David Gaider on representation in games
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.beamdog.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Post edited by [Deleted User] on
5
Comments
Having a character, or characters people can relate to in a story improves a persons immersion into that story if it is done properly. The more characteristics a story has the more people it can draw in, expanding its audience.
But not only does it expand the audience, it also allows those who may not share some of those characteristics to understand them slightly better and be more accepting of them once they are immersed in the story.
I'll give a generic example: The Power Rangers 90's tv show.
5 Characters: Red Ranger: White Male Jock Black Ranger: Black Male Jock Blue Ranger: White Male Intellect Pink Ranger: White Female Yellow Ranger: Asian Female.
So, if you can look past the racial colour coding and the white male being the leader, you had 5 distinct characters that different types of kids could relate too while watching the show. This diversity helped expand the popularity of show more than if it was just 5 white guys in coloured tights.
To a lesser extent, it also taught the kids watching the show that it is ok to have friends that are of different race, to treat those "weaker" than you with the same respect and yes, girls can kick ass and have girl power as much as the boys.
Looking back it on it now, this show may seem dated in its approach, and still held a lot of stereotypes, but it did take place close to 25 years ago and its approach, can be seen as a stepping stone of the inclusiveness we have in media (including videogames) today.
"I do kinda feel like I want to respond to the first comment, though, regarding the set sexualities in DAI being a "step back".
To me, it's only a step back if you figure the game's characters aren't written as characters, but rather as potential romances for the player, and them not aligning to your wishes is, in itself, a form of denial.
I find that roughly like complaining that not all characters were okay with every decision you make. "Why can't I be evil and X is okay with it?
There is a difference between representation and wish fulfillment, and suggesting that one cannot have the former without also having the latter does not sit well with me.
Of course, I am also a writer. A player is free to want whatever they want - they don't need an objective reason to dislike something, even if they might strive to find one simply because they figure their desires alone are insufficient. Understood.
At the very least, I rather like that we're at a point where we can argue about *how much* queer content we can get, or deserve, as opposed to whether it should be there at all.
Personally I just can't understand why people do not want this kind of diversity/new experience. It's like eating pancakes for breakfast every day, every week year after year. Even though pancakes are super-tasty, sooner or later you'll wanna try out some waffles.
You have to remember, in videogames, especially RPGs, there is already a checklist that developers need to follow. Choice needs to be given to the player. That is expected. There needs to be a good rotation of characters the player can choose from when venturing forth.
Those characters should be diverse, to allow conflict to settle into the story to make it more believable. It also gives choice. If you had 20 characters a player could choose from, but they are share the same characteristics, the writing would not be as immersive and compelling if they were all different.
So writers have a checklist.
"We need 8-10 characters the player can take with them." (checkbox #1)
There should be at least 2 characters to fill the same role (spellcaster, rogue, tank) to give choice when filling that role.(checkbox #2)
Once those two criteria are filled, it's the job of the writers to take the establish lore and canon of the setting and make them fit into it. (Checkbox #3)
Once a rough character sketch is done (this is a mage from Thay) it is the writers job to add different characteristics to this character that makes them unique, less generic and hopefully doesn't follow stereotypes when doing so.
(checkbox #4).
Once all the characters are established, is there a characteristic that we missed that we want included to add diversity (remember the more diverse, the more people relate to and immerse themselves into a story). If so, is there a character we can change to give that characteristic to? If so rewrite the character (checkbox #5)
As long as writers don't start at #5 (this leads to stereotypes first, instead of unique characters), a writer can have a well written diverse cast.
Plus, I can guarantee that I hardly ever see anyone remotely similar to me in any media (and no - race and sex doesn't count.) That doesn't prevent me from immersing into the story, liking or relating to characters in such media. I would even say it takes a level of narcism to not being able to relate unless viewer sees himself/herself in the media.
I am not entitled to the representation and neither is anyone here.
Often people say something is pandering when it isn't, because to them any diversity at all qualifies as pandering. It's a subjective judgment, and thus often not meaningful as a criticism. It is often more reliable to read "this is pandering" as "I don't think characters like this should exist."
Race and sex absolutely does count. There's a lot of discussion on this that you can easily find with google, so I'm not going to reiterate it all for you.
Wanting to see characters like one's self is not narcissism, and no one is saying that people can't relate to characters not like them. Just that it's often a good thing to have characters that are like them. I was quite happy when I discovered I could romance Leliana in Dragon Age because it was one of the rare occasions I'd been able to play a character with an orientation that matches my own - that is, my female Grey Warden could be in a relationship with a woman. Heterosexual relationships are fine, and I wouldn't call for them to be removed, but if they're all I see I get pretty bored.
Representation isn't a question of entitlement, and framing it as such is not meaningful or relevant. People like representation, and there's nothing wrong with having it. The fact that diverse representation also means telling new and better stories is a feature, and one good creators should probably strive to do better on.
Of course, no one's required to do that, and no one is required to consume more diverse art, but to dismiss it is misleading and false.
I'm not arguing that anyone should put a higher priority on representation than writing a good story - rather, I am saying that good representation adds to the story in the first place.
Variety, as they say, is the spice of life - and, when we create characters for a game that's intended to have any depth to their presentation, reflecting life is part of making them feel real. Having a larger toolbox from which to draw stories is a better thing, even if you wish to ignore the notion that better representation of minorities is, in and of itself, also the right thing to do (which not everyone does, but I'll ignore that aspect for the sake of your argument).
That said, I believe there's a right way to do it and a wrong way. The wrong way is to treat a character's identity as a concept. If a writer came to me and their initial concept for a character was "they are a minority" and nothing more, I'd dismiss it. That's not a concept as it's not a story (unless your game's story is about minorities, I suppose), and in fact risks that everything which comes afterwards falls into some kind of stereotype based on your preconceptions of that identity. In my opinion, games don't work well as "teaching moments" - that's not why we make them, and it's not why people play them - unless that's what their express stated purpose is from the outset.
It does not follow, however, that there's no moment in game development to then look at your cast and see where more variety can be added into their concepts. Sometimes it will change or add to those concepts, but sometimes it will just be a fact that doesn't really come up in their story at all. If you don't do that, you fall into the trap where all characters end up being the default - typically white, male, and straight - because that's what happens when you don't think about it, and that's rather dull. Not because straight white men are inherently dull, no, but because having an overwhelming sameness of anything is dull.
Sure, there will always be people who prefer the default - it doesn't need to be "justified", after all, and they'll look at the presence of anything else and demand that some kind of justification be offered. Why is this character a woman? Why is this one gay, or transgender? Explain it! Or, worse, they imagine "politics" as being the overriding reason for their inclusion, as opposed to simple variety, and declare it jarring. I understand that, but - if I'm frank - that's on them, and I really wait for the time where they just get over it. As a writer and creator, I will cling to this growing ability to draw from all the stories that exist in real life, and let these diverse characters be as well-written (or as poorly-written) as any others before them without feeling any profound need to have them otherwise justify their presence.
Hope that makes sense.
For me, sex, sexual orientation or race on character doesn't matter, because these are traits that no one has any influence over. I won't be proud because of accidental non-accomplisment of being born with particular race, sex or sexual orientation. Instead, what I believe truly matters and what should have huge ammount diversity is characters' history, worldview, ideology, decisions, personality, skills, philosophy, character quirks and so on. I agree that diversity can add to the story, but on traits that actually matters. I wouldn't think of a character or person any less because of their race or sex, I would care about what traits those characters represents.
@Shandaxx
I know you were answering to @Chidojuan , but forgive me for saying some things. First of your points kinda explains why it [representation] matters, but on the other hand I want to mention something. Sure, seeing homosexual character in media can make you feel better about yourself, but it doesn't change anything in the long run. What you say is short-term solution and until you work on your self-esteem the problem can, and probably will come back.
Your two other examples are similar in nature and tied to the first. I geniuely recommend you to work on your self-esteem as it will only help you in the long run. That's coming from the guy whos' self-esteem was extremely low just few years ago.
It's easy for you, as (I assume) someone who is widely represented in media in non-stereotypical ways, in respectful ways, to say representation doesn't matter, but you're not looking at this from anyone else's perspective. You haven't had to deal with a media that either a) doesn't show people like you at all, or b) shows people like you in predominantly negative or stereotyped ways. If you want an example of one thing that's problematic look up "bury your gays." It's hard when the people you see who are like you in the media almost invariably come to a bad end, often for terrible reasons.
It doesn't matter whether you wouldn't think of a character or person any less because of their race or sex because a heck of a lot of people do think less of people for those reasons. In fact, it's all the more reason for someone like you to speak up when it happens.
But I believe David Gaider has said the most important aspect of diversity - if your character is an interesting person with an interesting story that just happens to be PoC or gay or trans, then it's a good character. A Diverse Character™ however who is always "I'm Diverse! See how Diverse I am? See my Diversity! Did I mention how Diverse I am?" is annoying.
I think you give much more meaning than necessary to the given traits. That's a shame. Why the hell would anyone judge other by they actual merit as a human beings, instead focusing on race or sex? Only such a morons as myself.
Yes, I'm represented in respectful and flattering manner in media all the time. It's not like no one from my race ever was depicted in fiction as murderer, traitor, thief, sadist, burglar, rapist, rasist, con artist, serial killer, corrupt politician, idiot, butt mankey, coward or psychopath. Not at all. Only respectful potrayals I can be proud of... Oh wait. It happens a lot. Is your argument valid, then?
Also, don't ever use argumentation like "you haven't xxx therefore you can't yyy". It's just bad and it makes you look as if you haven't have anything of a value to say.
And yes, I was stereothyped based on my nationality. Thank you very much, but I don't think I am entitled to representation based on that. Not that you care - I'm not trans or homosexual after all. I wish I stated my first post like that. It would prevent all this pointless talk. Thank you for stating that.
I didn't say that all representation is 100% positive. The difference is that you get the positive and negative portrayals both, which is called nuance. Women, people of color, and LGBT people deal with portrayals that have less nuance and are more likely to be stereotypical, objectifying, and/or negative. When those are what you see the vast majority of the time with very few exceptions those exceptions become very important.
It's false to claim I only care about trans people, lesbians, or gay men, and strikes me as an attack upon me as a person. I haven't attacked you, so I would appreciate it if you'd return the favor.
As far as your nationality goes, I don't know what that is. That's not really relevant, though, as everyone is stereotyped eventually. The distinction is that for some people the stereotypes dominate representations of people like them, not that stereotyping only happens to people like them.
@Shandaxx Thank you for sharing that, I can definitely get behind your point on escapism as well.
@SilmarilNaro Well said my forum brother. This is why tokenizing diverse characters can be super annoying.
If there are many people who are utterly okay with their defining trait being those that they have no influence over, then so be it. It's their choice. It's wrong one to make, as I think they'll only continue to see people (and worse - themselves) in such limited way, but it's their choice to make.
I'm glad that you mentioned objectification, because it's often has two sides to it: one is geniuely presenting a female as an sexual object and nothing more, which is wrong (kinda like seeing people only for their race or sex, I might add). Second side is stupid people assuming being sexually attractive is wrong. It generally depends on the indicvidual case.
Anyways, while I can see some validity in your examples, women is not one of them. I'm pretty sure discrimination based on gender is against the law in western civilization and examples of sexism are that of inviduals. The victim can do something about each invidual case and this is actual way of combating sexism. Also, it's not like women are the only gender that is treated unfairly in media. Men, after all, are utilities that are expendable. If man does not contribute, he is useless and thrown away.
Oh, I have not attacked you. My remark was because of things like this: Or this:
@ Because, apparently, my opinion is worth less, because of my perspective alone. Somehow.
You can have your representation, sure. If people needs it so much, then so be it. Just, when this happens, I would like to see more characters like Dorian (thanks, @ThacoBell ) instead of "I AM SO DIVERSE! SO DIVERSE! SENPAI NOTICED ME!"). That's all I ask, quality of writing before anything else, be it representation for the single sake representation or politics.
Or they don't?
Wish people would make up their minds.
@Shandaxx
The example of the Marianne quest.
It would be utterly ridiculous in context what you suggest.
Quasi medievil world, small village, monsters all around.
Yep totally believable that men/women have equality, not immersion breaking at all. Never ever would occur for somebody to say "you're a man, get out there and look for him".
The only way you can break any "rules" is when "rules" exist.
BG got it right, they gave out the guff about women/men being equal in the realms and then promptly set the game in a setting where they weren't with a few exceptions.
Push the absence of "rules" too much and you end up with nothing being believable and nothing resonating. No framework to work with or against.
Edwin having the sex change, nothing to laugh about here people, move along, no banter, no jokes.
Hmmm, and where have we seen that?
I think there is some people who take every single "diverse" character as being shoved in their face, but that just seems reactionary. One has to be discerning and see if a character is written with more to them than just their "diversity" factor, and then decide one's thoughts on them.
And honestly? It is up to each individual to decide that for themselves and then for fan communities to collate those opinions to get an idea of the prevalent opinion.
I would also mention that Vivienne has one characteristic that is a Real Life minority characteristic (at least in America) that has absolutely no effect on her story (she's black), and another in-story one (mage) that is relevant.
There are multiple ways of doing diverse well, and it's not always ignoring those characteristics either.