calling all german soldiers nazi" thing... obviously this is a very strong opinion of yours, and I respect that. Suffice to say I could go off on a long tangent on what I think about that, but I will not, as this will derail this thread even more.

13 hours ago, ferrous said:

I'd argue that having some diversity where none existed before, even if the results are mildly problematic for some, is better than no diversity at all.  In the WWII 'realism' case in a team deathmatch where outfits are assigned, I don't see a nice why of doing it without going to equally squicky lengths, like forcing a certain outfit or team on a player.  (Oh, you black avatars can only play as outfit X or only on Allies)  I think the best option in this case is a "Default Models Only" toggle, that if checked, the player will only see the default models on their screen.  Black guy gets to play as a black guy, 'historical realism' guy gets a toggle so he doesn't have to be bothered by it.

 

They might even have that option, who knows, it's certainly not a new option, I've seen it other shooters.

I might agree to the first statement. Yes, only having white dudes play the main roles in video games 24/7 is wrong. Not mainly because more diversity fosters a more divers audience (another thread right there), but because minorities and different genders should be a part of the video game fantasy just as much as they are a part of our everyday reality.

Now, there are different ways how this diversity can be achieved. And this is where I question the current "brute force" approach. When we say minorities have to be a part of video games... do they have to be a part of EVERY video game? Or will a game mainly about a part of european history for example not be better served if diversity doesn't force devs to shove in unhistorical diversity... if said game is latter made up for with a game mainly about the history of a different ethnicity?

To go off on another tangent, I am pretty excited to hear about some guys in africa starting their own game dev projects. One of those seemed to be an RPG with very strong african influences. Now I would LOVE to play that game, I really think the african culture will make for a very good backdrop for a non-high-fantasy RPG. Will that game have to feature white people for diversities sake? I hope not. Unless it taps into the whole colonial era, that would be out of place... unless the guys decide to create a fantasy world of mixed races, and tone down the african influences... which, for me, would be a shame, because we already have more than enough of these. That might be me, but I don't care much if my player character is white, black, male or female... as long as its a cool character taking part in an awesome story.

And to adress the "better than nothing" thing... bad forced diversity being better than no diversity at all doesn't mean we cannot ask for improvements, for a better handling of diversity in video games. For devs to take the topic serious and actually starting to think about it on their own, and not just reacting to external demand from forces which seem to have way to much power over the implementation of the change they are (often rightfully) asking for.

A feminist or activist for minorities rights is not a game story writer. It should be up to experts in the subject field to implement these demands

As to the "forcing an outfit on a black avatar"... 1) the white avatar also has a limited selection of outfits... equal rights, right?.... 2) is it now racism to depict history as it was (racist, most of the time)?... 3) maybe its the golden middle ground where both sides get a little bit offended (the racists have to see black people in their video game, the liberals have to see the black and white soldiers being separated into their own units), but neither can claim that this is an outrageous act of unhistorical pandering for diversities sake, or white supremacy BS because of missing representation of other ethnicities? You know, a good old compromise both sides try to live with. I know that has gone out of fashion some time ago.

The idea with the toggle on the other hand. Yes. And yes again. I talked about this options a page ago. Absolutely agree on that. I guess we live in a sad time where the left and the right have trouble finding an acceptable middle ground, and want to live in their own "safe space bubble" rather than face the reality that people have other opinions than them, and all they can do is accept that and try to live with it. But again, food for a whole new topic.

A separate mode would probably be the optimal solution, but unless the server population is big, that might divide the players too much for the matchmaker to handle. A switch from realistic factions to custom avatars could help the problem for this single instance.

Will not stop me from lamenting about the devs taking the easy way out, and that more thought should go into how to implement diversity in games. But then, I guess its a compromise I could live with.

True that it might actually be implemented... maybe its just not in the beta. Or the guys making the videos left that out of their discussion of the topic for a reason. After all, youtubers often feed on controversy, no matter if rightwing or leftwing.

Separate uniforms, I'd frown on, because it's basically a form of segregation, and it would definitely suck if the black character's uniforms ended up being easier to spot, giving a gameplay advantage to those who choose white characters.  The main people it bothers to see black guys in nazi uniforms are, people with historical hangups in an already very much not historical game mode, and racists.  I'm guessing people with historical hangups aren't going to be too keen on buying a CoD game in the first place, so that pretty much just leaves the racists. 

Quibbling over wermacht or nazi, when the wermacht did plenty of terrible shit, and fought alongside and for the nazi party is a bit silly.  Feel free to start a separate thread, but it starts to head off into weeaboo territory very fast.

They have a separate mode already, it's called Single Player Campaign.  It's much more likely to hew more towards realism. (Slightly, this is after all, Call of Duty we are talking about)

And it's not a both sides thing when it comes to squeezing white people into a game.  It's called punching up instead of punching down.  IE give a helping hand to those who need it, and are lacking representation, not giving more representation to a group that is already well represented.  And remember, Europe was actually pretty diverse back before WW II, it's something that seems to get overlooked, especially in fantasy games.  There were the moors, Poland's population was 1/3 minorities before WWII, heck even one of Napoleon's generals was black.