It's the same old same old where some people would prefer to live in a world where no one who isn't like them exists. Merely including someone different from them is called "shoving it down their throats".
I'm assuming you're addressing me but you're not addressing any of my points. You've ignored my points and have mischaracterized my position...
Oh, something to add. I don't mind that Safana's sexual. I do mind that her selection sounds flirt with you, the player. That just smacks of the writers assuming the player is interested in women (and, frankly, this is not by a long shot the only indication of this assumption in BG, or of the different-but-based-on-exactly-the-same-logic assumption that the player/character is male).
Actually, let's examine that a bit more closely. In BG1, I can think of three major instances of overtly sexual female NPCs (Safana, Shoal, Desreta), and two major instances of overtly sexual male NPCs (Coran, Eldoth). Of those, all of the female characters direct their flirtations towards Charname, regardless of Charname's gender, and neither of the male characters do so. Now, I certainly don't mind the idea that a woman could be attracted to both men and women. But when all the sexual women are attracted to the player character, regardless of gender, and none of the sexual men are, you have to think about why that is. Hint: It's because the designers assumed that only straight guys were playing their game. And that, right there, is where the sexism is in Baldur's Gate.
The person playing Baldur's Gate back in 1998 probably was a straight guy though. It was a good assumption. The makers of tampons assume their consumers are female too. Another good assumption. The designer of Barbie also assumes their consumers are little girls. Are these examples of sexism? Nope. They're examples of marketing strategy, common sense, and reality.
Now, the PC gaming audience is more diverse because gaming in general has become more mainstream; however, if I had to guess, the audience is probably still predominately male and straight.
One might point out that designing games under the assumption that only or primarily straight white guys are going to play contributes to an environment that does not feel welcoming or fun for people who don't fit into those categories. Perhaps designing games so that they don't strictly cater to one particular demographic might see demographics shift more than they already have (currently there are many more women gamers than you seem to realize).
Anyway, hi, I'm totally a lesbian who played Baldur's Gate in 1998. People like me do exist. I (and others like me) am not just an outlier. I know, I know, you'll try to shift the goalposts by mentioning how few lesbians there are compared to straight people, but that's a sidetrack and not a legitimate argument.
Straight minds dealing only in mathematical abstractions of LGBT folks as numbers in a formula rather than real people with lived experiences isn't new, but it's not really an argument against inclusion unless it's an argument not to include the person making the argument in a conversation.
One might point out that designing games under the assumption that only or primarily straight white guys are going to play contributes to an environment that does not feel welcoming or fun for people who don't fit into those categories.
Well, obviously that's not true by your own admission... You're a lesbian who played Baldur's Gate in 1998, lol.
I think you're grasping at straws here. What part of Baldur's Gate would discourage a gay person from playing it? It didn't discourage you. Interesting that you threw in white too.
But seriously though. Could you be more specific with your argument? What part of Baldur's Gate discourages homosexuals? I'm interested. Afterwards, could you explain why that quality in Baldur's Gate didn't discourage you from playing the game despite you being a homosexual yourself?
Perhaps designing games so that they don't strictly cater to one particular demographic might see demographics shift more than they already have (currently there are many more women gamers than you seem to realize).
That depends on how you define "gamer". I don't consider women who play CandyCrush on Facebook to be gamers. When I think gamer, I think a person who grew up playing Doom, Command and Conquer, Baldur's Gate. Or somebody who likes Dark Souls or regularly plays first-person shooters. Under my definition, you'd fall under gamer. My own girlfriend does too. So does my friend's girlfriend. However, most women don't.
Anyway, hi, I'm totally a lesbian who played Baldur's Gate in 1998. People like me do exist. I (and others like me) am not just an outlier. I know, I know, you'll try to shift the goalposts by mentioning how few lesbians there are compared to straight people, but that's a sidetrack and not a legitimate argument.
That's not moving the goal posts... That's just stating fact. The majority of Baldur's Gate's audience isn't homosexual. And I think that has more to do with the fact that the vast majority of people in the world are not homosexual. Now, do you have any evidence of Baldur's Gate discouraging homosexual players? For instance, Minsc breaking the 4th wall and telling the player that all homosexuals will burn in hell? That would be an actual deterrence. Interestingly enough, that's precisely how the developers at Beamdog pushed their political opinion down the throats of their playerbase; and I'm willing to bet you didn't care when that discouraged players with different political viewpoints from playing the game. Beamdog is guilty of something that you've falsely accused Bioware of doing.
So let's not get angry at reality. There's nothing wrong with the majority of Baldur's Gate players being straight men and it makes perfect sense to cater to them more than smaller groups who play Baldur's Gate. That's not to say there shouldn't be something for everyone, but to pretend all groups are of equal size is ridiculous and not sensible from a business perspective.
I'm a straight man(heck, I'm even white!). You don't need to exclude/strictly limit minorities in order to cater to me.
To summarize for people who won't read the whole topic:
- Certain characters (due to limited dialog options) appeared to be sexist stereotypes in the original game. - Beamdog writers expanded upon their personalities with SoD. - Said characters are no longer one-dimensional and less of a negative gender stereotype.
Am I correct? What exactly is everyone trying to argue here?
So let's not get angry at reality. There's nothing wrong with the majority of Baldur's Gate players being straight men and it makes perfect sense to cater to them more than smaller groups who play Baldur's Gate. That's not to say there shouldn't be something for everyone, but to pretend all groups are of equal size is ridiculous and not sensible from a business perspective.
I'm a straight man(heck, I'm even white!). You don't need to exclude/strictly limit minorities in order to cater to me.
I have cis and straight friends and relatives who give a pass on exclusionary media that is "marketed at them" by "not going all PC" with those horrible gestures like including a diverse array of human beings in it, sometimes because they're just as bored with its blandness as I am, sometimes because they're even more upset about media representation issues than I am on behalf of their LGBT relatives and friends (of whom I'm only one, but not the only one), and as an LGBT person who knows these non-LGBT people intimately I gotta say an argument to cater to straight people by doing one thing that not all straight people like is a weird one.
But that's what happens when you try and universalize your own preferences and opinions as if they're facts, you end up painting people you think are like you with a brush they don't want anywhere near them, because - surprise, surprise - life is more diverse than an egotist who clones their own preferences when thinking of people in their demographic could ever possibly conceive.
I bet you feel guilty about it too; and I mean this seriously. Strange times we live in.
You don't need to exclude/strictly limit minorities in order to cater to me.
A game developer has a limited amount of time, money, and resources.
And if a game developer wants to make the most money and please the largest portion of their base, then they allocate resources in such a way to cater to the largest number of their constituents. This is just common sense. In this instance, what would follow is the game developer would worry more about what straight men think than a lesbian. That's not to say there wouldn't be anything for the lesbian--or that they would actively discourage lesbians from playing. The developer would just worry more about pleasing the larger portion of their base. However, if the developer is more interested in identity politics or pushing a liberal agenda, then they do what Beamdog did. But do you seem what happened? There was a huge backlash (for reasons I just mentioned). For instance, I never bought the expansion even though I'm a big Baldur's Gate fan.
So they probably won't be doing that again... unless they want to lose more money.
Well, obviously that's not true by your own admission... You're a lesbian who played Baldur's Gate in 1998, lol.
Actually it is true. I actually avoided Baldur's Gate until some friends of mine talked me into trying it out. When I did, I liked it, and one thing I liked about it was that I was able to create a female character - I completely avoided RPGs that only allowed you to play male characters until Planescape: Torment - and the only reason I tried that was because I had enjoyed Baldur's Gate and I wanted to see what all the fuss about the great story was.
The second time I broke that rule was The Witcher, but I didn't get very far into the game because it was soooo painfully aimed at straight white guys.
I think you're grasping at straws here. What part of Baldur's Gate would discourage a gay person from playing it? It didn't discourage you. Interesting that you threw in white too.
But seriously though. Could you be more specific with your argument? What part of Baldur's Gate discourages homosexuals? I'm interested. Afterwards, could you explain why that quality in Baldur's Gate didn't discourage you from playing the game despite you being a homosexual yourself?
First thing: Don't call me a "homosexual." You can call me a lesbian, you can even call me gay, but "homosexual" is ridiculous. You're also ignoring the fact that lesbian encompasses "woman" and that may also be pivotal to what I am saying.
Second thing: You don't understand my point, which is that gaming as a hobby actively discourages people who aren't straight white guys by primarily providing protagonists who are straight white guys, or assuming that the player is a straight white guy (such as in Baldur's Gate as you yourself acknowledged). By marginalizing other perspectives, people from those perspectives are not necessarily encouraged to continue playing. The fact that I did play it doesn't mean that marginalization didn't exist or that I was immune to reacting to it. It simply means that other reasons contributed more to me playing the game than contributed to me not playing the game. Again, keeping in mind that I had to be convinced to try the game in the first place.
That depends on how you define "gamer". I don't consider women who play CandyCrush on Facebook to be gamers. When I think gamer, I think a person who grew up playing Doom, Command and Conquer, Baldur's Gate. Or somebody who likes Dark Souls or regularly plays first-person shooters. Under my definition, you'd fall under gamer. My own girlfriend does too. So does my friend's girlfriend. However, most women don't.
Your definition is narrow and restrictive. Candy crush is as much a gamer's game as anything else. You might be looking for something else to distinguish it from the action-oriented games you listed.
But that's beside the point, which is that women are increasingly involved in gaming and this has been statistically demonstrated. Trying to marginalize these women out of gaming is one of the sorts of things that acts to discourage women from open participation in the hobby.
That's not moving the goal posts... That's just stating fact. The majority of Baldur's Gate's audience isn't homosexual. And I think that has more to do with the fact that the vast majority of people in the world are not homosexual. Now, do you have any evidence of Baldur's Gate discouraging homosexual players? For instance, Minsc breaking the 4th wall and telling the player that all homosexuals will burn in hell? That would be an actual deterrence. Interestingly enough, that's precisely how the developers at Beamdog pushed their political opinion down the throats of their playerbase; and I'm willing to bet you didn't care when that discouraged players with different political viewpoints from playing the game. Beamdog is guilty of something that you've falsely accused Bioware of doing.
It's not stating a fact, it's making an excuse for marginalizing gay and lesbian people out of representation or even acknowledgment. Fortunately, more modern games are acknowledging and including gay, lesbian and bisexual people, and this is only a good thing for the hobby.
As far as your politics being marginalized, I find it really hard to care. Ultimately, the decisions Beamdog made - which have been explained ad nauseum to you - are of the good for Baldur's Gate and gaming as a whole. If that means that the he-man woman-haters club plays fewer games out of fear or hatred of being exposed to more diverse perspectives and characters I can't really bring myself to sympathize. Sorry. The perspective you're espousing is one of the things that has been wrong with gaming (and in many ways still is), and the sooner it gets the boot the better.
Actually it is true. I actually avoided Baldur's Gate until some friends of mine talked me into trying it out.
I’m sorry but this doesn’t pass the smell test at all. I’m having a hard time believing you’re even a lesbian, to be honest. What part of Baldur’s Gate’s cover-art or marketing campaign discouraged you, a lesbian, from playing it? I would assume Viconia would have been encouragement enough. I’m finding this both hilarious and ridiculous. Maybe you are a lesbian, but I think you’re lying when you say you felt discouraged from playing Baldur's Gate because it hurt your lesbian identity. Again, could you be more specific?
When I did, I liked it, and one thing I liked about it was that I was able to create a female character - I completely avoided RPGs that only allowed you to play male characters until Planescape: Torment - and the only reason I tried that was because I had enjoyed Baldur's Gate and I wanted to see what all the fuss about the great story was.
I’m glad I don’t share that mentality. I wouldn’t have been able to enjoy the Metroid series, some of the classes in Diablo, Tomb Raider, Perfect Dark, Bayonetta, etc. Do you have an issue with men in general and that’s why you don’t like playing male characters?
The second time I broke that rule was The Witcher, but I didn't get very far into the game because it was soooo painfully aimed at straight white guys.
The Witcher has a bunch of hot chicks in it… aren’t you lesbian? I’m half kidding. But on a more serious note… What appeals to straight guys (sexually) should appeal to you, correct? What exactly are you referring to that turns you off (as a lesbian)? You still haven’t provided any details.
First thing: Don't call me a "homosexual." You can call me a lesbian, you can even call me gay, but "homosexual" is ridiculous.
Very interesting. Now you’re going all authoritarian on me, telling me how I should talk. I’m sorry, but I’ll call you what I want. You’re a homosexual.
You're also ignoring the fact that lesbian encompasses "woman" and that may also be pivotal to what I am saying.
Great. Now what is your point?
Second thing: You don't understand my point, which is that gaming as a hobby actively discourages people who aren't straight white guys by primarily providing protagonists who are straight white guys, or assuming that the player is a straight white guy
I don’t think that actually discourages anyone who isn’t white, male, and straight from playing those games. Unless that player hates white, straight, men (racist, sexist, and heterophobic). I also don’t believe white straight men are as strongly represented in video games as you say. And could you provide some sort of argument for why this would discourage a person?
(such as in Baldur's Gate as you yourself acknowledged)
I actually don’t think Baldur’s Gate caters to white straight men. But I do believe in the points I made. I was just granting that premise for the sake of argument.
By marginalizing other perspectives, people from those perspectives are not necessarily encouraged to continue playing.
So how did you know that Baldur’s Gate “marginalized” lesbians without playing it? And what part of Baldur’s Gate “marginalized” lesbians?
Your definition is narrow and restrictive.
Every definition is. That’s the point of definitions. Although some definitions are more narrow and restrictive than others. I think you mean to say my definition of gamer is more restrictive than yours. If that’s your point then my answer is, so?
But that's beside the point, which is that women are increasingly involved in gaming and this has been statistically demonstrated. Trying to marginalize these women out of gaming is one of the sorts of things that acts to discourage women from open participation in the hobby.
I never argued anyone should be marginalized. Ironically, I believe you are. I’m simply saying the game industry should cater the most to those who invest into it the most. It’s a simple concept.
It's not stating a fact, it's making an excuse for marginalizing gay and lesbian people out of representation or even acknowledgment. Fortunately, more modern games are acknowledging and including gay, lesbian and bisexual people, and this is only a good thing for the hobby.
I believe homosexual and bisexual people should be represented in games, but I don’t think the video game industry should cater to them as much as heterosexuals. This is because the majority of gamers are heterosexual. They make up the majority of the fans. They invest the majority of the money.
As far as your politics being marginalized, I find it really hard to care.
Well of course. You only care if your side is marginalized.
If that means that the he-man woman-haters club plays fewer games out of fear or hatred of being exposed to more diverse perspectives
You’re the one who admitted that you avoided games with male protagonists! Are you part of the man-haters club? I on the other hand don’t have a problem with playing female characters. I think it's worth mentioning again that you're for marginalizing certain groups just as long as you're not part of them.
It's funny how someone who compulsively applies their own inner world onto other people's intentions and preferences can't stop doing it, isn't it? Like we can all see it, but he can't see it so he keeps doing it.
Like, the internal universe of this poster even includes what preferences for women a lesbian must have to count as a lesbian...from the perspective of straight man who has never once experienced lesbian same gender attraction in his life, much less the diverse experience of attraction of all lesbians. He's arguing with a brick wall inside his own head, and anyone arguing with that brick wall aren't even getting through.
I think we can all safely stop replying to his posts now, he's just arguing with images of things in his own extremely narrow imaginary stand-ins for the complexity of human beings and considering any deviation from his limited configurations of imaginary stand-ins to be default invalid (or "laughable" or somehow a lie or something he doesn't believe) because it doesn't map to his preconceived notions.
There's literally no point in engaging with someone like this. It's the definition of "feeding the troll" at this point.
It's funny how someone who compulsively applies their own inner world onto other people's intentions and preferences can't stop doing it, isn't it? Like we can all see it, but he can't see it so he keeps doing it.
Like, the internal universe of this poster even includes what preferences for women a lesbian must have to count as a lesbian...from the perspective of straight man who has never once experienced lesbian same gender attraction in his life, much less the diverse experience of attraction of all lesbians. He's arguing with a brick wall inside his own head, and anyone arguing with that brick wall aren't even getting through.
I think we can all safely stop replying to his posts now, he's just arguing with images of things in his own extremely narrow imaginary stand-ins for the complexity of human beings and considering any deviation from his limited configurations of imaginary stand-ins to be default invalid (or "laughable" or somehow a lie or something he doesn't believe) because it doesn't map to his preconceived notions.
There's literally no point in engaging with someone like this. It's the definition of "feeding the troll" at this point.
Yeah, you should get going. I agree. Don't forget your ball.
I'm closing this thread now. Please read and be mindful of the site rules, including the one about respecting people. Personal attacks are not okay; accusing people of lying about first-hand experiences certainly falls under that category.
You don't have to agree with everything that gets said, but you do have to respond civilly, if you respond at all.
Comments
Anyway, hi, I'm totally a lesbian who played Baldur's Gate in 1998. People like me do exist. I (and others like me) am not just an outlier. I know, I know, you'll try to shift the goalposts by mentioning how few lesbians there are compared to straight people, but that's a sidetrack and not a legitimate argument.
I think you're grasping at straws here. What part of Baldur's Gate would discourage a gay person from playing it? It didn't discourage you. Interesting that you threw in white too.
But seriously though. Could you be more specific with your argument? What part of Baldur's Gate discourages homosexuals? I'm interested. Afterwards, could you explain why that quality in Baldur's Gate didn't discourage you from playing the game despite you being a homosexual yourself? That depends on how you define "gamer". I don't consider women who play CandyCrush on Facebook to be gamers. When I think gamer, I think a person who grew up playing Doom, Command and Conquer, Baldur's Gate. Or somebody who likes Dark Souls or regularly plays first-person shooters. Under my definition, you'd fall under gamer. My own girlfriend does too. So does my friend's girlfriend. However, most women don't. That's not moving the goal posts... That's just stating fact. The majority of Baldur's Gate's audience isn't homosexual. And I think that has more to do with the fact that the vast majority of people in the world are not homosexual. Now, do you have any evidence of Baldur's Gate discouraging homosexual players? For instance, Minsc breaking the 4th wall and telling the player that all homosexuals will burn in hell? That would be an actual deterrence. Interestingly enough, that's precisely how the developers at Beamdog pushed their political opinion down the throats of their playerbase; and I'm willing to bet you didn't care when that discouraged players with different political viewpoints from playing the game. Beamdog is guilty of something that you've falsely accused Bioware of doing.
- Certain characters (due to limited dialog options) appeared to be sexist stereotypes in the original game.
- Beamdog writers expanded upon their personalities with SoD.
- Said characters are no longer one-dimensional and less of a negative gender stereotype.
Am I correct? What exactly is everyone trying to argue here?
But that's what happens when you try and universalize your own preferences and opinions as if they're facts, you end up painting people you think are like you with a brush they don't want anywhere near them, because - surprise, surprise - life is more diverse than an egotist who clones their own preferences when thinking of people in their demographic could ever possibly conceive.
And if a game developer wants to make the most money and please the largest portion of their base, then they allocate resources in such a way to cater to the largest number of their constituents. This is just common sense. In this instance, what would follow is the game developer would worry more about what straight men think than a lesbian. That's not to say there wouldn't be anything for the lesbian--or that they would actively discourage lesbians from playing. The developer would just worry more about pleasing the larger portion of their base. However, if the developer is more interested in identity politics or pushing a liberal agenda, then they do what Beamdog did. But do you seem what happened? There was a huge backlash (for reasons I just mentioned). For instance, I never bought the expansion even though I'm a big Baldur's Gate fan.
So they probably won't be doing that again... unless they want to lose more money.
The second time I broke that rule was The Witcher, but I didn't get very far into the game because it was soooo painfully aimed at straight white guys. First thing: Don't call me a "homosexual." You can call me a lesbian, you can even call me gay, but "homosexual" is ridiculous. You're also ignoring the fact that lesbian encompasses "woman" and that may also be pivotal to what I am saying.
Second thing: You don't understand my point, which is that gaming as a hobby actively discourages people who aren't straight white guys by primarily providing protagonists who are straight white guys, or assuming that the player is a straight white guy (such as in Baldur's Gate as you yourself acknowledged). By marginalizing other perspectives, people from those perspectives are not necessarily encouraged to continue playing. The fact that I did play it doesn't mean that marginalization didn't exist or that I was immune to reacting to it. It simply means that other reasons contributed more to me playing the game than contributed to me not playing the game. Again, keeping in mind that I had to be convinced to try the game in the first place. Your definition is narrow and restrictive. Candy crush is as much a gamer's game as anything else. You might be looking for something else to distinguish it from the action-oriented games you listed.
But that's beside the point, which is that women are increasingly involved in gaming and this has been statistically demonstrated. Trying to marginalize these women out of gaming is one of the sorts of things that acts to discourage women from open participation in the hobby. It's not stating a fact, it's making an excuse for marginalizing gay and lesbian people out of representation or even acknowledgment. Fortunately, more modern games are acknowledging and including gay, lesbian and bisexual people, and this is only a good thing for the hobby.
As far as your politics being marginalized, I find it really hard to care. Ultimately, the decisions Beamdog made - which have been explained ad nauseum to you - are of the good for Baldur's Gate and gaming as a whole. If that means that the he-man woman-haters club plays fewer games out of fear or hatred of being exposed to more diverse perspectives and characters I can't really bring myself to sympathize. Sorry. The perspective you're espousing is one of the things that has been wrong with gaming (and in many ways still is), and the sooner it gets the boot the better.
I’m simply saying the game industry should cater the most to those who invest into it the most. It’s a simple concept. I believe homosexual and bisexual people should be represented in games, but I don’t think the video game industry should cater to them as much as heterosexuals. This is because the majority of gamers are heterosexual. They make up the majority of the fans. They invest the majority of the money. Well of course. You only care if your side is marginalized. You’re the one who admitted that you avoided games with male protagonists! Are you part of the man-haters club? I on the other hand don’t have a problem with playing female characters. I think it's worth mentioning again that you're for marginalizing certain groups just as long as you're not part of them.
Like, the internal universe of this poster even includes what preferences for women a lesbian must have to count as a lesbian...from the perspective of straight man who has never once experienced lesbian same gender attraction in his life, much less the diverse experience of attraction of all lesbians. He's arguing with a brick wall inside his own head, and anyone arguing with that brick wall aren't even getting through.
I think we can all safely stop replying to his posts now, he's just arguing with images of things in his own extremely narrow imaginary stand-ins for the complexity of human beings and considering any deviation from his limited configurations of imaginary stand-ins to be default invalid (or "laughable" or somehow a lie or something he doesn't believe) because it doesn't map to his preconceived notions.
There's literally no point in engaging with someone like this. It's the definition of "feeding the troll" at this point.
You don't have to agree with everything that gets said, but you do have to respond civilly, if you respond at all.
Thread closed.