Jump to content


Photo

Racial representation in Dreamfall Chapters and the rest of the series


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
84 replies to this topic

#41 Ragnar

Ragnar

    Archduke of Redthread

  • RTG Staff
  • 925 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway

Posted 02 July 2015 - 14:32

I'm sure this is all just a tremendous coincidence. After all, where in the course of three games would Ragnar have the time or opportunity to introduce a positive White male character, or a negative non-White character??

 

SERIOUSLY?

 

This is the most fucked up, useless and offensive observation I've read this week — and that includes the Steam forums. I stay away from most discussions these days, because the Internet is an increasingly depressing and upsetting place, but I'd hoped shit like this wouldn't poison our official forum. And since you called me out personally, I feel I'm entitled to respond.

 

Our team is predominantly white and male. That's unfortunate, and hopefully something we can change in the long term — but hey, we live in Norway and we work in the game industry. Them's the shakes, as they say. As white males, we have absolutely nothing against our own gender or ethnicity, except that it gets dull. We have enough white maleness in our daily lives. Diversity is fun, colourful, inspiring. It makes creating worlds and writing stories more interesting.

 

I actually believe we've failed miserably at diversity in the past. April was white and straight. Zoë — despite her mixed heritage; she's part Chinese — is, by all appearances, white and straight. Kian has darkish skin, but he also has predominantly Caucasian features (modelled after Persians) and he's played by a white actor. Crow… Well, he's a bird, but he's also played by a white guy. Westhouse, Emma, Mickey, Fiona, Burns Flipper, Benrime Salmin, Freddie Melon, Captain Nebevay, Gordon — TLJ was populated with mostly white characters (along with some magical peoples, and most of those were played by white actors). Looking back, I'm actually embarrassed by the lack of diversity, but the world was a different place and I didn't know any better.

 

We were conscious of this and tried to introduce more diversity in Dreamfall, but a lot of the new cast — Brynn, Blind Bob, Reza, Gabriel, Crazy Clara, Garmon Koumas, Minstrum Magda — was still white…or at least non-coloured.

 

(You'll notice that I've also listed characters who are NOT the antagonists or Big Bads of the story. Yep, there are a LOT of positive white characters in this saga. I'd say there's a definite imbalance in favour of European/American whiteness.)

 

We've once again tried to be more diverse with Dreamfall Chapters, simply to keep it more interesting and real, to challenge ourselves and to reflect our changing world. That goes for everyone — the bad girls, the good guys, the people in-between. Mira's a jerk, and she's Indian. Likho's a bit of a dick, and he's played by a black guy. Magnus is a great guy, and he's as white as they come (and please don't give me any shit about how he's a "bad father"; he's a single dad, struggling to be a positive role model for his daughter while mourning the loss of his wife. As a father myself, that role was written from the heart, and if Magnus is a bad dad, then so am I).

 

I know you're trolling, and I'm sure I'm giving you exactly what you want right now, but this kind of shit frustrates, annoys and upsets me greatly. We don't have a "political agenda"…other than to try and represent a world where there aren't just white guys, but a mix of good people and bad people of all colours, ethnicities and sexual orientations. Like the real world. Because if our fictional worlds stayed as white as they were in Dreamfall and TLJ, they would appear ridiculously outdated, which ruins the fiction. I think we're still not there, but at least we're on par with other media now. I'm not ashamed of a lack of diversity in Chapters.

 

But hey, perhaps this is not the real world you live in. Maybe you live in a world where your whiteness and maleness is under constant threat from increased diversity and acceptance of others who may not look, speak or act like us. And if that's the case…maybe it's time you reflected a bit on your values and position, or you'll be left far, far behind.


  • agirlnamedbob, Vainamoinen, khh and 28 others like this

#42 Barentity

Barentity

    Fringe Café Regular

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 108 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 14:36

(Edit: I hadn't seen Ragnar's post when I posted this.)

 

For clarity let me try to explain here the perspective of the liberal left as I understand it. (Of course I'm not saying everyone on the forum is part of the liberal left.) But I think this might help you see why your criticism does not make sense to those of us who have this perspective. I'm not saying you should change your political views; I just hope that you can at least understand where we're coming from.

 

1. Our world is systematically prejudiced.

 

We observe that in the real world, the world that we live in, some people have more power than others. We observe that white people systematically have more power than non-white people - in politics, in business, in culture, in society. Men systematically have more power than women. Heterosexual people, cis people, able-bodied people and young adults are also systematically advantaged. This does not mean that every individual white person is an oppressor or that every individual woman is constantly being oppressed. No, we're looking at things on a society-wide, systemic level, we're looking at a correlation of trends. As a black person or as a woman we know statistically you are more likely to be the victim of violence, harrassment or abuse just because you are black or just because you're a woman. At the same time, there are very few positions of political or economic power held by black people or by women. There are many other trends which we observe and it is based on this evidence that we say, our society is systematically prejudiced. We use long words to describe it, like patriarchy, white supremacy, heteronormativity etc. When we use these words or when we talk about 'oppression' we're not talking about a slagging match between somebody of one race and somebody of another race - we're talking about features of society as a whole.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a person of colour and as a result I have *no idea* what it's like to actually experience racial prejudice. And different people will have different experiences of it. I'm just putting down my very limited understanding of the issues from the liberal perspective that I'm familiar with.)

2. We oppose this.

 

On the liberal left, we observe this situation and we believe that it's unfair. We believe it's unjust, that it's morally wrong, it's unfair for society to be prejudiced against certain types of people for things which they did not even choose to be.

3. We work to change it.

 

People on the liberal left, in the face of this situation, aim for social justice. We're emphatically not aiming to simply turn the tables so that now white people are being oppressed and now women hold all the positions of power. No, we want to build a world in which everyone has equal rights and equal opportunities regardless of who they are. We believe that such a world is not just better for the people who have been disadvantaged, but actually better for everyone. Everyone would benefit - including white people - from a world that is more peaceful and more tolerant, a world where, say, instead of being driven to suicide just because of their gender identity, a situation that is all too common, a person who is queer or trans can contribute their unique talents to society, the ripple effects of which will ultimately enrich us all. We do not want to change who is being oppressed; we want to abolish oppression altogether.

4. We criticise media for reinforcing it

 

It's with this context that we then approach the media and creative works - books, films and video games. And very often we find that those same types of people who are being systematically disadvantaged in our society are also being either completely excluded from popular culture, or being presented in a negative way. And we criticise these works because this is actually just reinforcing the existing power relations in society, the ones that we oppose, the ones we find to be unfair. That is the most important point here.

 

We're not criticising these works because we want to accuse the authors of being prejudiced; we criticise them because we are trying to abolish systematic prejudice in our society and these works are merely reinforcing the negative stereotypes that surround these people and reinforce the existing social order that we want to change. The authors might be prejudiced or they might not be; that's often impossible to prove, but our society as a whole is prejudiced and that's why we use this criticism. Books and films and games might be good ways of challenging the social order that we perceive as unjust, yet all too often, they just reinforce it.

 

We're not criticising these works because people of colour are offended by them - they might be, or they might not be - we're criticising them because of the role we think they might be playing, taken together with lots of other factors in our society, in upholding injustices that we want to change.

5. The situation is not symmetrical.

 

If we find a creative work in which, say, white people or men are presented in a negative light or simply excluded from the story, the criticism from premise 4 is not available. The world that we're living in, the real world, is one where those people are systematically advantaged (we say they have "privilege"). So a negative representation of these people is not reinforcing an unjust social order, because we're not living in a world where white people or men in general are politically, economically or socially disadvantaged just for being white or just for being men. A video game that presents these people in a negative light is not reinforcing any existing negative stereotypes about these people, because there aren't any. As a result, it cannot be subject to the same sort of criticism. It can still be criticised of course, but not because of this. It has no social or political ramifications.

The important conclusion:

The under-representation or negative portrayals of white people / men / etc. are qualitatively different from negative portrayals of people of colour / women / etc. because the world we're actually living in is a world where the former, and not the latter, are systematically advantaged - socially, politically, economically and even culturally.

 

If we get to the point where people are drowning their children in a river just because they're boys, rather than the *real* phenomenon where they do this just because they're girls; if we get to the point where straight people are being executed in Saudi Arabia just for being straight rather than because they're gay, as in the real world; if we get to the point where white people, and not Latinos or black people, are significantly more likely to be under the poverty line; when men, not women, start receiving death threats for daring to speak their mind; etc etc; maybe then we can talk about anti-white racism, homonormativity and misandry in video games and their social-political ramifications.

 

 

(I'm sorry for dragging this out, I just thought maybe, and it's a bit optimistic I know, but maybe for the sake of greater understanding we need to have this explanation here because it's relevant political context.)


  • agirlnamedbob, Vainamoinen, khh and 8 others like this

#43 Happy Tree

Happy Tree

    Vestrum Herald

  • Drachkin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1286 posts
  • LocationTartu, Estonia

Posted 02 July 2015 - 14:39

I think the diversity in this game is one of the best things about it. These things are well on their way to becoming so normalised that in a generation or so they'll be totally banal - as it happened with women's right to vote, etc. That is the way humanity is going and to try to rail against it puts one on the wrong side of evolution, in my view.



#44 Ragnar

Ragnar

    Archduke of Redthread

  • RTG Staff
  • 925 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway

Posted 02 July 2015 - 14:45

(Edit: I hadn't seen Ragnar's post when I posted this.)

 

For clarity let me try to explain here the perspective of the liberal left as I understand it. (Of course I'm not saying everyone on the forum is part of the liberal left.) But I think this might help you see why your criticism does not make sense to those of us who have this perspective. I'm not saying you should change your political views; I just hope that you can at least understand where we're coming from.

 

1. Our world is systematically prejudiced.

 

We observe that in the real world, the world that we live in, some people have more power than others. We observe that white people systematically have more power than non-white people - in politics, in business, in culture, in society. Men systematically have more power than women. Heterosexual people, cis people, able-bodied people and young adults are also systematically advantaged. This does not mean that every individual white person is an oppressor or that every individual woman is constantly being oppressed. No, we're looking at things on a society-wide, systemic level, we're looking at a correlation of trends. As a black person or as a woman we know statistically you are more likely to be the victim of violence, harrassment or abuse just because you are black or just because you're a woman. At the same time, there are very few positions of political or economic power held by black people or by women. There are many other trends which we observe and it is based on this evidence that we say, our society is systematically prejudiced. We use long words to describe it, like patriarchy, white supremacy, heteronormativity etc. When we use these words or when we talk about 'oppression' we're not talking about a slagging match between somebody of one race and somebody of another race - we're talking about features of society as a whole.

(Disclaimer: I'm not a person of colour and as a result I have *no idea* what it's like to actually experience racial prejudice. And different people will have different experiences of it. I'm just putting down my very limited understanding of the issues from the liberal perspective that I'm familiar with.)

2. We oppose this.

 

On the liberal left, we observe this situation and we believe that it's unfair. We believe it's unjust, that it's morally wrong, it's unfair for society to be prejudiced against certain types of people for things which they did not even choose to be.

3. We work to change it.

 

People on the liberal left, in the face of this situation, aim for social justice. We're emphatically not aiming to simply turn the tables so that now white people are being oppressed and now women hold all the positions of power. No, we want to build a world in which everyone has equal rights and equal opportunities regardless of who they are. We believe that such a world is not just better for the people who have been disadvantaged, but actually better for everyone. Everyone would benefit - including white people - from a world that is more peaceful and more tolerant, a world where, say, instead of being driven to suicide just because of their gender identity, a situation that is all too common, a person who is queer or trans can contribute their unique talents to society, the ripple effects of which will ultimately enrich us all. We do not want to change who is being oppressed; we want to abolish oppression altogether.

4. We criticise media for reinforcing it

 

It's with this context that we then approach the media and creative works - books, films and video games. And very often we find that those same types of people who are being systematically disadvantaged in our society are also being either completely excluded from popular culture, or being presented in a negative way. And we criticise these works because this is actually just reinforcing the existing power relations in society, the ones that we oppose, the ones we find to be unfair. That is the most important point here.

 

We're not criticising these works because we want to accuse the authors of being prejudiced; we criticise them because we are trying to abolish systematic prejudice in our society and these works are merely reinforcing the negative stereotypes that surround these people and reinforce the existing social order that we want to change. The authors might be prejudiced or they might not be; that's often impossible to prove, but our society as a whole is prejudiced and that's why we use this criticism. Books and films and games might be good ways of challenging the social order that we perceive as unjust, yet all too often, they just reinforce it.

 

We're not criticising these works because people of colour are offended by them - they might be, or they might not be - we're criticising them because of the role we think they might be playing, taken together with lots of other factors in our society, in upholding injustices that we want to change.

5. The situation is not symmetrical.

 

If we find a creative work in which, say, white people or men are presented in a negative light or simply excluded from the story, the criticism from premise 4 is not available. The world that we're living in, the real world, is one where those people are systematically advantaged (we say they have "privilege"). So a negative representation of these people is not reinforcing an unjust social order, because we're not living in a world where white people or men in general are politically, economically or socially disadvantaged just for being white or just for being men. A video game that presents these people in a negative light is not reinforcing any existing negative stereotypes about these people, because there aren't any. As a result, it cannot be subject to the same sort of criticism. It can still be criticised of course, but not because of this. It has no social or political ramifications.

The important conclusion:

The under-representation or negative portrayals of white people / men / etc. are qualitatively different from negative portrayals of people of colour / women / etc. because the world we're actually living in is a world where the former, and not the latter, are systematically advantaged - socially, politically, economically and even culturally.

 

If we get to the point where people are drowning their children in a river just because they're boys, rather than the *real* phenomenon where they do this just because they're girls; if we get to the point where straight people are being executed in Saudi Arabia just for being straight rather than because they're gay, as in the real world; if we get to the point where white people, and not Latinos or black people, are significantly more likely to be under the poverty line; when men, not women, start receiving death threats for daring to speak their mind; etc etc; maybe then we can talk about anti-white racism, homonormativity and misandry in video games and their social-political ramifications.

 

 

(I'm sorry for dragging this out, I just thought maybe, and it's a bit optimistic I know, but maybe for the sake of greater understanding we need to have this explanation here because it's relevant political context.)

 

What an awesome post, and so much better and more diplomatic than mine. This is why I should continue to leave the discussion to you guys! :)


  • Vainamoinen likes this

#45 Ragnar

Ragnar

    Archduke of Redthread

  • RTG Staff
  • 925 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway

Posted 02 July 2015 - 14:46

I think the diversity in this game is one of the best things about it. These things are well on their way to becoming so normalised that in a generation or so they'll be totally banal - as it happened with women's right to vote, etc. That is the way humanity is going and to try to rail against it puts one on the wrong side of evolution, in my view.

 

That's exactly right, and I guess it's what I was trying to get at…in-between the ranting and raving. Thanks for putting it so succinctly. I shall go back into lurking mode now. Keep it up, good peoples! This battle is almost won!


  • Vainamoinen likes this

#46 Vainamoinen

Vainamoinen

    Harbinger of the Balance

  • Vestrum
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6167 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 14:55

What an awesome post, and so much better and more diplomatic than mine. This is why I should continue to leave the discussion to you guys! :)

 

Your post was incredibly helpful to 'straighten' (pun intended) out some character whiteness facts that for some absurd reason were still in awkwardly forced dispute. There's nothing like the horse's mouth. :P

 

Also, Falk Friedman is awesome.


Hey Ubisoft, you can keep your "seamless vast online GTA in space" to yourselves. Signed, one of the greatest Beyond Good & Evil fans alive.


#47 Roseweave

Roseweave

    Arcadia Native

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 15:01

Ragnar, there's a lot of confusion as to exactly what "caucasian" means. In it's most accurate form it refers to people from the Caucasus region, who are somewhere between Slavic and middle eastern(Semitic or Arab?) and generally aren't typically white. In the old(ridiculously racist) classification that 'white" and "black" come from in the first place, that region was generally labelled "brown". And it's most broad, it includes the most dark skinned of Indians, Tamils and of course the Roma people who are one of the most persecuted groups in existence. When people refer to white people they usually mean typical europeans, esp. English, French, German, Nordic etc. it can be even kinda ambiguous as to how much some italians pass for white, esp. since they have quite a lot of Semitic admixture(Spain has a lot of Moor blood too). Whiteness is just this dumb arbitrary thing that's created to exclude people who's culture or appearance is considered inferior by the mainstream. Even the Irish weren't regarded as "White" at one point.

 

I wouldn't call Reza and definitely wouldn't call Kian "white" and I don't think Zoë ever looked white either(though definitely looks more... ethnically accurate in DFC). It's an important distinction because even people that look a bit non-white will often get treated as a minority.



#48 Vainamoinen

Vainamoinen

    Harbinger of the Balance

  • Vestrum
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6167 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 15:10

I [...] definitely wouldn't call Kian "white"


Ragnar didn't – it's the facial features that were, well, European, if you wish.

5847122c3da412341d8947a9bc6d3de7_dreamfa

It's, *cough* a blackfaced white guy. That was painfully obvious in Dreamfall, especially the concept art, and has been corrected for Chapters.

 

Not quite the same applies to Zoë. There's still nothing remotely Asian about her. Dammit.  :)


 


Hey Ubisoft, you can keep your "seamless vast online GTA in space" to yourselves. Signed, one of the greatest Beyond Good & Evil fans alive.


#49 Shitbot

Shitbot

    Fringe Café Regular

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 69 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 16:18

 

This is the most fucked up, useless and offensive observation I've read this week — and that includes the Steam forums. I stay away from most discussions these days, because the Internet is an increasingly depressing and upsetting place, but I'd hoped shit like this wouldn't poison our official forum. And since you called me out personally, I feel I'm entitled to respond.

You're entitled to respond on any internet forum, but I would hope you wouldn't start your post with insults. It makes everything you say afterwards seem like an excuse to rant about those "horrible racists poisoning" the forum, rather than have a minimally meaningful discussion.

 

 

 

Westhouse, Emma, Mickey, Fiona, Burns Flipper, Benrime Salmin, Freddie Melon, Captain Nebevay, Gordon — TLJ was populated with mostly white characters

Well, with the exception of Brian Westhouse, who is almost certainly a villain of the entire Dreamfall saga (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), the remaining White males out of those you listed are:

 

Captain Nebavay, who obstructed April's attempts to get on his ship from the start, took her in reluctantly, and finally left her to die on the shipwreck.

Burns Flipper, an EXTREMELY abrasive, lecherous, verbally abusive and unpleasant character, who was forced to betray April to the Vanguard.

Freddie Melon, a half-wit janitor with an anger-management problem that April forces to do the monkey dance at (what he thinks is) gunpoint.

Gordon - one of the two main villains, the other one being a green dragon who just happened to take the appearance of an old White guy, as opposed to the good red dragon who shows himself as a Latino Cortez.

You could also mention Zak, the only White male in April's immediate surrounding (that we see in the game), who just happens to be yet another lecherous scumbag, and not a sympathetic one like Burns FLipper, but an outright villain.

As well as April's abusive step-father who, in April's own words, would have certainly killed her if she hadn't left home. And her two step-brothers that she just calls dead-beat assholes.

 

I am hard-pressed to find a single non-White male character who is anywhere near this level of negative portrayal in TLJ or any of its sequels.

 

 

 

 

Mira's a jerk, and she's Indian. Likho's a bit of a dick, and he's played by a black guy

These are sympathetic characters, supporting the good guys/protagonists.  

 

 

 

 

You'll notice that I've also listed characters who are NOT the antagonists or Big Bads of the story. Yep, there are a LOT of positive white characters in this saga.

There's a distinct shortage of positive White male characters, and the only ones present are almost ubiquitously minor characters with very little screen time. The villains, on the other hand, are almost all White males, with the exception of White female Gilmore who takes over from Peats, and Sahya who's playing a supportive role to commander Vamon.

 

 

 

 

If we find a creative work in which, say, white people or men are presented in a negative light or simply excluded from the story, the criticism from premise 4 is not available. The world that we're living in, the real world, is one where those people are systematically advantaged (we say they have "privilege"). So a negative representation of these people is not reinforcing an unjust social order, because we're not living in a world where white people or men in general are politically, economically or socially disadvantaged just for being white or just for being men.

I am glad Barentity wrote this post, because it openly proclaims the anti-White male bias that most everyone else is merely tapdancing around, and unabashedly excludes White males from the list of social groups who are entitled to fair and just representation in the media, citing certain historical and economic factors in an attempt to justify this bias and artificially-maintained inequality. The pointed lack of regard for the proper and dignified portrayal of White males in the same vein as the portrayal of any other social groups is both disturbing and vaguely revanchist, as this horribly prejudiced worldview seeks to replace the flawed social order we've had for a while with an equally flawed social order where one's entitlement to being fairly represented in the media depends on being of the right skin-color, gender, and other attributes.

 
The reasons stated for the anti-White male bias are as dubious as the rest of the post, but their content is actually not relevant to the discussion, as the admitted existence of the bias/assymetry is in itself more than sufficient to single-out this worldview as one based on prejudice, hatred, and injustice. Simply citing a few convenient factoids and (mis)interpretations does nothing to make this position any less deplorable. I assume that if you brought Hitler to the table, he would have a vast selection of Extremely Good Reasons for why it's alright to exterminate and deport Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and others. I can guarantee that his stated justifications for the Holocaust would not include "I am an insane scumbag who wants to see the world burn". So the idea that an inherently unjust and unfair position can somehow be rectified by any amount of injustice committed by someone else... is simply false. Nor does the right to fair and just representation in any way depend on any amount of prerequisites. So the suggestion that White males will not be entitled to an equally fair and just representation in the media, unless we wait for the situation to get so bad that White males are impoverished and exterminated on a daily basis, makes me feel like the post was written by insane psychopath. The principles of justice mandate that violations of human rights are prevented/rectified in full whenever they happen, regardless of the victim's identity, or the socio-economic factors of the ethnic/gender group that the victims  belong to. Anything less than that is stone-cold bigotry which has no right to exist in the modern world.
 
It is disturbing and disheartening to see Ragnar give his support to a post that essentially codifies anti-White male phobia. I honestly can't imagine how I can remain "far behind" such a biased and reactionary world-view, which is essentially a bit by bit mirror reflection of the racism and bigotry displayed in less "enlightened" times. Maybe if I start craving the annihilation of all humankind? No, not even then.


#50 Vainamoinen

Vainamoinen

    Harbinger of the Balance

  • Vestrum
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6167 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 16:31

Yawn
  • Dmm likes this

Hey Ubisoft, you can keep your "seamless vast online GTA in space" to yourselves. Signed, one of the greatest Beyond Good & Evil fans alive.


#51 catnip

catnip

    Rubber Ducky

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 16:42

Guys --

LpKwhEc.png
  • Roxie, Idinyphe, inspector and 1 other like this

#52 Verterdegete

Verterdegete

    Rubber Ducky

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 19 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 16:50

@Barentity


Since you yourself stepped out as a mouth of entire liberal left movement, i will treat you as if you are it's ears also,

 

You like to call yourself liberal left. But for most of you (predominantly younger generations), there is hardly any leftism in your political agenda. You have accepted the current liberal capitalist model as the natural form of human existence. You like to take a jab at it, from time to time, because it's cool, but in truth - you are capitalism's perfect children. You want to see women and black people in equal levels on positions of political or economic power, but not for a second do you stop and question the very idea of a system where there are ( a minority of) people who have economic and political power, and (a majority of) people who don't have any.

 

Equal proportion of white men, women, blacks and LGBT fighting wars for american imperialistic interests in humanitarian interventions in the Middle East and wherever. And an equal proportion of white men, women, blacks and LGBT as CEOs of international banking and corporate Great Old One's. Oh, how bright is the future of western socialism.

 

Right now, we are in the situation where one regional super power (led by a boring old white woman) is determined to humiliate and economically destroy another country, and politically assassinate their democratically elected leaders. All that, so they could make an example for anybody else who would think of electing a truly leftist government or, God forbid, abandon the concept of financial austerity.Fucking CNN has put a countdown till bankruptcy clock, and covered the entire thing with a New Year's eve celebration enthusiasm. Yet nobody on the liberal left, except the old guard, sees this as a problem to comment on. Where are the young SJWs to write articles in Kotaku about this, or make games about this? Or why don't they at least critique Call of Duty for propagating American nationalism (Ghosts) or neoliberal world order (Black Ops 2)?

 

Well, fuck that. No female option for Link, and Kerigan in stilettos - that's what we should write about. Fight the the power !!!

 

 

 

PS: Everybody gets death threats on the internet, for expressing pretty much any opinion about anything - politics, economics, games, sports, tv shows, whatever.


  • LootHunter likes this

#53 Silvirish4ever

Silvirish4ever

    Vestrum Crier

  • Dreamer
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 943 posts
  • LocationTop of the world

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:04

...with the exception of Brian Westhouse, who is almost certainly a villain of the entire Dreamfall saga (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong)...


Now I get it!!!

 

All of this is just a clever strategy to make Ragnar spill the beans on whether Westhouse is a good guy or a bad guy - one of the most debated conundrums in the entire forum!!!

 

Boy, you sure got me going there...  :rolleyes:

 

(I wish this post never got a reply...)


  • Vainamoinen, pazzer, Olstyle and 3 others like this

Leader of the League of Glasses! If you are a fellow glasses wearer, or just find glasses cool, join us!

Solving mysteries with my punch-line-expert partner - Goatee-S. strokebeard.gif

 


#54 Idinyphe

Idinyphe

    Arcadia Native

  • Vestrum
  • PipPipPip
  • 252 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:09

@catnip

 

I agree with you.

 

-------

 

Races = colour of the skin. Really? Really? In this game? There are magicals in it. That concept of race, as a matter of colour does not fit into that game.

 

It is not possible for anybody to include all possible groups and concepts in one game. In my opinion it should not be something to discuss if it has no impact on the storyline.

 

I understand the feeling of being not represented in media and I don't like this either.

 

But media is not a list where you have to check if every possible concept is fulfilled in every combination.

 

It is not even possible to include a minority of possibilities.

 

Sorry, but threads like these make me start to think that the idea of "more representation" may not be so good at all as it would be never possible to please everybody...


Unfortunately that's the story of revenge. It's messy. Never really works out the way you want it to.


#55 Tina

Tina

    RTG Forum Moderator

  • Moderator
  • 2878 posts
  • LocationOslo, Norway

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:25

Guys.. This forum is not the place for gamergate propaganda. Seriously.

If you don't like the views of the developers and the majority of this forum, you are free to leave. Free to discuss it elsewhere, where the majority is not disagreeing with you.

It's like.. I don't know.. Walking into a church, starting to argue why religion is a bad thing or something. It's not going to change anyone's belief. And it's only seen as a nuisance. I know we previously said that our only rules were about "no personal attacks". And that has been okay up until now. It has worked with the user group we've had. But the rules are not written in stone, and they're up for discussion (litterally, they are, now).

It's like what someone else said before. Freedom of speech does not equal freedom of consequences. This thread was never "constructive criticism" as far as I'm concerned. And it certainly isn't now.
  • agirlnamedbob, Vainamoinen, khh and 3 others like this
Tina: RTG fangirl and forum moderator.

#56 Roseweave

Roseweave

    Arcadia Native

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:40

I have to agree about separating liberalism from leftism. I wouldn't consider myself a liberal anymore. I think maybe it is possible to take something like the Nordic model which is still capitalist and fine tune it to the degree where it's a passable system but ultimately it still relies too much on exploitation in other countries, etc. I'm definitely more of a socialist or left libertarian.



#57 Roseweave

Roseweave

    Arcadia Native

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:42

Ragnar didn't – it's the facial features that were, well, European, if you wish.

5847122c3da412341d8947a9bc6d3de7_dreamfa

It's, *cough* a blackfaced white guy. That was painfully obvious in Dreamfall, especially the concept art, and has been corrected for Chapters.

 

Not quite the same applies to Zoë. There's still nothing remotely Asian about her. Dammit.  :)


 

the problem is people tend to view typically "white" features as exclusively white. a lot of north african, middle eastern, desi peoples can still share a lot of the same features while not being typically white.

isabella from DAII is kinda similar. she has mostly quite caucasian features but darker skin. i kind of wish she'd have been more obviously non-white, but she still could be believably of north african or romani(indian?) heritage. 



#58 CosmicD

CosmicD

    Vestrum Herald

  • Shifter
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1555 posts
  • LocationHasselt, Limburg, Belgium

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:46

My head just officially exploded because of 2 things. The unbearable hellish heat here in Belgium (I hate this weather and I want to get the cortesian summer blues), + this discussion.

I wonder what people would have been said if europolis was only filled with white people and there weren't any veiled women running around or chineese or shady neightbourhoods. Would everyone sleep better at night ? I sometimes have the impression that even bringing one hint of diversity will cause someone to mount their high hourse and hurry to tell that someone is trying to push an agenda. What agenda is that exactly ? Which agenda is pushed by imagining a city where everyone lives together. The only real agenda stuff that matters in this game is well... I'm not really saying cause that would be spoilerific. The political stuff is just to represent and reflect a living city with multiple standpoints. This happens in real life, so why can't it be reflected in a videogame ?

It's like people are afraid that a game developer is trying to influence their voting behavior but this isn't even the point where it all leads to in this game.

Would people be happier if in the beginning, zoë could choose not only her career path but the party that she rallied for ? It's not because she's somehow forced (by the storyline) to be socialist, that gamers should be feeling forced to change their oppinion. Can't you just play a game, experience the story , have feelings with that without it being unsettling for yourself ? (this is a serious question, because I can't feel it really. I'll be a "merritocrat". I'll vote for that party that I think will answer more to the sign of times, not really ideologic. Because this world cant be run by one ideology alone. You've got as much as extreme leftism as you have extreme right. And I take my pick in between if I feel our country feels it. The fact that Zoë rallies for a socially oriented party as engagement therapy to get her on her feet again, why do some people feel so threatened or pushed by that ?

Don't worry, these games won't be mainstream any time soon, at least not while everyone is taking it for granted that you're always having a gun with you to shoot stuff and this is considered as mainstream and nobody will say "hey, i feel pushed by the weapons lobby" :P

 I don't see kian as black or white or whatever, I see him as his own race that I don't try to reduce or compare to anyone from this world. He might be compared to a member of the christian crusaders that filled our history with white people trying to use slaves. I just try to take away that part from it, not which races were involved. In the real world it was about being black, in arcadia it's because you're magical. That is a totally different thing and something you can't even compare. So why should it feel politically pushy ?

If you're going to constantly pair stereotypes like that, then Likho is actually Hatesmurf :P



#59 Roseweave

Roseweave

    Arcadia Native

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:46

Now I get it!!!

 

All of this is just a clever strategy to make Ragnar spill the beans on whether Westhouse is a good guy or a bad guy - one of the most debated conundrums in the entire forum!!!

 

Boy, you sure got me going there...  :rolleyes:

 

(I wish this post never got a reply...)

you know as much as there is a lot of genuine white entitlement in his post I get the feeling this is probably a big part of it - though in turn because Brian Westhouse was a fairly traditional american white guy, so Shitbot will probably feel hard done by if his role model turns out to be a villain. 



#60 Roseweave

Roseweave

    Arcadia Native

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 237 posts

Posted 02 July 2015 - 17:46

Now I get it!!!

 

All of this is just a clever strategy to make Ragnar spill the beans on whether Westhouse is a good guy or a bad guy - one of the most debated conundrums in the entire forum!!!

 

Boy, you sure got me going there...  :rolleyes:

 

(I wish this post never got a reply...)

you know as much as there is a lot of genuine white entitlement in his post I get the feeling this is probably a big part of it - though in turn because Brian Westhouse was a fairly traditional american white guy, so Shitbot will probably feel hard done by if his role model turns out to be a villain. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users