What's your opinion on social justice warfare in games?

Loldrup

I want to note that LGBT characters can be placed in games for all sorts of other reasons than social justice warfare. Thus we're not discussing the mere existence of LGBT characters in games.

I apologize in advance for missing options for answering. I can't imagine all the good possible answers before you come up with them ..

BGLover

What a wonderfully un-biased poll! Not.

Sometimes you learn more from the question being asked, than the answer received.

Loldrup

BGLover said:

What a wonderfully un-biased poll! Not.

Sometimes you learn more from the question being asked, than the answer received.

Believe it or not, I tried my best to make it unbiased.

rapsam2003

How about this? How about we all act like adults (I'm assuming most of us ARE adults), and get the hell over a minor npc who has no real affect on the story? How about we stop being butthurt that Safana has a story arc devoted to her, because some of us are being idiots who think this is another version of Gamersgate? How about we all act our freakin', assumingly mature, ages?!

Dee

Moving this thread to Off Topic.

Tenrecc

My opinion is that this has been debated way too much, and I'd rather see threads that actually adress the game itself than SJW propaganda and whatnots.

The developers has even come out with an announcement about it and admitted faults. Can we please leave this to die and be forgotten and focus on the very good expansion that is Siege of Dragonspear now?

prem0nition

Can we please drop it. Beamdog have admitted they made a mistake, they've removed the offending Minsc line, and they're working to expand Mizhena into something much more meaningful. There's honestly no reason to keep the conversation about GG and SJW going other than to antagonize people.

Honestly it's time to move on, look to the future, and let everyone else do the same.

Purudaya

There needs to be the following option:

Social justice warfare is largely imagined – many games are simply reflective (intentionally or not) of social realities that some gamers are unwilling to accept. The inclusion of these social realities is not an act of "warfare" but a natural progression of representation that has been present throughout media for centuries.

Fixed

Fardragon

My opinion: "SJW" is what evil bastards call anyone who isn't an evil bastard.

Benjamin

I don't like it but it also depends how pushy the author/writer feels.

Most games I'll skip over the dialog so its not problem, but i'll never read a book from Terry.G again after he started preaching his own beliefs & mocking everyone else's through his books.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Nihilus

It depends. I don't mind progressivism in science fiction games like Mass Effect, which take place in the future. There was even somewhat of a romance between a human and a robot with AI in Mass Effect 3. I found it weird, but didn't mind it. Who's to say there won't be such things in the 22th century?

Medieval-based fantasy games like Baldur's Gate, on the other hand, are something altogether different. There will, and should, always be "a knight in shining armor" or "a damsell in distress" in these games. Now some clever subversions can be just as good (Baldur's Gate also has some of those), but no one should take it upon themselves to purge these classic tropes from the medieval-based fantasy games in the name of combatting sexism or whatever.

In my opinion, if a creator is passionate about his/her progressive ideas and wants to implement them in a medieval-based fantasy game, he/she should as subtle as possible and not priotize this at the expense of story, characters or immersion.

semiticgoddess

Shandyr said:

Loldrup said:

I want to note that LGBT characters can be placed in games for all sorts of other reasons than social justice warfare.

@Loldrup
May I ask what other reasons there can be for placing LGBT characters in games?

The same reasons it's fine to put straight characters in games. It doesn't damage gameplay.

Theoretically, a game developer might make a character gay just to make a social justice point. But I can't think of a single example of that ever happening.

Considering Dorn is a bloodthirsty killer and Hexxat is a callous vampire, I'm pretty sure they weren't made bisexual and gay for social justice purposes. I think it was to provide more options for roleplaying... you know, like Anomen being added so female Charnames would have at least one person to romance.

Skyrim handled this issue best. They made marriage gender neutral and never made a big deal about it.

cmk24

Loldrup said:

BGLover said:

What a wonderfully un-biased poll! Not.

Sometimes you learn more from the question being asked, than the answer received.

Believe it or not, I tried my best to make it unbiased.

Usage of the term "social justice warfare" makes the poll biased as not many people want to self associate with warfare (not to mention that I don't actually know what you mean when you use this term). The best way to make an unbiased poll is to avoid any loaded terms such as "SJW", "GG", or "political agenda" as they are likely to lead the person voting to the answer you yourself believe. Instead these terms should be expanded into what it is you mean by them, instead of leaving that interpretation up to the person taking the poll.

Skatan

Nihilus said:

Medieval-based fantasy games like Baldur's Gate, on the other hand, are something altogether different. There will, and should, always be "a knight in shining armor" or "a damsell in distress" in these games.

As in pretty much every single post by regressive people, you're taking your own views as something solid, as if it's a fixed opinion shared by some imaginary homogenic group including everyone 'cept a small minority. News flash, there is no "should" in art and what is preferred is in a state of constant flux, shaping itself aligned to the ever changing world.

Games are art just as paintings or music and it's not for you, me or anyone else except the creators to decide what "should" be in it. And the artists/creators views are not seldom shaped by contemporary views, which means their creations will feature whatever the hell they want and your only choice is if you want to pay money for it or not.

Diogenes42

Hey friends, I would like to clarify something. A lot of you know of the whole "damsel in distress" thing from our fellow game lover Anita Sarkeesian's videos, so its a good example to use when discussing these kinds of issues in a larger context. It isn't that the damsel in distress trope is always inherently wrong and unforgivable, the problem is that its a lazy fallback and it gets used way too much. It's not that you can never have a story where a woman is kidnapped or is not as competent at a man its just that its it seems to happen way too often so people need some new ideas. You may or may not agree that if media keeps showing women this way then thats how people will perceive women but surely you can agree that rescuing Peach again over and over can get old. Lock the door to the castle for once, jeez!

Or if you prefer think of the standard videogame protagonist. You probably have the picture in your head without me even describing it. White dude, big muscles, deep voice, stubbled chin, always got an angry look on their face, big gun/sword and solves his problems almost entirely with killing. It's fine to make videogames starring Videogame Guy, its just that it seems like thats 90% of whats out there. Lets not get rid of him, but bring in some extra protagonists so he gets a bit of a rest from time to time.

Thank you for reading my words.

Nihilus

Skatan said:

As in pretty much every single post by regressive people, you're taking your own views as something solid, as if it's a fixed opinion shared by some imaginary homogenic group including everyone 'cept a small minority.

Just how did I do that exactly? I merely presented my personal opinion, which is what the title question asks.

Skatan said:

Games are art just as paintings or music and it's not for you, me or anyone else except the creators to decide what "should" be in it. And the artists/creators views are not seldom shaped by contemporary views, which means their creations will feature whatever the hell they want and your only choice is if you want to pay money for it or not.

Wrong. Another choice I have is to express my personal opinion in a forum created by developers for people like me (and you) to express our opinions.

Everyone can say what they think "should" be in the game, but it is ultimately the developers who decide what is actually in the game. No arguments there.

Skatan

Nihilus said:

Skatan said:

As in pretty much every single post by regressive people, you're taking your own views as something solid, as if it's a fixed opinion shared by some imaginary homogenic group including everyone 'cept a small minority.

Just how did I do that exactly? I merely presented my personal opinion, which is what the title question asks.

"Medieval-based fantasy games like Baldur's Gate, on the other hand, are something altogether different. There will, and should, always be "a knight in shining armor" or "a damsell in distress" in these games"
Yeah, cause this sure sounds like just stating your own personal opinion, right?

Nihilus said:

Skatan said:

Games are art just as paintings or music and it's not for you, me or anyone else except the creators to decide what "should" be in it. And the artists/creators views are not seldom shaped by contemporary views, which means their creations will feature whatever the hell they want and your only choice is if you want to pay money for it or not.

Wrong. Another choice I have is to express my personal opinion in a forum created by developers for people like me (and you) to express our opinions.

You stated your opinion as if it was shared by a majority, as if it was origo. I called you out on it.

Nihilus

I didn't mean to imply that my opinion was shared by a majority there. (Come to think of it, maybe it is? I don't know, nor do I care.) Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Skatan

..and I'm sorry if I came out as some douche-bag, but there's been enough prejudice on these forums the last week that I'm getting rather sensitive about it.

A word of advice then, if you're stating your own opinion it's good to say so in the post. The abbreviation "IMHO" is a good example.

Nihilus

No worries, I realize tensions are running high these days. And thanks for the advice.

Fardragon

Shandyr said:

Loldrup said:

I want to note that LGBT characters can be placed in games for all sorts of other reasons than social justice warfare.

@Loldrup
May I ask what other reasons there can be for placing LGBT characters in games?

Eh, because they exist?

To me, that question makes as much sense at "why include old people in games?"

gunman

I voted for no SJ at all in games, because in my opinion it very difficult to be done in a subtle way or without the producer pushing some kind of agenda. In a perfect RPG the player should be given the option to choose many reactions to a situation, including politically incorrect or offending to any of the sides.

Fardragon said:

Shandyr said:

Loldrup said:

I want to note that LGBT characters can be placed in games for all sorts of other reasons than social justice warfare.

@Loldrup
May I ask what other reasons there can be for placing LGBT characters in games?

Eh, because they exist?

To me, that question makes as much sense at "why include old people in games?"

And in the same idea, evil or antagonist to player LGBT characters should also be in a game, because some surely exist.

Nihilus

gunman said:

And in the same idea, evil or antagonist to player LGBT characters should also be in a game, because some surely exist.

Technically, 2 out of 3 LGBT (Dorn and Hexxat) characters introduced in the Enhanced Editions are evil. Mizhena, I assume, is neutral; since she is apparently a follower of Tempus. Devs can be accused of some things, but not of portraying LGBT characters as universally benevolent. It's quite the opposite if anything.

gunman

Yes, but the lack of other dialogue options when dealing with SJ subjects is not good. It gives the feeling of pushing an agenda or trying to educate the player.

jjstraka34

The fact that some people think Beamdog was engaged in "warfare" against them is the crux of the problem. One side is engaged in a fight to the death and the rest of us are trying to figure what the hell went wrong in their lives to result in this absurdity....

FinneousPJ

@jjstraka34 Actually it is my understanding that an employee identified themselves as a SJW and told fans to deal with it, which is quite confrontational.

gunman

If this was not called Baldur's Gate, then nobody would have cared. It's normal than the successor of an iconic game to ignite passions. And if you strip this game of the questionable writing (let's say you ignore it, and let's be honest, BG1 did not have great writing either), the only redeeming quality remains the Infinity Engine 2nd ed. D&D combat, which is not Beamdog's merit.

Son_of_Imoen

I don't like the term 'warfare' for the struggle for social justice, so I won't vote.

booinyoureyes

I don't like preaching, for the same reason I don't like feeling like someone is trying to sell me something. However, that is not to say that games should be devoid of a political message. If there is a political message, be it for social justice or otherwise, I'd prefer it to be done well and maturely. However, even if there are instances of it being ham-fisted, it is hardly grounds for me to disavow a game that is otherwise high quality. I'm certainly not against art having a political message, even if I don't agree with it. I do, however, prefer it to be well done rather than frivolous.

Overall, the controversy over this game is disproportionate to the actual political content in Siege of Dragonspear.

Nonnahswriter

I would have voted for the "I really don't care" option, except that I do care.

I care about people other than myself being fairly represented in art. I care that artists of every creed and color and ideologies have the freedom to express themselves and their messages in whatever way they want. I care for a community that leaves its doors open to everyone, because that's what the geek community and gaming community always was--a place for the outcasts, the socially awkward, the dreamers, the intellects...

To only represent ourselves and close our doors on everyone else does a disservice to what our community originally stood for: a nerdy safe-haven from society and all its pressures. A place where you can be accepted for who you are, regardless of your status or wealth or nervous habits.

That isn't to say that creating inclusive content shouldn't be done thoughtlessly and without research. It's hard to write a character that isn't at all like yourself. You have to research that character, talk to other people who are more like him or her, and be willing to listen and learn when you inevitably screw up. Nor would I ever force anyone to take on this task if they didn't feel ready or didn't want to. It's their world and I have no right to interfere.

But it should be done. Not just because it invites opportunity for new stories, and not just because it helps more people feel more welcomed in the medium. But because stories about people other than ourselves helps us empathize, and that is the greatest beauty of the human race: our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes and relate to their pain, their joy, and their sadness. It's why we tell stories. It's why we create art.

And without that empathy, without stopping to think about how our words and actions might affect someone else, someone just as human and volatile as we are... We turn into trolls.