Video Games & "Myth of Neutrality"

[Shiranu]

Absolutely brilliant article in my opinion. I cant help but wonder if it contributes to some of the political views of anti-SJW's, as they are predominately an internet phenomenon (like "SJWs" as they define them), given that every anti-SJW I know is of the age to have grown up on video games.

If we believe that movies and books have the power to influence thoughts and world views, why would gaming be any different? It has been an argument for years that video games are just as much art and story telling as any other media, and yet when the "bad" sides of it start to show their face suddenly we want to distance ourselves and say it couldn't possibly be the games (and no, I am not referring to gaming = violence, though I do believe it can help normalize it).

I also think you can easily see the parellels between the reactions to female and "coloured" (or queer) characters in games to the reactions to them being changed in movies.

http://boingboing.net/2015/06/26/race-video-games-witcher-3.html

The myth of white neutrality persists in the world of gaming, where black characters in fantasy games can be deemed less "realistic" than dragons.Are non-white characters in fantasy games less "realistic" than dragons? Plenty of video game fans seem to think so.
In a recent opinion piece at Polygon, Tauriq Moosa reignited the discussion of diversity in video games with an opinion piece that questioned both the absence of non-white characters in the fantasy roleplaying game Witcher 3, and the objections of white players whose characters were randomly assigned a race in the survival game Rust.

"You see the problem. When white gamers are forced to play people not of their race, it's "forced politics"; when I'm forced into the same scenario, it's business as usual. When you complain, you're making a fuss and being political. The argument is a bit scary when you break it down: The only way games can avoid politics in this situation is to pretend that people of color don't exist.

The response from detractors was swift and vocal. They argued that adding non-white people to games in which they “don’t belong” (a common refrain for period fantasy) is pandering or illogical and would somehow taint, misrepresent or destroy these worlds. Beneath the auspices of concern for accuracy, they’re arguing that these are white worlds and can only function as long as they remain that way. And white worlds demand white heroes.

Are black nobles and paladins really too fantastical to exist, even in worlds of sorcery, wizards and unicorns?

As Geralt narrates, “Hatred and prejudice will never be eradicated. And witch hunts will never be about witches. To have a scapegoatâ€"that’s the key. Humans always fear the alien, the odd. Once the mages had left Novigrad, folk turned their anger against the other races and as they have for ages, branded their neighbors their greatest foes.”
Geralt’s observation sounds like a nod to the 1964 essay "The Paranoid Style in American Politics” authored by Pulitzer-winning scholar Richard Hofstadetr. Analyzing the rightwing Goldwater movement of the 1960’s, Hofstadter remarked on “how much political leverage can be got out of the animosities and passions of a small minority,” arguing that governmental and religious organizations eternally invent villainsâ€"gays, immigrants, feminists, Muslims (counterparts to the metaphorical mages and elves)â€"to maintain a climate of paranoia that they capitalize on for political leverage and control of the populace.
So how is it that a game fully aware of how ethnic and religious prejudices are inventions used to control us can produce such myopic and prejudiced arguments? Why are the metaphors lost on players? Because it positions the protagonist and thus the player as a "neutral observer," a perspective that falsifies the dynamics of oppression.
From the outset, Geralt has no specific allegiance to either humans or non-humans and remains an observer until finally forced to act. So while there are many clear real-world parallels for both oppressors and the oppressed, Geralt (and thus the player) spends most of the game engaging with prejudice from a position of comfortable neutrality.
And this neutrality is rewarded, as the game ultimately equates rebellion against an oppressive system with oppression itself, in order to make a tepid point about the corruptive nature of power. Here, as ever, neutrality is not neutral, but rather a façade that allows us to ignore the political and human consequences of systems of disenfranchisement.
The myth of neutrality remains devastatingly pervasive in games culture. It’s the lens through which game developers often ask players to understand their work. It’s why people still believe you can “objectively” review a game. It’s why calling for diversity is seen as unnecessary, even radicalâ€"no matter how reasoned or moderate the call is. It’s why we only see the politics of people who are different from us.
Honestly, how is asking for more diversity in Witcher 3 political, but arguing against it is not? It’s why critics like Moosa readily admit their arguments are political, but non-critical detractors believe theirs are not. Because the neutral observer fallacy, the entire noxious concept of “objectivity” teaches that we can engage politics without being political. It’s impossible.
The neutral observer fallacy arises from the default notion of whiteness that gaming has yet to free itself from. Which isn’t to place the blame at anyone’s feet specifically, or even generally, but to say that the anti-intellectual climate of gaming feeds is fed by the myth that some people have politics and other people don’t.  Privilege is blinding and allows us to ignore the many systems that keep certain groups of people isolated; “historical accuracy” is just one example. When we speak of “adding diversity” we must speak not just of characters but their consumers and creators. In order to unravel the myths of neutrality, colorblindness we must reveal our own involvement in maintaining them.

[mauricio]

Pretty much just strawmans and delusional misinterpretations just on the first paragraph. Author cannot even read what he links apparently.

The response from detractors was swift and vocal. They argued that adding non-white people to games in which they “don’t belong” (a common refrain for period fantasy) is pandering or illogical and would somehow taint, misrepresent or destroy these worlds. Beneath the auspices of concern for accuracy, they’re arguing that these are white worlds and can only function as long as they remain that way. And white worlds demand white heroes.

He links this  (https://twitter.com/LightheartedDan/status/606812930722496512) which has fuck all to do with what the author is saying the detractors argued about. He simply has no idea what he is talking about. All of this started with the suggestion that the witcher 3 was 'problematic' (gotta love obfuscation) for not having black people. All the arguments were in response to how stupid that is. The long ass historically based responses which showed that medieval Poland had basically almost 100% white people were just the autistic cherry on top. No one is arguing this crazy shit that non-white people do not belong in white worlds (maybe some actual racists like /pol/tards but they are more concerned with real people not pixels) It's all just a response to the extreme stupidity of pretending there is something wrong with people realizing their own artistic vision. It's also a way to show that the witcher 3 IS diversity. You have a polish dev team making a polish mythology based game which is rare and adds more cultural diversity to the gaming world. But oh no SJWs gotta shit on them for making a "white game" which is a stupidly meaningless concept which mixes tons of cultures and ethnicities as if they were the same. White is not an ethnicity it is a fucking color. Pressuring polish people for making a game based on the culture they know and not on some other random cultures is a fucking stupid way to get more diversity. You are supposed to promote other devs and games with different cultures, like the turkish devs of mount and blade or Unearthed or Unrest. This whole idea of pressuring the perceived "white" devs to change their artistic vision with bullshit arguments rather than promoting new underdeveloped games, developers and entire regions of the globe in where game developing is just starting is toxic garbage. Most of his critics do NOT want to keep POCs out of games like Tauriq claims, they want Tauriq to stop making passive aggressive implications of racism against CD projekt red who have done so much more for gaming.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I have an extremely controversial opinion about this article: I think it's basically correct, but makes the problem sound worse and more widespread than it actually is.

There, now everyone can be mad at me. Have a dancing Cirno.

[mauricio]

I have an extremely controversial opinion about this article: I think it's basically correct, but makes the problem sound worse and more widespread than it actually is.

There, now everyone can be mad at me. Have a dancing Cirno.

Do you believe there is a significant push against the inclusion of POC on videogames? I have been following this for more than 2 years now and all i see is people disagreeing with socjus criticism against developers and gamers then the rejection of the criticism is turned into 'gamers do not want POC or females in their white boy's hobby'

Where were all this racist and sexist gamers when some of the biggest classics like tomb raider and all the awesome infinity engine RPGs featured women and POC in lead roles (at that time the gaming community was even more white and male than now). All this bullshit has been prompted by the shitty attempt at criticism by people like anita sarkeesian and tauriq and the polarization this has caused. I will grant that this polarization has made some gamers get really reactionary against any perceived identity politics and/or agenda pushing.

Can you read this articles without cringing?:

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/2015/06/04/witcher-3-and-diversity/

https://archive.is/eyfnC

[Nonsensei]

Maybe I'll shock everyone by agreeing with the general thrust of this article. One one hand I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that black people simply don't fit into some of these worlds, which are based on times and places in our history where there were no black people. It would be just as strange to see a white person in a game based on ancient Africa.

On the other hand, so fucking what? If your game is good people will get over it pretty fast. Thats the ultimate truth here. Gamers play games for fun, and I've never encountered someone who said "oh my god what is a black person doing in this medieval castle, fuck this game". Developers are essentially free to add diversity at their leisure and they would risk nothing by doing so.

The other implication of that reality is that if developers risk nothing by adding diversity, then that means gamers by and large don't give a shit about this issue. The article could only come up with one instance of SUPPOSEDLY white gamers complaining about having their character's skin tone auto-assigned. To be honest this is not really good enough to make the assertion that theres something wrong with "white gamers". I am a white gamer. I've played a ton of games that had black people in them and where you could create a black character if you wanted. Every western MMO ever has had this option as well. Really, any game with a character creator gives you the option of being whatever skin color you want - and thats a lot of games.

[mauricio]

Also the Rust thing was mainly about the lack of character customization even when the assets were clearly there for it. It's kind of like not having the option to rebind keys. If you actually read through the comments in the steam forums when that went on that was the main thrust of the criticism.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/252490/discussions/search/?q=race&gidforum=630799815343099468&include_deleted=1

[trdsf]

Maybe I'll shock everyone by agreeing with the general thrust of this article. One one hand I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that black people simply don't fit into some of these worlds, which are based on times and places in our history where there were no black people. It would be just as strange to see a white person in a game based on ancient Africa.

One word: Tarzan.

If a game is striving for historical accuracy, I can see an argument for a lily-white Europe (assuming it's set there).

However, once you start positing magic and other non-historical scenarios, there really isn't a good reason to be white-only since you've already strayed far from historical accuracy at that point.  You might as well suggest that the only romance options in these games be straight since most people are.

[PickelledEggs]

Bottom line is, if someone wants more of whatever character as protagonists in video games. Hire a developer to make a your preferred type of character as a protagonist. If someone wants more black people as protagonists, hire a developer that would do that.
This attempt on making developers feel bad for making male characters though is utter bullshit and censorship. Censorshit. There. I made a new word for it. And that is all it is. An attempt at best. Because developers know this.

If people are offended or frustrated by the lack of something in a certain community, it's their job to be a part of it and add what is lacking. Not subtract, or attempt to subtract for the equaling out of things. Otherwise, it's partially empty whining.

[mauricio]

One word: Tarzan.

If a game is striving for historical accuracy, I can see an argument for a lily-white Europe (assuming it's set there).

However, once you start positing magic and other non-historical scenarios, there really isn't a good reason to be white-only since you've already strayed far from historical accuracy at that point.  You might as well suggest that the only romance options in these games be straight since most people are.

The realism argument is bunk if the author does not want realism, there is no reason to be white only if the author does not want it to be white only, there is not reason for there to be POC if the author wants it to be white only. This is art. The author is free to choose whatever he wants in his creation, specially when it comes to aesthetics like character looks.

[mauricio]

This arguments for representation are bollocks, you do not have any right to be represented in the work of another artist. Only what he wants to represent in his work is what belongs since he is the creator. Art is not a representative democracy ( and even then you are supposed to represent interests not skin color or sex, fuck identity politics) The attempts of this gaming "journalists" to pressure developers to change their highly succesful works to fit their personal preferences is very entitled and ineffective. If they care about promoting diversity they should do that rather than riling people up with subtle and not-so-subtle accusations of racism and sexism against creators.

[PickelledEggs]

It's not the job of an artist/creator to care about that stuff. They create what is in their vision and what they relate to and what they are trying to communicate. Between a mixture of those things translates to the final product. The witcher for instance. Sure there were no black people that were knights in the middle ages, when the setting sort of mirrors. But even though that is not a good argument for someone defending the main character being white, maybe it's a different reason. Or rather, it is most likely a different reason. For instance maybe the designer is mostly surrounded by white people and a Caucasian guy was the image that popped in his head.

Is that the developers' and designers' faults that people feel left out? No way. No matter what, no matter what the character is, there is going to be a set of people that don't completely relate to it. Period. Successful developers know this and know the key is to make what they feel passionate about and know not to mind when a few whiny people complain "Why is No Man's Sky not called No Woman's Sky". Because yes. It's gotten that ridiculous. This need to be a victim craved by so many people is laughable at this point.

[Mike Cl]

There, now everyone can be mad at me.

Damn it!  I'm so mad at you.  (stomps foot)

[Hydra009]

Maybe I'll shock everyone by agreeing with the general thrust of this article. One one hand I think there's a legitimate argument to be made that black people simply don't fit into some of these worlds, which are based on times and places in our history where there were no black people. It would be just as strange to see a white person in a game based on ancient Africa.

North Africa, yes. (Greek immigrants in Egypt, for example)  Subsaharan Africa, not so much.

[Hydra009]

Is that the developers' and designers' faults that people feel left out? No way. No matter what, no matter what the character is, there is going to be a set of people that don't completely relate to it. Period. Successful developers know this and know the key is to make what they feel passionate about and know not to mind when a few whiny people complain "Why is No Man's Sky not called No Woman's Sky". Because yes. It's gotten that ridiculous. This need to be a victim craved by so many people is laughable at this point.

I know, right?  I saw that and thought it must be a joke.  Who would possibly be so brittle and eager to take offense that they'd misconstrue something as innocuous as the "no man's land" idiom as a sexist slight?  Apparently, SJWs.  There's no distinguishing the parody and the real thing anymore.

[PickelledEggs]

I know, right?  I saw that and thought it must be a joke.  Who would possibly be so brittle and eager to take offense that they'd misconstrue something as innocuous as the "no man's land" idiom as a sexist slight?  Apparently, SJWs.  There's no distinguishing the parody and the real thing anymore.

http://jezebel.com/why-isnt-it-called-no-womans-sky-1785411230