Support NeoGAF

[Toxi]

"Black" describes more phenotypic features than skin tone. But fine, I'll give you what you want: Septimius Severus did not look like sub-Saharan African peoples.

Many would categorize North Africans as black.

That's because "black" is not a real biological category and there was never a consistent agreement on which phenotypic features defined blackness. Sometimes groups not often thought of today as "black" (Chinese immigrants in the United States) were lumped into the category of black.

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

Many would categorize North Africans as black.

That's because "black" is not a real biological category and there was never a consistent agreement on which phenotypic features defined blackness.

Of course, race is a cultural idea, a collection of phenotypic features that a given society recognizes and puts a name to. I was never arguing otherwise. I'm just trying to correct two posters who (wrongly) said that a certain Roman emperor "was black" (i.e., had features conforming to the modern idea of "black"). If they meant black in any other sense, they didn't say so.

 

[Toxi]

Of course, race is a cultural idea, a collection of phenotypic features that a given society recognizes and puts a name to. I was never arguing otherwise. I'm just trying to correct two posters who (wrongly) said that a certain Roman emperor "was black" (i.e., had features conforming to the modern idea of "black").

Oh, sorry then. That's what I get for not reading the thread properly.

Never heard this before. What about Southern Italians? Many if not most of them look like North Africans and share similar ancestors.

Never heard Southern Italians called black, but I have no doubt some people would consider them black. Many times in US history, black was used as a catch-all term for "non-whites" (Which included many groups we would think of today as white).

 

[kamorra]

Many would categorize North Africans as black.

Never heard this before. What about South Italians? Many if not most of them look like North Africans and share similar ancestors.

 

[OsirisBlack]

Serious question, If they were to include a minority and keep with their current theme that minority would be a man servant much like the character in Penny Dreadful. Is that what people want? I have seen the example of Sembene from Penny Dreadful tossed around in this thread and the other as if that is some great minority inclusion when in fact he is a glorified man servant.

If a minority were to be included in the Order 1886 in a lead role (Again sticking with their current theme) That character would more than likely be Muslim and of Middle Eastern descent. I am all for racial diversity in video games and other media but this is really nitpicking for the sake of. It is all very premature and silly (in my opinion) as none of us have any idea who is or is not represented in the final game.


This is starting to read more like "There are no minorities in the Order 1886's ten minute demo so there must not be any in the game."

 

[Principate]

hahaha, yeah. I think the harder part is how to illustrate the very nasty and multilayered history of how minorities were treated within these cultures at these times without derailing what's supposed to be (in the minds of many devs) just a fun shoot em' up fantasy romp about vampires and werewolves some shit. Do you delve deep? Does it become a significant sideplot? Do you simply ignore that element of history altogether, which becomes offensive in a different way and can also derail the overall thematic focus of your concept? For example: the profound misrepresentation of just how bad things were for Africans in early American history in ACIII. They demonstrated there was a controversy and debate over this stuff in America, but refused to actually go all the way there and show the extent of the horror, even when you were in places that explicitly should be showing this stuff. The little debates Connor had with Samuel Adams just seemed asinine in their my-first-racism-class contriteness.

I have no problem diving into the controversy because I believe it deserves to be told the way it was, because remembering is important. We need to not repeat these behaviors or find ways to stop what is still going on today (over 20 million slaves still exist in the world today, more than at the height of the slave trade. let that sink in). So any way to splash cold water on the faces of the complacent is OK by me. I've donated and volunteered for organizations that still fight to end modern slavery, but it will debilitate you when you begin to see the extent of what you're fighting. It's insane how fucked up this world remains

Why does this matter. People keep missing the elephant in the room. In 1886 there wouldn't be a female frontline soldier. There's not even female frontline soldiers in the British army now let alone in the 19th centaury so the games historical accuracy has long since disappeared. So lamenting the talk of racism is pointless when it's unlikely their won't be any mention of the rampart sexism at that period in time.

 

[Giever]

Don't take this the wrong way but this part of the post got a laugh out of me.

I think that's the entire point of this thread. Why are we so capable of accepting things like that but not better race representation?

Why are we so accepting of this game creator's obscene technological advancements and fantasy creatures in a period setting yet unfazed that they somehow felt the need to draw the line at a scrict adherance to realistic depictions of its centuries old protagonists.

Its one of those questions that even I didn't notice until this thread. My initial reaction was similar to many: "Of course the protagonists are all white because they are invincible centuries old Englishmen in A WORLD WITH FUCKING DEAD SPACE WEAPONS AND WEREWOLVES..? Wait, why the hell was I buying the excuse of historical accuracy before?"

Well, I just made a post that somewhat addressed my thoughts on this, but I guess I'll just say that I disagree that it's an inherently laughable position to have. I don't think it's problematic or ridiculous to make certain conscious choices about what changes and what doesn't in your game which is attempting to be some kind of alternate history. I don't think that, in an individual game, it is problematic to make certain design choices like that. The reason it is upsetting to see, or is considered a bullshit excuse in general is probably because the lack of diversity is an industry-wide problem.

Ideally, all of our games would be more culturally and racially inclusive. I do think that most of the games out there have had essentially no excuse not to include various minorities either as playable or at least as prominent characters. There just should be more diversity in our games. It would be good for pretty much everyone involved in the industry, the players, game-makers, etc. Hell, even if you don't give a shit about other people or representation in video games, it would be, at the very least, less boring to throw some more non-white characters into games.

Things aren't that way right now, though, and it's frustrating. We should be more vocal about the desire and need for more varied representation in video games. But, I guess the reason I find the directed frustration with The Order silly is just because it's one of the very few games I can think of that has something that even begins to approach some kind of reasonable excuse to justify including racial issues if they do decide to have a black character front-and-center. So few games have any excuse to forego including minorities, that I find it a little absurd that The Order is getting such flak, when: 1) We don't really know much about it yet, and 2) We could focus instead on, like, the other 99% of games which have no excuse at all not to include minorities w/o racial issues having to be acknowledged (though I understand the response to this is probably something like "Why not both?" And that's a legitimate position to have, of course.)

I just feel that, on an individual basis, a game is not egregious as long as it has an actually legitimate excuse to make certain design choices the way they have. What counts as a legitimate excuse is a whole 'nother discussion, of course. And we can still criticize those choices, but just because we're critical of them doesn't necessarily mean that the reasons behind those choices are actually just bullshit excuses.

Video games, currently, are still pretty immature. They have barely begun to become a medium for actual intelligent and emotional story-telling, so it can seem like any excuse at all to either exclude certain individuals, or only include them with caveats (eg. having to be explained why they are there, or why people aren't bothered that they are there, etc.) can seem like bullshit.

I think the reason why I'm willing to give certain games the benefit of the doubt in advance is because I'm idealistic about where games can eventually go, and I want to encourage people to make those kinds of choices if they think they are the right choices for their game. This, of course, only counts for, like, the less than 1% of games that don't just exclude certain groups for no reason at all. We should still strive for diversity in video games, and if we can get more in the ones that have no excuse besides apathy, then we'd be off to an amazing start, because the situation is abysmal as it is now.

*Editor's note: I'm aware that The Order probably won't be great, won't have amazing story-telling, and that, as far as I know, it's not like it's the developers that are making these excuses, but rather posters on GAF. So don't take my argument as being a defense specifically for The Order.

 

[Veldin]

Preservation of historical accuracy and context is such a lame stance to take when we're talking about a game where people have magic potions, there's supernatural beasts running around, and dudes are firing ridiculous future weapons. The Order isn't a period piece and it's not a documentary. It's a fictional story in a fictional fantasy England where werewolves and Arc guns exist, and honestly it's effortless to put people of any skin color anywhere in that world. The furthest any explanation needs to go is "because they are there". I genuinely do not understand this feeling that non-white people would be out of place in an imaginary alternate history.

 

[IvorB]

Not sure if serious?
Victorian London and werewolves go hand-in-hand, non-white characters would definitely be around during that period but I don't think you'll like their representation for that period, RAD probably just avoided it all together by not including non-white characters.
But I understand your point, they could just do it and pretend everyone was seen equal back then.

I don't think that's a good idea at all. If writers make changes to a historical setting I would expect to see this explained in the lore.

 

[IvorB]

Why does this matter. People keep missing the elephant in the room. In 1886 there wouldn't be a female frontline soldier. There's not even female frontline soldiers in the British army now let alone in the 19th centaury so the games historical accuracy has long since disappeared. So lamenting the talk of racism is pointless when it's unlikely their won't be any mention of the rampart sexism at that period in time.

But the Order is not the army is it?

 

[Principate]

I don't think that's a good idea at all. If writers make changes to a historical setting I would expect to see this explained in the lore.

Well let's hope they do that then because their definitely wouldn't be a female frontline soldier back then.

 

[Principate]

But the Order is not the army is it?

It's set up by the royalty or at least linked in some way it's about a legit a combat force as they come. It just plain wouldn't happen army or not which is why this susposed argument on maintaining historical accuracy is pointless. It's not, and we shouldn't pretend like it is (obviously).

 

[kamorra]

Never heard Southern Italians called black, but I have no doubt some people would consider them black. Many times in US history, black was used as a catch-all term for "non-whites" (Which included many groups we would think of today as white).

Weird, but it confirms my believe that categorizing humans in different races is just a stupid concept.

 

[III-V]

People go to great lengths to rationalize any excuse that won't disturb their safe and sound worldview so they make the most illogical excuses to combat any criticism aimed at the current status quo. I'm reminded of this beautiful quote in a letter from a father to his nephew in the 60's USA:



What you are experiencing is a minor version or instance of this defense mechanism. The usual arguments to defend the status quo take various forms, such as:

• "This Youtube video or article is censorship!"
• "The free market is fair and just"
• "If non-White people want more representation, why don't they just make games themselves?"
• "I am not a racist for liking this game that is being criticized!"
• "The developer's artistic vision should never be criticized!"
• "But white men have it tough too!"
• "But what about world hunger?"
• "Games aren't appealing to non-White people because they don't play video games as much as White people"
• "If you don't like it, (shut up) don't buy it!"
• "White men can't relate to other people different from themselves so they don't buy such games"
• "You're the real racist for pointing out that the majority of characters in video games are White"

Why do you capitalize 'White' ? It is not a nationality, ideal or even culture.

I get your point, but damn...

 

[FLAguy954]

Someone literally said that it would be as jarring as having aliens in the setting. ._.

I remember that. What the fuck were they thinking with that statement?

 

[IvorB]

It's set up by the royalty or at least linked in some way it's about a legit a combat force as they come. It just plain wouldn't happen army or not which is why this susposed argument on maintaining historical accuracy is pointless. It's not, and we shouldn't pretend like it is (obviously).

But aren't they super human in some way. Who knows how they are selected. I don't think it was via your local army recruitment stand. It's a bit soon to be jumping to this conclusion when you don't have all the facts.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=820

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18030&postcount=10

A particularly good quote

I cringe every time this thread gets posted, mainly because it makes me realise how little has changed. The language is more coded, but the sentiment remains the same.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Preservation of historical accuracy and context is such a lame stance to take when we're talking about a game where people have magic potions, there's supernatural beasts running around, and dudes are firing ridiculous future weapons. The Order isn't a period piece and it's not a documentary. It's a fictional story in a fictional fantasy England where werewolves and Arc guns exist, and honestly it's effortless to put people of any skin color anywhere in that world. The furthest any explanation needs to go is "because they are there". I genuinely do not understand this feeling that non-white people would be out of place in an imaginary alternate history.

So you're one of those "anything goes because its steam punk fantasy that was impossible at the time" types. I do not support this. I mean, just because its steam punk doesn't mean anything goes like fucking unicorns and leprechauns and blacks. You would be throwing out any suspension of disbelief out a very high window to shatter into a million pieces like the hope and dreams of the players who would be forced to play such a game.





lol

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

So you're one of those "anything goes because its steam punk fantasy that was impossible at the time" types. I do not support this. I mean, just because its steam punk doesn't mean anything goes like fucking unicorns and leprechauns and blacks. You would be throwing out any suspension of disbelief out a very high window to shatter into a million pieces like the hope and dreams of the players who would be forced to play such a game.





lol

You almost fooled me man lol

 

[archangelmorph]

Whilst I agree with the general sentiment that there doesn't need to be specific justification for diversity representation in any form of media...

I do want to comment on the articulated point that "why do blacks need an explanation in games and whites don't...?"

Technically speaking...

Every single significant characterisation needs to be explained in the context of the story/world in any narrative-driven media...

This is essentially part of the "plot/world building" process and is fundamental to solid story-telling...

Beyond that though, I don't see any reason why you can't 'build' a narrative within any fantasy setting to include unexpected racial representations (with respect to either historical accuracy or maybe just with respect to the notional views of your intended audience, however uniformed they maybe in reality).

As long as your explanation is logically-fabricated and internal coherent within your own lore, you can do whatever the hell you like without the slightest fear of breaking the suspension of disbelief among your audience...

IMO it would be super-interesting to see someone write an intelligent piece of narrative set in a "what-if" alternate history whereby the dominant civilisations of the ancient world were completely reversed...

 

[staticneuron]

"Black" describes more phenotypic features than skin tone. But fine, I'll give you what you want: Septimius Severus did not look like sub-Saharan African peoples.

And there it is. Please look up the Tuareg, Tibbu, Taratin or the Sanhaja. How do they look? How is their culture described and where are they from?

My issue is that when people describe black they are really talking about skin tone because if you look at someone like..... ohh lets say Alicia Keys, Who is half African American (black) and half Italian. At a glance would you imagine that she had a black father? Septimius Severus had a father that had punic/libiyan and a mother from italy, but if he was walking around the streets today, unless he looked "sub-saharan" he wouldn't be considered black right? I think that is a problem people have with the perception of how "black" people should look or even the definition of the term black.

Of course, race is a cultural idea, a collection of phenotypic features that a given society recognizes and puts a name to. I was never arguing otherwise. I'm just trying to correct two posters who (wrongly) said that a certain Roman emperor "was black" (i.e., had features conforming to the modern idea of "black"). If they meant black in any other sense, they didn't say so.

That is even worse. Alot of people have to self identify as black because other people do not believe them when they say so. My family has Chinese Jamaican background and the things I have witnessed some of my family members go through because people had assumptions about their race was amazing. Facial Features and Skin tone not dark enough to be considered black (sub-saharan as you put it) and not light enough to be mistaken for white. Didn't speak spanish so they couldn't fake being hispanic.

The so called "modern" idea of what black people should look like I would state is influenced by media, so that is why it would brilliant if people could clear up some misconceptions about what "black" is because so many countries have different definitions and classifications on what "black" is.

What on earth makes you think that I would consider the term black to refer to someone who looks subsaharan?

Well, I just made a post that somewhat addressed my thoughts on this, but I guess I'll just say that I disagree that it's an inherently laughable position to have. I don't think it's problematic or ridiculous to make certain conscious choices about what changes and what doesn't in your game which is attempting to be some kind of alternate history. I don't think that, in an individual game, it is problematic to make certain design choices like that. The reason it is upsetting to see, or is considered a bullshit excuse in general is probably because the lack of diversity is an industry-wide problem.

Ideally, all of our games would be more culturally and racially inclusive. I do think that most of the games out there have had essentially no excuse not to include various minorities either as playable or at least as prominent characters. There just should be more diversity in our games. It would be good for pretty much everyone involved in the industry, the players, game-makers, etc. Hell, even if you don't give a shit about other people or representation in video games, it would be, at the very least, less boring to throw some more non-white characters into games.

Things aren't that way right now, though, and it's frustrating. We should be more vocal about the desire and need for more varied representation in video games. But, I guess the reason I find the directed frustration with The Order silly is just because it's one of the very few games I can think of that has something that even begins to approach some kind of reasonable excuse to justify including racial issues if they do decide to have a black character front-and-center. So few games have any excuse to forego including minorities, that I find it a little absurd that The Order is getting such flak, when: 1) We don't really know much about it yet, and 2) We could focus instead on, like, the other 99% of games which have no excuse at all not to include minorities w/o racial issues having to be acknowledged (though I understand the response to this is probably something like "Why not both?" And that's a legitimate position to have, of course.)

I just feel that, on an individual basis, a game is not egregious as long as it has an actually legitimate excuse to make certain design choices the way they have. What counts as a legitimate excuse is a whole 'nother discussion, of course. And we can still criticize those choices, but just because we're critical of them doesn't necessarily mean that the reasons behind those choices are actually just bullshit excuses.

Video games, currently, are still pretty immature. They have barely begun to become a medium for actual intelligent and emotional story-telling, so it can seem like any excuse at all to either exclude certain individuals, or only include them with caveats (eg. having to be explained why they are there, or why people aren't bothered that they are there, etc.) can seem like bullshit.

I think the reason why I'm willing to give certain games the benefit of the doubt in advance is because I'm idealistic about where games can eventually go, and I want to encourage people to make those kinds of choices if they think they are the right choices for their game. This, of course, only counts for, like, the less than 1% of games that don't just exclude certain groups for no reason at all. We should still strive for diversity in video games, and if we can get more in the ones that have no excuse besides apathy, then we'd be off to an amazing start, because the situation is abysmal as it is now.

*Editor's note: I'm aware that The Order probably won't be great, won't have amazing story-telling, and that, as far as I know, it's not like it's the developers that are making these excuses, but rather posters on GAF. So don't take my argument as being a defense specifically for The Order.

I honestly didn't expect the game to have a black front and center given there would be higher chance of seeing, irish, jew or asain populace before black. That being said my post before was simply in reference to the attitudes of other gamers and not specifically the industry devs.

 

[Daemul]

Oh god, people actually think Black people weren't around in the Victorian era? Lord save us.

Also, if people are using the "going for reality in that time" excuse, then what the hell is a woman doing there?

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

And there it is.

I would love to know what it is. Do I get to guess?

My issue is that when people describe black they are really talking about skin tone

I'll be sure to let my Scotch-Irish uncle know that he's black. His skin is pretty dark from working in the sun all day, after all. Maybe he's related to Septimius Severus.

The so called "modern" idea of what black people should look like I would state is influenced by media, so that is why it would brilliant if people could clear up some misconceptions about what "black" is because so many countries have different definitions and classifications on what "black" is.

Of course, race is a cultural idea, a collection of phenotypic features that a given society recognizes and puts a name to. I was never arguing otherwise. I'm just trying to correct two posters who (wrongly) said that a certain Roman emperor "was black" (i.e., had features conforming to the modern idea of "black"). If they meant black in any other sense, they didn't say so.

 

[SkyOdin]

Of course, race is a cultural idea, a collection of phenotypic features that a given society recognizes and puts a name to. I was never arguing otherwise. I'm just trying to correct two posters who (wrongly) said that a certain Roman emperor "was black" (i.e., had features conforming to the modern idea of "black"). If they meant black in any other sense, they didn't say so.

I was the poster who first brought up Septimus Severan. I never said that he was sub-saharan African. But the term "black" is not synonymous with sub-saharan African. Not historically, and not in a modern sense.

In any case, I was responding to a very point someone made:

fantasy settings it's fine tbh. it's great when they have their separate regions too like UrbanRats said.

in historical settings it would be weird to see other ethnicities as higher up though (unless it's set in those respective countries). like i don't want to watch Rome and see a Black senator, it would just be jarring.

but shit like Elder Scrolls, The Order or Dragon Age, go nuts with the skin tones.

In short, this poster didn't expect to see "non-standard" ethnicities in positions of power in ancient Rome. How "black" Septimus Severan was isn't important. The point is that it was fairly common, especially in the later centuries of the Roman Empire, for people from the distant provinces of the Empire to rise up and acquire significant political power. Severan was not sub-saharan African, but he was African, and he had notably darker skin than what people usually associate with Romans (and there is good evidence of this in art dating back to the period).

The issue here is the white-washing of history by media has distorted people's expectations of what historical societies looked like in terms of race and ethnicity. The idea that foreign ethnicities were barred from high political power in large countries is also wildly incorrect. There are tons of examples of the opposite, such as the tendency of foreign "barbarians" becoming very powerful and influential in China. The distant frontier provinces of large empires tended to be the places where conflict was most likely, so the local-born military leaders of those provinces tended to accumulate large amounts of political power. As such, people of non-standard ethnicity were a fairly common sight in the high-society of these empires.

So yes, Septimus Severen was a Berber, and not a sub-saharan African, as you corrected several pages back. I didn't respond since I saw no need, I am willing to concede the point to you. What does that have to do with the other points raised in this thread?

 

[vagabondarts]

Diversity is beautiful and we need more of it, in my opinion. Fantasy settings are where it should thrive, don't you think?

 

[SystemBug]

I'm just going to leave this here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBEIlQd8TGE

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Oh god, people actually think Black people weren't around in the Victorian era? Lord save us.

Also, if people are using the "going for reality in that time" excuse, then what the hell is a woman doing there?

This is a thread about race, so that's not really the focus. Personally, I said earlier that I would hope the game at least touches on how odd (for the time period) it is to have a woman there. It would also be interesting if the white dudes aren't just heroic stereotypes but actually are complex characters with some combination of classist, racist and sexist attitudes.

But the game probably won't end up being deep enough to explore all that stuff.

 

[Jinkies]

I really like this post on the matter: http://www.heyash.com/in-defense-of-arbitrary-diversity/

You don't need to justify diversity.

This sums it up really well.

Nobody should allow race or gender to factor into their evaluation of a work's believability. If you can't do it, then try harder. It's fiction.

 

[Kataploom]

I'm from Venezuela (South-America, for those unaware) and I still don't get WHY is racism a problem in USA, I mean, man what's the difference between putting a white or black character as protagonist in a game? Even more, I support the idea of not having any black playable character in The Order 1886 because of history (not because I'm being racist), but could have black protagonist in Assassins Creed or GTA with no problem... I mean, people seems to look for any reason to be offended whenever the "race" is on the topic...

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I'm from Venezuela (South-America, for those unaware) and I still don't get WHY is racism a problem in USA, I mean, man what's the difference between putting a white or black character as protagonist in a game? Even more, I support the idea of not having any black playable character in The Order 1886 because of history (not because I'm being racist), but could have black protagonist in Assassins Creed or GTA with no problem... I mean, people seems to look for any reason to be offended whenever the "race" is on the topic...

First of all, read and understand the OP

Second, read and understand history

 

[silvermember]

I'm from Venezuela (South-America, for those unaware) and I still don't get WHY is racism a problem in USA, I mean, man what's the difference between putting a white or black character as protagonist in a game? Even more, I support the idea of not having any black playable character in The Order 1886 because of history (not because I'm being racist), but could have black protagonist in Assassins Creed or GTA with no problem... I mean, people seems to look for any reason to be offended whenever the "race" is on the topic...

Of course You don't get it, nobody is shocked.

You have no frame of reference, no understanding of any of this. From my brief understanding of your nation of course you don't get it. Try to stay out of things beyond the scope of your knowledge for our sakes.

 

[Wiktor]

Preservation of historical accuracy and context is such a lame stance to take when we're talking about a game where people have magic potions, there's supernatural beasts running around, and dudes are firing ridiculous future weapons. The Order isn't a period piece and it's not a documentary. It's a fictional story in a fictional fantasy England where werewolves and Arc guns exist, and honestly it's effortless to put people of any skin color anywhere in that world. The furthest any explanation needs to go is "because they are there". I genuinely do not understand this feeling that non-white people would be out of place in an imaginary alternate history.

I never understood this argument. it reeks of "it's fantasy, so it doesn't need consistent or good world building". The magic potions, supernatural beasts and futuristic weapons will be explained by storyline. There's no reason not to do the same for having a lot of non-white character there. It will only make the storyline better and the characters much more meaningful. You could propably get away with no setting explanation if there are only few minorities, but even in this case I sure would like to know the backstory of how those people came into that perticular place in game's world.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

This is a thread about race, so that's not really the focus. Personally, I said earlier that I would hope the game at least touches on how odd (for the time period) it is to have a woman there. It would also be interesting if the white dudes aren't just heroic stereotypes but actually are complex characters with some combination of classist, racist and sexist attitudes.

But the game probably won't end up being deep enough to explore all that stuff.

Its about race but that doesnt mean people can exclude stuff. In all honesty theres a lot of crappy excuses to avoid these issues worth talking about.

 

[staticneuron]

I would love to know what it is. Do I get to guess?

I'll be sure to let my Scotch-Irish uncle know that he's black. His skin is pretty dark from working in the sun all day, after all. Maybe he's related to Septimius Severus.

Well now, given the examples I posted in the same post you quoted I can't help but feel you are being obtuse on purpose. Let me see if I can break it down to you.

Before you can correct someone on what they think "black" is, you might want to make sure you are on the same page first. You made an assumption that people claiming Septimius Severus as having Sub-Saharan qualities. No one ever said that. That was your perception alone. Also the concept of having dark skin and facial features that adhere to the misconception of only Sub-Saharan being dark. If you look up the berber tribes I mentioned you would understand what I was talking about. Either way I challenged your idea of the modern concept of black (again which you projected on me) because I AM black but through "experience" I can assure you that people do not in fact use features alone to determine if you are black but they use skin tone. And I don't mean like a "tanned" Scottish or irish person.

I get judged as soon as people look at me. They don't see my asian or irish ancestory on my mother side. They see my fathers skin tone. We wouldn't have this conversation if you didn't project a concept which I caught and was trying to point out to you.

 

[xevis]

I never understood this argument. it reeks of "it's fantasy, so it doesn't need consistent or good world building". The magic potions, supernatural beasts and futuristic weapons will be explained by storyline. There's no reason not to do the same for having a lot of non-white character there. It will only make the storyline better and the characters much more meaningful. You could propably get away with no setting explanation if there are only few minorities, but even in this case I sure would like to know the backstory of how those people came into that perticular place in game's world.

So you're willing to accept as axiomatic that the supernatural is "real" but the idea of non-white people in a fantasy alternate-history England is so out there that it needs to be explained as part of the narrative? wtf????

Why can't they just, oh I don't know, be there? Like, in the story. Doing stuff. Story stuff. Not "being the black guy" or "the asian chick" or "the gay magenta fellow".

Seriously. Enough with this shit.

 

[Wiktor]

So you're willing to accept as axiomatic that the supernatural is "real" but the idea of non-white people in a fantasy alternate-history England is so out there that it needs to be explained as part of the narrative? wtf????

I'm willing to accept the supernatural is real if it's explained as part of narrative. If you're not willing to set up the checkpoints that caused the change in history then maybe you shouldn't be writing alternate history in the first place.

Why can't they just, oh I don't know, be there? Like, in the story. Doing stuff. Story stuff. .

Because it's bad writing. Which is acceptable in videogames, but it doesn't change how boring and lazy it is. Especially in a setting like Order, where it's really easy to explain the changes in society caused by rise of supernatural. And that's always better for world building than doing stuff for just because.

 

[xevis]

I'm willing to accept the supernatural is real if it's explained as part of narrative. If you're not willing to set up the checkpoints that caused the change in history then maybe you shouldn't be writing alternate history in the first place.

The origins of the supernatural are seldom explained. They're simply taken as axioms. Just like anthropomorphic talking ducks are axiomatic in Duck Tales. Nobody questions why that is. It just is. You accept it and move on. There's ducks. They talk. They drive. They swim in giant piles of metal coins.

Because it's bad writing. Which is acceptable in videogames, but it doesn't change how boring and lazy it is. Especially in a setting like Order, where it's really easy to explain the changes in society caused by rise of supernatural. And that's always better for world building than doing stuff for just because.

1. Who cares? Games have shitty writing to begin with.
2. We need more games that are not automatically reinforcing white normativity.
3. What you're asking for implicitly "others" non-white individuals. Their skin colour becomes one of their central defining characteristics -- unlike white people who need all kinds of narrative-based characterisation because being white is like being a blank slate.
4. This line of reasoning is ill formed (as pointed out at the top of this post).

 

[Golnei]

1. Who cares? Games have shitty writing to begin with.
2. We need more games that are not automatically reinforcing white normativity.
3. What you're asking for implicitly "others" non-white individuals. Their skin colour becomes one of their central defining characteristics -- unlike white people who need all kinds of narrative-based characterisation because being white is like being a blank slate.

Exactly - the constant demands for non-white or female characters to need to justify their presence are just another symptom of a mindset that treats the straight white male as the only default setting - any other attribute is a specific trait, a deviation from the norm. The 'female character', the 'black character' and the 'gay character' are then treated as their own distinct archetypes, rather than traits that can easily be present without requiring further explanation; save for the same amount of backstory that would be given to any other character.

 

[memnoch87]

I studied history ando you would be surprised how races mingled way earlier than you would expect. There are reports of African communities as far back as 1400 in London. The idea that black people suddenly appeared with slavery is surprisingly wide spread and ultimately not true.

That being said I do find it somewhat jarring when it's a real world situation and it isn't mentioned. Doesn't have to mentioned often but should definitely be a part of the narrative even a small part.

In a fantasy setting. There's werewolves so get to fuq.

 

[Wiktor]

The origins of the supernatural are seldom explained.

I haven't been following Order that closely, but from what I remember they actually dio have detailed background for supernatural. And origins of supernatural as a whole might not be regularly explained in modern setting stories (as a whole, most good stories do explain the origins of specific examples of supernatural), but they most of the time are in alternate history, because that's the whole point of alternate history..to introduce few events that then snowball enough to completely change the world. If you don't have that initial event explained it does take away a lot from enjoyment of the whole story.

1. Who cares? Games have shitty writing to begin with.

I care for games to stop usually having shitty writting

2. We need more games that are not automatically reinforcing white normativity.

And those games having good worldbuilding is hurting this noble goal how exactly? It can only make the experience richer.

3. What you're asking for implicitly "others" non-white individuals. Their skin colour becomes one of their central defining characteristics -- unlike white people who need all kinds of narrative-based characterisation because being white is like being a blank slate

The whites are normal there because it's a story taking place in Victorian England. So white is default there. Just like asian is default is default in alternate history China or Japan and black is in alternate history of africa. In all those cases I would prefer to see explanation why those people, who are different from most population, came to be in this particula setting. Because race isn't the defining characteristic of a human person, but it is a part of them. It affects their biography and their situation in specific setting, especially if you are builing fictional worlds based on Earth's history. Ignoring that just makes the fiction flatter and characters less varied.

 

[inki]

I think in a Fantasy (non-realism) setting anything goes. If you are trying to be historically accurate then I could see it being odd (and offensive...) if Native Americans were portrayed as Christians leading the Crusade.

 

[silvermember]

I think in a Fantasy (non-realism) setting anything goes. If you are trying to be historically accurate then I could see it being odd (and offensive...) if Native Americans were portrayed as Christians leading the Crusade.

Yes we can all agree that it would be hard to justify a white guy leading the samura like in the last samurai not to say they were not white guys in Japan, however most games don't if any dont fit that criteria so talking about something that hardly happens is pointless.

 

[Log4Girlz]

"On the upside, though — and this is going to sound tremendously arrogant, but stick with me for a few more paragraphs – while arbitrarily diverse casts might make the story worse, they make world better. Not the in-fiction world, either; I mean, you know, the world. The actual one. The one you and I are in. Real life."

 

[Mesoian]

So...black people are mustangs? And blacks didn't live in that era of England? What the hell is this?

Navel gazing.

 

[archangelmorph]

"On the upside, though — and this is going to sound tremendously arrogant, but stick with me for a few more paragraphs – while arbitrarily diverse casts might make the story worse, they make world better. Not the in-fiction world, either; I mean, you know, the world. The actual one. The one you and I are in. Real life."

Why assume diversity has to be arbitrary?

 

[xevis]

And those games having good worldbuilding is hurting this noble goal how exactly? It can only make the experience richer.

The argument being put forward here is that skin colour (or gender, or sexuailty or whatever) should just be an unremarkable thing that could occur anywhere and in anyone; i.e. just a normal part of being human. Making such characteristics remarkable serves only to create and reinforce archetypes. There is a great post on this subject from Anthony Burch, also linked-to earlier on this page, which you may well want to read. I feel Anthony nails this particular issue, especially in the following:

So what if it’s arbitrary? So what if you make your audience acknowledge that a character is black, or gay, or transgender? No one ever complains about the other 99.9% of media “forcing” heterosexual male whiteness down anyone’s throats, so why should a black Doctor Who be considered arbitrary and forced whereas another white Doctor wouldn’t be? Arguments like this imply that there are only two reasonable courses of action. One: make your story about meaningful diversity — build everything around the experiences of whatever minority group you’ve chosen and explore it fully. Two: don’t include any underrepresented groups and make all your characters “normal”, because to do otherwise would be distracting and forced.

To which I say: bullshit. I’d rather be arbitrary than maintain the status quo through inaction.

 

[grandwizard]

I think it's really great that the new Dragon Age which has it's universe loosely based on fantasy Britain and France has managed to populate it's world with people of color. I have yet to read user criticism about it destroying the theme or 'realism' of the game.

 

[Wiktor]

The argument being put forward here is that skin colour (or gender, or sexuailty or whatever) should just be an unremarkable thing that could occur anywhere and in anyone; i.e. just a normal part of being human. Making such characteristics remarkable serves only to create and reinforce archetypes.

That seems like ignoring good story in favor of pushing agenda.. Which I can understand somebody supporting (it is a noble agenda), but I just don;t like it because it hurts the storytelling and ignores a lot of what makes humans a great spiecies.

 

[jmood88]

That seems like ignoring good story in favor of pushing agenda.. Which I can understand somebody supporting (it is a noble agenda), but I just don;t like it because it hurts the storytelling and ignores a lot of what makes humans a great spiecies.

What agenda? That non-whites are just as part of the world as whites? Why does there need to be more of a reason for non-white characters to exist in a fantasy world than white ones?

 

[Wiktor]

What agenda? That non-whites are just as part of the world as whites?

The agenda that's pushin for diversity. Which in thiscase actually means the death of actual diversity and reducing race, gender, sexual orientation to nothing but a set of clothes that should have zero influence on the characters themselves.

I feel like this aproeach is just shooting yourself in the foot. Increased diversity should happen, but it can be done in a way that actually makes the stories better. Because it allows you to not just increase the diversity in terms of who those characters are, not just diversity in textures you put on their models.

Why does there need to be more of a reason for non-white characters to exist in a fantasy world than white ones?

I think you've lost some part of the thread. We were talkin about alternate history of predominantly white society, not real fantasy setting. With alternate history you are using real world societies and cultures. You can stil do whatever you want, as long as you make it logically sound. You have to do the same for every other element of the fictional setting, no reason why you can't do the same with ethnicities. Especially since using real world as basis you can draw from incredibly rich source of actual non-white cultures and histories. Seems a lot better than just taking white characters, setting the skin shade slider down and pretending it's ok.
That;s the whole point of alternate history - speculating what small changes could snowball into radically different end situation. If you don't want to indentify those pebbles that started the whole avalanche it's better to just do regular fantasy.