It doesn't matter what he thinks about it because I'm sure he had no ill intent. It's a discussion on lack of diversity in gaming and how in Stardew, the one black character feels so token.
I tend to fall into a bit of a cyclical argument, and I'm not really sure where the solution lies:
We really, really should have more diversity in games, and that's a major issue that needs to be addressed...
...but I have problems with the idea of saying that a
specific game ought to be more diverse; the designer really ought to have the freedom to tell the story they want in the setting they wish to use...
...but then, if I extrapolate that out to all games, with all designers telling the story they want in the setting they wish to use, on average we'll default to a lack of diversity, so we're not solving anything.
I said something similar a while back when the subject was Dishonored 2 (and, IIRC, there was commentary from Feminist Frequency suggested it'd be better if Emily was exclusively the MC, rather than having a choice between her or Corvo):
I think the catch-22, for me, is the point where the question shifts from the general case to a specific case. I completely agree that we need more female perspectives in gaming, and more games with exclusively female lead characters; those lead to storylines that are somewhat underrepresented.
But when it switches to a specific example, I disagree; It'll ultimately depend on the story they're looking to tell, so it's hard to make too many assumptions right now, but in principle I don't have a problem with Bethesda making this choice in the best interests of the game they wish to develop.
That's the problem, and I'm struggling to reconcile it satisfactorily. There are more stories out there that should be told that are being neglected, and that's bad. But it doesn't necessarily mean that you should force a story into that mould. In Bethesda's case, it's rather dependent on how well they make Emily a plausible and individual character, rather than Corvo-sans-Blink.
The solution I'd like to say is that companies should continue to make the stories they wish to make, and new developers should spring up to fill those gaps. But that's its own problem when money comes into the fray; can such titles get the funding they need to be viable projects when commercialism becomes a necessary consideration?
It's a tough one. I agree with FF in the general sense, disagree in the specific sense, but in doing so also have to concede that unless there are some specific pushes in that direction, the general sense won't change.
I suppose the ideal solution is to get more artists into the industry who
want to make interestingly diverse games - but we have to be welcoming when they do... and we don't
look welcoming from the outside. Another problem.
And so, well, I keep going around in circles, trying to reconcile artistic freedom for the individual against the lack of diversity of the industry as a whole. I don't have answers; I wish I did.
continues to have even more diversity, as there are three villages, each with a "theme"; Western, Japanese, and a darker set of Pacific Islanders/Indian (although I wish the portrait art matched the sprite skintones better, way too much "light-washing" there), as well as the customizable MC. In addition, it finally looks like we're going to be getting unique children based on the parents again, a feature that hasn't been seen since Animal Parade. (This will hopefully destroy the "mixed race kids are white" thing from the last few games.)
