Female Link.
Zelda has the triforce of Wisdom, she would be perfect on a puzzle/rts spinoff.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Flawed arguments are hurting discussion on diversity & representation issues in games
- Thread starter Llyrwenne
- Start date
Female Link.
Zelda has the triforce of Wisdom, she would be perfect on a puzzle/rts spinoff.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Yeah, female Link will be a much larger statement, although...
(sheesh Coffee Dog, just play pretend that it's a mainline game, hahaha)
Playing as a Zelda in a mainline Zelda game would shake the Zelda convention more. Female Link that is functionally the same as the current Link will lead to a game that is fundamentally the same like any of other Zelda games, but can you imagine if they let you play as Zelda instead? That instead of playing as the hero you play as the princess? The whole gameplay structure of Zelda games need to be broken down and built anew to accommodate that. It would be very fascinating to see.
I personally don't quite know which one I want more, if I can only choose one.
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
People say it all the time but with coded language.
That's fine and noble, but I don't think it should be held against those who don't feel the same way. My main point is that it's OK to have preferences and attachments. And that it is important for everyone to understand why and what that means in the greater context of diversity.
Just because someone may have an abundance of representation doesn't mean that they hold all of those instances in the same regard. This is exactly one of the main points of my post. The need to understand how and why people develop attachments to certain franchises and characters.
I wasn't suggesting you were specifically, but more how people react in general when someone expresses a desire that runs counter to their own. Which can often lead to dog pilling or unfair accusations.
I'm using selfish in the broad sense of the term, as you said an emotion born from the self. I thought I clearly stated that at the beginning that just because something is selfish doesn't make it inherently wrong or bad. It is a natural inclination. The desire to want to play any character, not simply Link, as your own gender, race, etc is selfish in the broadest sense of the word. And that's totally fine. I would never fault anyone for wanting play or see a character who reflects them. Especially anyone who lacks such representations in general.
My point, which I'll concede was a little too blunt, is that in this specific instance I've noticed a lot of people over the course of many threads conflate their own desire as being superior to those who disagree with them because it aligns with the overall cause for diversity. Which I don't think is inherently true in this instance due to the particular factors relating to the Zelda series and the very complex and competing ways in which players have come to know the series and characters in it. That doesn't make them wrong, just not inherently more right.
This is all very specific to this one franchise. But certainly elements of this extends beyond.
I'm not arguing against diversity at all, I'm arguing about how people approach and engage with media which can create competing and conflicting views and emotions about the same material. Very specifically to Zelda in this instance as it's one I'm much more familiar with, but it general it extends to other franchises as well.
And again this is not in any way an argument against diversity, or any kind of justification as to why some changes cannot be made, because that's pretty much never the case, simply it's an examination as to why some people may not feel inclined to support changes to certain franchises. Which is important to understand in this greater debate.
Both side needs to examine the reasons behind why they feel a certain way on the subject and not automatically assume a single position extends beyond that one subject. It's OK to have attachments to things. But it's also important to understand what those attachments may mean in the greater context.
Again, I don't disagree with that notion. I'm just using Zelda as a very specific case where players have developed attachments which can run counter to this notion. It's important for both sides to understand how these things come about and what they mean in a larger context of diversity in games. It doesn't mean people have to abandon their desires for diversity just because some people have developed attachments to the way things are and want to keep them that way. Simply that they should examine why someone might disagree with them and not assume it's purely negative or wrong. And that those people who hold those dissenting opinions understand what that means to those who are championing or accepting of said change.
This was just an aside on the issues related to the series itself and nothing really to do with your point.
Edit: Hopefully to make this more clear. I'm advocating people on both sides to be more aware of what their positions are and why their opposition feels the way they do. With regards to Zelda I was definitely focusing much more from the opposition side, as that's where I fall, and the need for people to understand that point of view, but in the greater debate the opposite is likely more important. It is important to challenge people's opinions and desires, especially if they are in opposition to diversity. But that needs to be done in good faith, especially if the other side sticks with their original position in the end. The opposition most times is not acting in good faith though. They very often fail to actually understand their own position and feelings on a specific subject or franchise, like Link's gender, and instead of examining why they feel the way they do, and realize that it is a selfish desire, which is OK, they generally fall back on shitty logic and other excuses to make their opinions fact and unimpeachable, which never works.
It's fine to have attachments, people need to accept that and own up to that.
Sure, they can do anything they want. I think that would be a dumb and rather shallow approach, but I'm sure others might find that really compelling. I don't really give a shit about the sanctity of the Triforce or any of the lore in the series. I was just trying to express a best case scenario because I'd hate to think one of the driving forces behind one of my all time favorite franchises is completely driven by shitty logic.
That is EXACTLY the reason people fight for link as a woman.
It is much harder to make nintendo shake the formula that much.
Even breath of the wild can be traced back to Zelda NES so it is not a NEW formula.
Also, since there are so few OTHER games with the formula (specialy non indie), the zelda formula is not that stale so a simple "start at the gerudo desert, trying to fight the male gerudo only to discover that ganon ressurrected as a hylian and is now at the palace posing as the hero of time" would be a GIGANTIC change.
Or even the simple "you play as girl link and you have to do all the classic zelda stuff because you have to prove that a girl can fit the 'boy in green' prophecy that nobody believe. Which is why they ask the 'hero of time' to send a letter to another city and not HOLY SHIT YOU ARE THE HERO OF TIME I WILL NOT STAND BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR GOAL TO SAVE US that should have been to every quest giver on the zelda franchise"
Yeah, you kind of are, because you're expecting games to conform to your desires and conflate "intelligent stories" with sex appeal. At what point will there be "enough" games with women/minority protagonists that it will be "acceptable" for the games you're talking about to be made?
Best OP I've ever read.
Simply amazing.
Before I dig in some posts and try to be part of the discussion I just wanna do a point myself :
I think Sonys first party studios are doing an amazing job on building strong female characters.
This geneation we already have :
- Kat
- Fetch
- Elena ( ok she is not the protagonist still tho I think she is a core of Uncharted series and her role as a strong woman on Uncharted 4 is fucking good )
- Alloy
- Nadine
- Chloe
- Ellie
Is it enough ? I dont know.
But Sony first party its on their own league when the subject is putting strong female leads, or at least main chars like Elena, and touching LGBT subjects like the ones we saw on The Last of Us : Left Behind with such elegance.
Putting aside the praise from Sony first party studio I think another game that totally desearves praise on the way it handles the LGBT subject is Gone Home. I had a blast with it first time I played.
Simply amazing.
Before I dig in some posts and try to be part of the discussion I just wanna do a point myself :
I think Sonys first party studios are doing an amazing job on building strong female characters.
This geneation we already have :
- Kat
- Fetch
- Elena ( ok she is not the protagonist still tho I think she is a core of Uncharted series and her role as a strong woman on Uncharted 4 is fucking good )
- Alloy
- Nadine
- Chloe
- Ellie
Is it enough ? I dont know.
But Sony first party its on their own league when the subject is putting strong female leads, or at least main chars like Elena, and touching LGBT subjects like the ones we saw on The Last of Us : Left Behind with such elegance.
Putting aside the praise from Sony first party studio I think another game that totally desearves praise on the way it handles the LGBT subject is Gone Home. I had a blast with it first time I played.
I think playing as Zelda would only be as groundbreaking as they allowed it to be, which I'm not sure about considering Aonuma's "balance of the Triforce" defense. If her gameplay would be contextualized within a narrative sense still limits her to her general role as the character she's always been, nothing much would change. Like, what do we learn or experience if she was directly controllable in WW's finale, or had some castle segments in TP? Not much, really.
So it would depend upon how far Nintendo would be willing to go in getting her in on some meaningful action (we'll see how that goes with BotW), but in general this is an issue more easily circumvented by just making the "Hero" a woman from the outset. At the very least, I'm sure the NPCs who are aware of Hyrulian lore would doubt a woman claiming to be the reincarnated "Hero," which automatically opens up interesting story paths for the series to take.
So it would depend upon how far Nintendo would be willing to go in getting her in on some meaningful action (we'll see how that goes with BotW), but in general this is an issue more easily circumvented by just making the "Hero" a woman from the outset. At the very least, I'm sure the NPCs who are aware of Hyrulian lore would doubt a woman claiming to be the reincarnated "Hero," which automatically opens up interesting story paths for the series to take.
People are often against it because that means less of what I like. You are never going to get ANYONE in any situation to agree to that...especially in a civil manner. Trying to twist that into them being an awful person (beyond selfishness at the most) only adds to the push back.
I think outside of a few special snowflakes, no one is going to trash on a game because it is more diverse than "normal". No one with that take would last that long on this board anyway.
I don't think anyone will deny that the industry needs to make advancements in these areas. However inferring those that do enjoy the occasional schlock also "wants less diversity" is what also muddles the entire situation.
i think both sides often go too hard and it hurts any good points they have (the call of censorship and being against artistic integrity..kills any point one may have had).
This isn't as easy as people make it out to be. Its not just as simple as "stop making those games and make these". That takes away from someone else. And simply going "well they had their time...so fuck them" does not help your cause either. People do not like to be treated as lesser for simple shit like liking a game.
Arkage
Banned
I just got done reading this article about how to persuade others to change their political opinion of a thing:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...logical-trick-to-political-persuasion/515181/
Diversity, sexism, and representation in gaming is typically framed as a fairness issue because liberals prioritize fairness above loyalty. The problem is that conservatives are the opposite. It's more effective to present liberal issues from a loyalty moral framework (or at least have it in addition to the fairness framework) if the goal is to get as many people on board as possible. And since there are no arguable "negatives" to having more inclusion (unless that person is blatantly phobic, which some admittedly are), there's nothing stopping someone from being on-board with it other than it being presented to them through an ineffective framework that they don't prioritize.
I mean, thinking back to some of the arguments on things like Link having a female option, the primary argument against it is that Link has always been male, and should continue to do so because that's who he is. This is an argument of loyalty being made to a franchise's history. And the pro-girl argument is primarily an argument from fairness. It's a small example considering the broad brush of topics in the thread, but it highlights the issue.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science...logical-trick-to-political-persuasion/515181/
Diversity, sexism, and representation in gaming is typically framed as a fairness issue because liberals prioritize fairness above loyalty. The problem is that conservatives are the opposite. It's more effective to present liberal issues from a loyalty moral framework (or at least have it in addition to the fairness framework) if the goal is to get as many people on board as possible. And since there are no arguable "negatives" to having more inclusion (unless that person is blatantly phobic, which some admittedly are), there's nothing stopping someone from being on-board with it other than it being presented to them through an ineffective framework that they don't prioritize.
I mean, thinking back to some of the arguments on things like Link having a female option, the primary argument against it is that Link has always been male, and should continue to do so because that's who he is. This is an argument of loyalty being made to a franchise's history. And the pro-girl argument is primarily an argument from fairness. It's a small example considering the broad brush of topics in the thread, but it highlights the issue.
So how would that work ?
"Zelda has lots of female fans so the franchise need to be loyal to them" ?
"there is nothing more loyal to the bases of the franchise than Ganon trying to break the prophecy by using magic to change link and zelda" ?
"for all the history of the franchise they keep saying that link should represent the player so a girl link representing the female fans is totaly loyal to the serie history" ?
edit:
"since america is the land of equal opportunities, women should have the same american ideals of being able to slash pigs as men" ? xD
lightskintwin
Banned
I was going to write a really long detailed post on the matter, but after reading:
There's no reason too now.
TLR The Realest Shit
There's no reason too now.
You made a lot of good and valid points, but this:
is not one of them. The entire topic of the thread was Ashley Judd calling the game industry (not the gaming community) hypocritical for their stance on GamerGate. Yet no one could come up with a single recent popular AAA game that was illustrative of said hypocrisy. Such false claims play into media stereotypes of the game industry and discourage women from entering it.
Amy Hennig (known best for her work on Uncharted) had the following to say on this issue:
I fully support the work of someone like Anita Sarkeesian who backs up her criticisms with specific and clear examples. On the other hand, what Ashley Judd said is reminiscent of comments by Jack Thompson and many other cultural alarmists of decades past. They only muddle legitimate conversations to be had about video games (be it sexism or violence) with phony rhetoric.
Other than that, I agree whole-heartedly with your core arguments.
is not one of them. The entire topic of the thread was Ashley Judd calling the game industry (not the gaming community) hypocritical for their stance on GamerGate. Yet no one could come up with a single recent popular AAA game that was illustrative of said hypocrisy. Such false claims play into media stereotypes of the game industry and discourage women from entering it.
Amy Hennig (known best for her work on Uncharted) had the following to say on this issue:
(Source)
I fully support the work of someone like Anita Sarkeesian who backs up her criticisms with specific and clear examples. On the other hand, what Ashley Judd said is reminiscent of comments by Jack Thompson and many other cultural alarmists of decades past. They only muddle legitimate conversations to be had about video games (be it sexism or violence) with phony rhetoric.
Other than that, I agree whole-heartedly with your core arguments.
Not only is the "less games for me to play" reasoning inherently selfish and brings up issues of empathy that the OP already touched upon, it also doesn't make much sense. You are likely never going to be able to play every single game in existence that caters to your tastes, particularly if what you like in games is so widespread as to be the cultural norm. So if they go from making 1000 games a year where women are just eye candy to 900 games... why in the world are you pressed about that?
Also, who's twisting anything around to make a moral condemnation of someone? Again, if you like games with sexual objectification of women, then that's a basic fact about yourself. Me decrying sexual objectification's normalcy within gaming isn't an inherent call-out of someone's character who may enjoy it in some games, because everyone enjoys imperfect or dumbass media. The fact that gamers tend to take it in a personal manner is part of the problem and the reason why debates like these are couched in a whole bunch of nonsense we have to sift through in order to get to the root of the issue.
This isn't a special snowflake problem. This is a cultural problem. People make widespread arguments about minority protagonists being shoehorned, needing a reason to be there, which in turn is complaining about diversity. I mean, just look at San Andreas' reveal on GAF from back in the day. Look at the shitstorm with Tracer and Ellie. Look at how people rage at a female Link but don't give any shits about renaming him. I mean, look at Gamergate! The backlash to diversity is a constant staple of gaming culture and putting it off on an easily-ignored minority of people only kicks the can down the road.
Enjoying shlock has nothing to do with whether or not you want more or less of it, and those with a good head on their shoulders know the difference. I don't give a damn about a guy slobbering over Hunie Pop in a vacuum. If he enjoys it, who am I to point a finger at him? However, if you come into threads where people are asking for another game next to Hunie Pop that doesn't objectify women in order to vehemently argue for a world that should instead have two Hunie Pop games, you are inevitably arguing for the status quo which happens to be "more sexual objectification." This is what it comes down to. Is it uncomfortable? Yes. But how do you think I feel dealing with this culture all the time? =P
Making games the same way all the time inevitably takes away from people who already have so few choices to deliberate from. Why aren't you concerned about minority demographics?
Arkage
Banned
I think if goal is to have a female-led protagonist in a Zelda game, the most convincing argument would probably be to talk up the importance of Zelda to the franchise (it's named after her!) and have her be the protagonist. Pretty sure a few of the games had her as a capable fighter? This is probably the easiest loyalty argument for gender representation.
If the goal is to have a Link gender option, then yes I'd probably use Nintendo's own statements on how Link should represent the player - you want Nintendo to be loyal to their own word and fulfill their promise to all gamers for their biggest story-driven franchise.
If the goal is to be have Link be strictly female.... I have no idea. That'd be a tough loyalty argument to make, but I really don't know that much Zelda lore. There might be a way to work it. EDIT: Actually, Messofangego's argument could work. Argue for a female link out of a loyalty to capitalistic mechanisms (since the argument is used by them to say white men on covers sell videogames). You could say there's a huge untapped market that a female Link could appeal to, and could bring a newfound player base and wealth to a struggling Nintendo after the WiiU. Nintendo is never going to go down the bald white-dood game market path anyway. Instead of targeting kids all the time, focus to specifically target girls and women. Women still control more of the household spending and influence then men, after all.
fair enough
Messofanego
Banned
I genuinely thought it was a female Link in one of the Breath of the Wild trailers for a second, but then was disappointed when it wasn't. Nintendo are so close. They have no idea how popular it would be and how an even bigger audience (i.e. paying customers) they can get with a female Link.
Probably more like "your daughters feel like their role in life is to be helpless and put their fate in the hands of strange men. It's time to change that." Loyalty to family is a pretty strong motivator, but I'm not sure how you work around the ways this challenges traditional female roles. Or are those outdated enough by now that the current generation of fathers would rather see their little girls becoming self-reliant heroines for a change?
BassForever
Member
Well written post, I don't agree with all of it nor do I really have the time this evening to give your post the proper response it deserves. I'll say this quickly though, we shouldn't straw man to avoid discussing the issue, but we shouldn't charge down the throat of everyone who isn't lockstep behind the cause either. The battle of straw men vs lock step destroys the argument for all parties and leaves a lot of people in the middle ending up indifferent towards the issue who might otherwise have been supportive.
InterMusketeer
Member
So if I understand you correctly, you're asking developers to not always create the character, or write the story, or make the game they want to, but to sacrifice their wishes to promote diversity. I'm afraid I can't agree with that.
I don't think it's that simple, unfortunately. Yeah, people would be more honest if they'd say those things, but does that really solve anything? The divide and conflict of interest are still there. The people not advocating for diversity in any instance will eventually be called selfish bigots by someone anyway, because "If you truly cared about other people's problems, you'd sacrifice your petty desires for them."
This reminded me of the FF video where they demonstrate how it is almost impossible to see Batman's arse. I tried it myself, and the slight glimpses I caught revealed Batman's buttocks to be flat as a pancake. A man of Batman's size and shape should have well-developed glutes. It's like they went out of their way to make Batman LESS sexy...
Dreams-Visions
Member
Excellent commentary, OP.
Top marks from me on all core points and supporting arguments.
Top marks from me on all core points and supporting arguments.
Messofanego
Banned
Unless you go specific, will never know what you mean by not being in lockstep. If those people in the middle/centrists/moderates getting some criticism is what leads them to indifference, maybe they truly weren't ever going to get into the cause to begin with but were doing so just out of peer pressure.
It solves how much of the current debate about these kinds of issues is obfuscated by coded and metaphorical language, which allows us to have more productive conversations over the long-term instead of fighting about what people really mean and thus wasting time that could be better spent on figuring out and communicating real solutions to developers.
It solves the issue straight male gamers' habit of positioning themselves as righteous defenders of artistic integrity and martyrs of some sort of minority PC uprising which adds both an unnecessary and embarrassing layer of moral grandstanding to an issue that ultimately doesn't demand it, as well as irrelevantly centers the actual issues at hand back on the majority demographic, which only leads to the kind of ironic victimization that helped kickstart Gamergate.
It also solves the issue of gaming culture constantly hiding from and ignoring the ethical issues and real-life self image problems present in minorities that result when the kind of rampant racism and sexism present in games like Far Cry 3 plagues a widely-consumed medium, by forcing the culture to either admit there's actual problem or to finally- for the first time ever- actually argue for the inherent merits of a medium that eschews diversity and mindfulness for the same low-brow bullshit we get every year.
A problem that is clear and concise is a problem that can be more easily solved or mended. If gamers are using the call for honesty as a means to feel sorry for themselves by equating the criticism of their chosen medium as a criticism of their character, then honestly that's a personal problem they need to sort out. Stewing in your own feelings about what it means to recoil against the idea of gaming seeking to reach out and respect different demographics does no one any favors.
Link is character not an avatar. LoZ is game but it also tells. Story so I can understand having set characters. He might be gay though.
InterMusketeer
Member
Sure, I'll agree on that.
What I'm wondering is how the discussion will go after people have shown their true face. I wouldn't be surprised if people just stopped talking outright. I actually doubt we'd come to an actual solution.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
The original Link and Zelda from Skyward Sword hook up and became the progenitor of the entire Hyrule family down the road.
Not to mention various stuff like Spirit Track, Link's Awakening, etc etc.
The odds of that ever happening from Nintendo is most likely much smaller than Female Link.
Link is a spirit or entity reincarnated multiple times into different people across the ages. He has had different physical characteristics and personalities as a result. You can even rename him in some games which further devalues the concept of "Link" being a consistent character in the vain of someone like Mario or Sonic or Master Chief.
But Nintendo just slapping on a female grunt track in one game? Apparently that's crossing the line; far beyond the scenario I experienced when my brother jokingly named him to 2 Chainz in Twilight Princess and I had to deal with hilarity of the ensuing cut scenes as a result. What a world.
Seriously, it's not like he's not already androgynous to the max anyway, which was apparently done to better appeal to both genders, but it's not like we don't live in a world where women regularly empathize with male characters anyway, meaning it raises the question of why it's presumed men can't do the same. Regardless, Link (or rather 2 Chainz) being male in every game after the reincarnation lore was established is probably the most blatant case of a character's gender being a totally arbitrary construct with no impact on the game's world from the perspective of canon. Nothing about 2 Chainz hinges on him being a man to really work. He's a man just because, meaning he can in one game be a woman just because. Until they establish a rule that the Hero has to be reincarnated male or else Hyrule's fucked (let's see how that plays out in today's society), then it'll forever remain an unnecessary standard. xP
That's not how I read the post. It was a request that anyone in a creative position could benefit from some self-awareness. Understanding why you're drawn to certain limitations in storytelling or characterization and knowing where there are possibilities you never considered can shake up the creative process and make you a better artist.
People draw from new inspirations and muses all the time when they're lucky enough to find them. The request is for people to look in directions they've never considered before to see if inspiration strikes, nothing more. We've heard numerous times from teams who broaden representation within their own ranks leading to questions being asked during the development process like "what if character X was female?" or "what if character Y was gay?" or "why are all our characters caucasian?" that everyone agrees led them to a better place. That's not a quota system or a demand but just a creative jolt.
Arkage
Banned
This may tie in with the concept of loyalty for conservatives in particular, and the appeal it has for them due to their life experiences. If that's the case, I don't think it does liberals, or their positions, any favors to label this loyalty-based value system a "personal problem they need to sort out."
You're not understanding me correctly.
I'm asking developers to put a little more thought in during the creative process, to be more /aware/ of the overall issues, and to attempt to explore the parts of themselves that are attached to certain things, as I believe if we all do these things progress will begin to occur naturally.
That's not the same thing as dictating what they should write.
Also to consider is the fact that many stories in games with straight white males as leads wouldn't be affected at all if you changed the sexuality/gender/colour of the protagonist, and in games like these the writer would have no reason beyond "but I just want him to be male".
Of course, a writer might need to write a specific story with a specific character, i'ce acknowledged this, but let's not pretend many, many characters in video games could be gender/colour swapped with no effect to the story itself.
I'm these instances this idea that we'd be forcing the writers to writer what they don't want to doesn't hold nearly as much weight.
There's plenty of room for a little more thought toward diversity without treading on artistic integrity.
WrenchNinja
Member
Link is as much a character as a pokemon protagonist
WiiRevolution1
Member
Girl Link of course. Becuase I want it in a real Zelda game.
So..this is like the seventh time I quoted this post, but considering all the talk of girl Link I have to post it again because I can't resist.
My theory about BOTW:
So I think there will effectively be a girl Link without it actually being the "real Link". Which may or may be to any girls in here liking but even if its not a "real girl Link" after Anouma pointed out the Amiibo similarities then immediately moved on that pretty much confirmed to me that "Zelda" will be playable from the beginning.
I have a few further theories "Link" "Zelda" the girl Zora, the boy bird, and Goron will also be playable with whichever one you don't play as being important NPCs but thats a further reach just going by their artworks all with Link-like weapons and also wearing blue.
I am pretty confident atleast "Zelda" will be playable. But if not, it'll still be my GOTY but I shall dream for now, because thats the only thing left to make this game perfect. But so many subtle hints just lead me to believe that there will be atleast one girl playable character. Especially going all the way back to Link not wearing green. But if I'm wrong I am wrong. I will hope for now, but atleast Anouma hasn't outright said playable girl will happen and then doesn't. That would truly be a terrible thing to do so I'm glad that never happend with Zelda. For now its my reaching but I feel its justified reaching. >_>
Either way, I await my GOTY with much hype. Nearly a month to go! O_O
I'm really not a fan of this line of reasoning that is brought up in so many topics these days. It's a bit of a cop out, as it is an assertion that basically removes all responsibility or need on that party to actually engage or take into consideration the other side and how they're responding to your statements. It's a really easy way to dismiss a whole slew of people in a way that doesn't require the accuser to do any self reflection of their own and think about how they or others act and talk to people may affect them and their involvement with the larger issues at play. Just because your position is right doesn't make your approach and demeanor in expressing them right.
In many instances moderates/centrist don't always act in good faith, that much is true, but the notion that how others approach them and treat their arguments, however faulty they may be, like it doesn't have the ability to negatively affect them and push them away is closed minded. People get defensive really easily and it's important to consider how they might respond to your statements. It's not uncommon to see someone in a thread trying to express their opinion to then get attacked, or even just challenged in a more aggressive fashion than they're accustomed to like if several posts quote them all at once, and their responses get more harried as a result leading to them getting frustrated and very combative as things progress. Simply because they aren't prepared for or used to such responses and criticism.
It's important to understand that most people, especially middle of the road people, aren't used to engaging in debates and discussions where they are required to really self reflect and think about their opinions and views in a really critical and honest way. It's a problem that effects all aspects of our lives. Few people really ever challenge themselves or their beliefs, which only makes it harder for them to engage in debate or inform themselves independently. So they're not experienced enough or properly equipped in many cases to receive the kind of criticism they often face when they do happen to engage in topics they aren't well versed in. Which leads to many people retreating and becoming extremely defensive, if not bowing out completely, when they really could have otherwise been brought around. That or those they are trying to engage with just write them off completely, shutting down whatever conversion there could have been.
It's certainly important to not normalize toxic opinions and flawed arguments and simply accept them as another point of view, but sometimes people are a little too eager to shut down someone else because they don't fully conform to the prevailing ideals or they aren't very articulate or strong in expressing exactly what it is they think or feel. Some people seem more interested in scoring points rather than getting others to think more critically about what it is they think or what they're saying, which usually requires a much more patient and deft hand and faith that a poster isn't completely closed minded and unwilling to listen. I'm not advocating coddling, just a bit more good faith discussions.
It's definitely not an easy task and there is no shortage of griefers out there, no one has unlimited patience, but it definitely feels like sometimes fewer and fewer are even willing to try. If you're not interested in trying or just not up for it that's fine, you can't expect everyone to go out of their way in such a low odds scenario residually if it's an issue they are constantly dealing with on a daily basis, but at least be honest about it and don't try and write off those people completely to absolve yourself of responsibility. No one is perfect.
D
Deleted member 465307
Unconfirmed Member
I first want to applaud the OP for the amount of effort that was put into this thread. I really appreciate the thought you put into your post.
I have a couple issues with the way that this argument was unfolded in specific areas, but ultimately, I found the points here to be very useful and something I will keep handy for the future.
I have a couple issues with the way that this argument was unfolded in specific areas, but ultimately, I found the points here to be very useful and something I will keep handy for the future.
Metroidvania
People called Romanes they go the house?
I don't think it's reaching to say that Zelda will either be playable (to some degree) or have one of the more active NPC roles (perhaps companion/party around with you?), but while I kind of hope the rest of your hypothesis is correct, from Aunoma's interview, he pretty much shuts down, or at least strongly frowns upon the 'two character scenario', given that he views Link as the Hero of time, AKA male.
I mean, sure, he could be lying when he says he rejected the female link/Zelda aspirations, but....I don't really see it.
Also, amazing OP - will have to go over things further when I don't have class in 6 hours and still need to sleep.
NipplesAndToes23
Member
I was hoping in that last trailer they would show off Zelda being playable. I was like "OH THEY BOUT TO DO IT, THEY BOUT TO DO IT!", but they didn't.
No! FUCK THAT SHIT TO THE FULLEST
Hell yeah, imagine being Zelda. The shit is named after you and you have not been the protagonist once and had to have this same motherfucker save your ass everytime. Thirty years down the road you hear talk of a female character being playable in the future, but it turns out to be the same dude in a dress. OOOH, I'd be fucking hot! You can't do my bitch dirty like that. She's going to get her due one of these days and not have to settle for a spinoff.
Homegirl even looks mad right here.
I don't think this accomplishes your goal, because there is a seemingly great number of people who don't recognize the problem you are trying to make them see, as a problem (obviously). It's still the same place you started. It's admirable to try to put it in a different context, but that's prone to being exclusive to those who see things the way you do, and self serving.
The worst thing is, backlash is worsened when you try to take the position of painting the feelings others have towards these topics as ones which are entirely wrong to have.
I don't have a better solution though, lol. I think personal experiences are key with topics like those, honestly.
The worst thing is, backlash is worsened when you try to take the position of painting the feelings others have towards these topics as ones which are entirely wrong to have.
I don't have a better solution though, lol. I think personal experiences are key with topics like those, honestly.
Funyarinpa
Member
Thanks Nepenthe, that was an amazing read.
Rudimental
Member
Something like:
"Women, people of colour, LGBTI folk, etc... have all journeyed with Link as you have, faced the same trials and tribulations and overcome them, defeated Ganon/saved the Triforce/etc... Sharing the same love of Hyrule, they deserve the same chance to have Link reflect who they are."
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
Why people saying that link's gender was never used ?
Is that the "male as default" therefore invisible stuff ?
Like there are jokes on this forum that Ocarina of time was based on visual novels because of how every girl wants a piece of Link.
The whole legend of "the hero of time" being a boy and how ganon is kidnapping girls is essential to the Wind Waker story.
Link's Awakening, Skyward Sword and others would have to be dramaticaly changed if link was a woman and dramaticaly bored if you could choose link's gender.
Putting minorities as protagonists means new options of story and a breath of fresh air in a series in need of a shake up, storywise.
Is that the "male as default" therefore invisible stuff ?
Like there are jokes on this forum that Ocarina of time was based on visual novels because of how every girl wants a piece of Link.
The whole legend of "the hero of time" being a boy and how ganon is kidnapping girls is essential to the Wind Waker story.
Link's Awakening, Skyward Sword and others would have to be dramaticaly changed if link was a woman and dramaticaly bored if you could choose link's gender.
Putting minorities as protagonists means new options of story and a breath of fresh air in a series in need of a shake up, storywise.
This is also something I occasionally struggle with. I know others have answered this question but I don't think they've really addressed the core issue of subjectivity. It's very to understand "this product is unappealing to me or turns me off for reasons X, Y, Z" or "I think it would better accomplish its goals if it did A/B/C instead of what it is doing now" but "this shouldn't exist" carries much more weigh and has a different meaning.
A recent example was when Shantae became a topic of discussion in the recent Feminist Frequency thread. All the "'I'm not a fan of this for X" posts made sense and one should be easily able to relate to those. There was one (or more posters) who basically said "this design shouldn't exist anymore" to describe Shantae. All I could do when I read that is think "really?". Like its easy to point to Quiet since she is kind of on the far end of things but I feel it isn't unfair to say that occasionally the offense some people take with particular designs don't seem proportional with the "crime". To me though, the general takeaway shouldn't be that "people want to censor games" but rather "some individuals have unusually extreme reactions to particular subjects". What would be considered an extreme reaction to what subjects though is where the issue of subjectivity comes in.
Something that annoys me about this conversation is the failure of both sides to understand their own narrow perspectives. "Sex sells" is not some inherent truth because adding sex appeal to any particular product doesn't automatically make it sell more. Depending on the context it can be detrimental. However, "mainstream product X has no sex appeal so clearly that's the right thing to do" ignores that many times creators add sex appeal into their products because they personally like it and want to include it AND/OR sometimes it makes more business sense to target a dedicated niche than the mass market. That is to say sometimes its more profitable to be a big fish in a small pond rather than a big fish in an ocean. So the correct answer to "does sex sell?" is never always/never bur rather sometimes.
His Majesty
Banned
Just because most people in The Witcher 3 have the same skin colour doesn't mean there aren't any minorities. Most minorities in Poland are German, Armenian, Ukrainian or Silesian. You are just using applying your American standards of diversity to a game made in Poland and then you claim it's a global product so it has to adhere to global (read: American) standards. Bullshit.
This is diengeneous, Gravity rush is made in Japan and is more racially diverse than most games made in Europe and America.
"Only" disproving the study doesn't make his/her contribute less valid as he/she basically reset the dialog to "Does Sex sell?".
Then he/she also posted a couple of evidence in favor of the "sex sells" thesis that are valid until disproven, even if he/she personally didn't aim to make an official statement.
EDIT: forget the second part, I was sure there was a link to the Netflix data.
antyk
Member
I always avoided those kinds of threads in fear of saying (or phrasing) something in a manner that gets me banned, but just to chime in.
I have no issue and strongly support diversity and representation in games and I couldn't care less what gender, skin colour, sexual preference, religious belief, etc. the protagonist, secondary characters or even the ones in the background are representing. It's a game and as long as it's done right and is interesting, I'll "buy" whatever the story is. Just like in real life - they're people and their 'worth' as human beings has nothing to do with those traits.
But what bothers me, is the actual expectation and outright demand of a lot of people that each game needs to include people of various skin colours, various sexual preferences or even that you should always be able to customise your character with respect to those 'features' to your liking. And this is exactly the point where I disagree with the critique of 'artistic freedom'. If an artist - a game developer - wants to do a game happening in Eastern Europe (e.g. in Poland where I live) he should have the right to not include Black people, because you'll meet them very, very rarely even in the biggest cities. If devs decide not to include any LGBT character in the game it's also their right to do so, because according to stats I saw share of LGBT in general population is around 2%, so - statistically speaking - if there's 5 important characters in your game there's very slim chance somebody will be of the LGBT orientation, unless it obviously takes place in a specific community or area, where those odds are different (artistic community in big city vs. coal mine in rural areas).
What I wanted to say - again, at the risk of being banned - is that wrongly understood political correctness, i.e. fear of opposing and upsetting the loud voice of certain minorities, leads to a very skewed world-view where somehow "diversity and representation" means that within a room of random people there should always be people of different genders, skin colours, sexual orientations and religions; whereas in most cases it's very far from the truth. And those constraints should be completely lifted for fully fictional games & settings, trying to tell a specific story of particular individuals - if you have problem accepting Geralt, Nathan Drake or Aloy as a character and demand to be able to change their appearance, gender, sexual preference, etc (I ROFL-ed reading indignant comments on some Nintendo game requiring you to chose your gender from 'just' a boy or a girl!!!) etc. then just don't play those games, the same way I don't play the 'blank canvas' games like Skyrim for exactly opposite reasons. The same way don't force on me that out of three other characters in my party one needs to be black, one gay and one believes in Allah, unless the story very specifically demands that setup. Sure, by all means let me choose the party members and their traits, but if they're fixed let the composition of the party be realistic with regards to the location, time, etc.
I can fully relate to minorities wanting their 'trait' to be more present in media or entertainment - just like I would love every game, movie and radio to play psychedelic trance music, I know weak example - but let's not tilt it to the opposite extreme, claiming that they should be featured and have prominent role in each & every game. They're called "minorities" for a reason...
There, I said it
I have no issue and strongly support diversity and representation in games and I couldn't care less what gender, skin colour, sexual preference, religious belief, etc. the protagonist, secondary characters or even the ones in the background are representing. It's a game and as long as it's done right and is interesting, I'll "buy" whatever the story is. Just like in real life - they're people and their 'worth' as human beings has nothing to do with those traits.
But what bothers me, is the actual expectation and outright demand of a lot of people that each game needs to include people of various skin colours, various sexual preferences or even that you should always be able to customise your character with respect to those 'features' to your liking. And this is exactly the point where I disagree with the critique of 'artistic freedom'. If an artist - a game developer - wants to do a game happening in Eastern Europe (e.g. in Poland where I live) he should have the right to not include Black people, because you'll meet them very, very rarely even in the biggest cities. If devs decide not to include any LGBT character in the game it's also their right to do so, because according to stats I saw share of LGBT in general population is around 2%, so - statistically speaking - if there's 5 important characters in your game there's very slim chance somebody will be of the LGBT orientation, unless it obviously takes place in a specific community or area, where those odds are different (artistic community in big city vs. coal mine in rural areas
).What I wanted to say - again, at the risk of being banned - is that wrongly understood political correctness, i.e. fear of opposing and upsetting the loud voice of certain minorities, leads to a very skewed world-view where somehow "diversity and representation" means that within a room of random people there should always be people of different genders, skin colours, sexual orientations and religions; whereas in most cases it's very far from the truth. And those constraints should be completely lifted for fully fictional games & settings, trying to tell a specific story of particular individuals - if you have problem accepting Geralt, Nathan Drake or Aloy as a character and demand to be able to change their appearance, gender, sexual preference, etc (I ROFL-ed reading indignant comments on some Nintendo game requiring you to chose your gender from 'just' a boy or a girl!!!) etc. then just don't play those games, the same way I don't play the 'blank canvas' games like Skyrim for exactly opposite reasons. The same way don't force on me that out of three other characters in my party one needs to be black, one gay and one believes in Allah, unless the story very specifically demands that setup. Sure, by all means let me choose the party members and their traits, but if they're fixed let the composition of the party be realistic with regards to the location, time, etc.
I can fully relate to minorities wanting their 'trait' to be more present in media or entertainment - just like I would love every game, movie and radio to play psychedelic trance music, I know weak example - but let's not tilt it to the opposite extreme, claiming that they should be featured and have prominent role in each & every game. They're called "minorities" for a reason...
There, I said it
I always avoided those kinds of threads in fear of saying (or phrasing) something in a manner that gets me banned, but just to chime in.
I have no issue and strongly support diversity and representation in games and I couldn't care less what gender, skin colour, sexual preference, religious belief, etc. the protagonist, secondary characters or even the ones in the background are representing. It's a game and as long as it's done right and is interesting, I'll "buy" whatever the story is. Just like in real life - they're people and their 'worth' as human beings has nothing to do with those traits.
But what bothers me, is the actual expectation and outright demand of a lot of people that each game needs to include people of various skin colours, various sexual preferences or even that you should always be able to customise your character with respect to those 'features' to your liking. And this is exactly the point where I disagree with the critique of 'artistic freedom'. If an artist - a game developer - wants to do a game happening in Eastern Europe (e.g. in Poland where I live) he should have the right to not include Black people, because you'll meet them very, very rarely even in the biggest cities. If devs decide not to include any LGBT character in the game it's also their right to do so, because according to stats I saw share of LGBT in general population is around 2%, so - statistically speaking - if there's 5 important characters in your game there's very slim chance somebody will be of the LGBT orientation, unless it obviously takes place in a specific community or area, where those odds are different (artistic community in big city vs. coal mine in rural areas
What I wanted to say - again, at the risk of being banned - is that wrongly understood political correctness, i.e. fear of opposing and upsetting the loud voice of certain minorities, leads to a very skewed world-view where somehow "diversity and representation" means that within a room of random people there should always be people of different genders, skin colours, sexual orientations and religions; whereas in most cases it's very far from the truth. And those constraints should be completely lifted for fully fictional games & settings, trying to tell a specific story of particular individuals - if you have problem accepting Geralt, Nathan Drake or Aloy as a character and demand to be able to change their appearance, gender, sexual preference, etc (I ROFL-ed reading indignant comments on some Nintendo game requiring you to chose your gender from 'just' a boy or a girl!!!) etc. then just don't play those games, the same way I don't play the 'blank canvas' games like Skyrim for exactly opposite reasons. The same way don't force on me that out of three other characters in my party one needs to be black, one gay and one believes in Allah, unless the story very specifically demands that setup. Sure, by all means let me choose the party members and their traits, but if they're fixed let the composition of the party be realistic with regards to the location, time, etc.
I can fully relate to minorities wanting their 'trait' to be more present in media or entertainment - just like I would love every game, movie and radio to play psychedelic trance music, I know weak example - but let's not tilt it to the opposite extreme, claiming that they should be featured and have prominent role in each & every game. They're called "minorities" for a reason...
There, I said it
"Minority" only means that they're not the majority. If 49.9% of a given population were black and the rest were white, they'd still be a minority, so claiming that they don't """need""" (seriously, what) to be included is straight up disingenuous. I can guarantee that the majority of people who don't live in bumfuck Alabama or something will know a number of """minorities""". Also what's with this idea that it's totally a-ok to include teh Straight White Menz but including anyone else is suddenly this BIG STATEMENT and not just a reflection of reality.
Newsflash, straight white dudes, as much as you might think otherwise, and as much as you might WANT it to, the world doesn't actually revolve around you. I know that's a lot to process, take a moment to let it sink in. I'll wait.