Tolerance and equality are good things, but it all falls into dictatorship when having an opinion other than the mainstream becomes simply dangerous.

Quinn wrote on Jun 26, 2020, 15:46:
So yeah. Thanks Eirikrautha and thanks Jdryer. @ usual suspects, maybe let this be a mirror to reflect on? Just a bit? Or don't. Kthxbye, there's a nice draft beer in the freezer getting colder than it should be.

Heh, glad to know I'm not the only one who chills his beers in the freezer before drinking them.

Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 16:33:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 15:12:
Changing corporate culture is hard. You do need both grassroots and C-level action to change it. Simply moving our company from waterfall to agile (something far less controversial than this) has been going on for four years and isn't even half way completed. People don't like change, or they don't see the need, or they have a vested interest in not changing, or they don't even know how to be different. I'm not sure her idea of "top down reorganization" would even work, but it's a pipe dream because it's not going to happen. No company will agree to it. She's just spitballing, but she's not wrong that bandaids won't work. But they have to change, b/c right now it's a shitshow. I'm sure there are experts out there who have done this at places and have techniques to accomplish it, but I have no idea what those look like.

Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful response. Even on Blues, the signal-to-noise ratio of the commentariat is getting to be uselessly low, and it's nice to actually discuss something intelligently. All the usual suspects tend to do is preach at you or insult you.

I agree, changing corporate culture is hard. And, even worse, it is sometimes antithetical to business success. Sometimes the culture sparks the company in a way that a different structure could not. You see it every time a founding group of designers move on from a game company. Culture matters, and this is especially true in artistic endeavors, as well.

But, assuming you could change the culture and not kill the company, I don't think that any experts have actually found a way to do so in this case. If they had, they would have been trumpeted in every business magazine on the planet. I think that's the real problem. There's no way to do this quickly. You don't develop a talent and experience pool overnight, and the folks who want the change to happen now aren't amenable to plans that don't have boardrooms that "look like America" tomorrow. Instead, you get people promoted who aren't ready (because they don't have the talent or experience, and there aren't enough with the talent and experience yet to fill every opening), which just is counter-productive. What's the best way to convince a bigot he's right? Make his boss a person he hates who is obviously in over their head. Now he doesn't have prejudice; he's got evidence.

Honestly, this is a society-wide issue. Our economic system has worked so well to provide people with instant gratification and single-generation rags-to-riches stories that everyone assumes every need or want can be fulfilled immediately. Except you can't rush experience or knowledge. You can't create an interested population with the drive to succeed in that endeavor in a day. So no long-term strategies, no matter how successful, will ever be good enough. It's almost a law of nature at this point...

Off-topic (kind of) but I have to mention my observation and give credit to two people: first of all I notice that Eirikrautha gets the same garbage treatment from the usual suspects as I do, and he has issues with them for the same exact reasons (the ad-homs, etc). I am happy to see another guy on Blues pushing back against the usual suspects (besides myself and Muscular Beaver off the top of my head). I also want a shout-out for Jdryer. As Eirikrautha mentioned, he is the one guy that stays calm and gives respectful and reasonable responses. Needless to say, it was Jdryer alone during the "systemic racism" debate that gave me something to think about; new stuff to research (and I still didn't get to reply to him in that week old topic, which I will do, but on vacation right now).

So yeah. Thanks Eirikrautha and thanks Jdryer. @ usual suspects, maybe let this be a mirror to reflect on? Just a bit? Or don't. Kthxbye, there's a nice draft beer in the freezer getting colder than it should be.

ventry wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 19:55:
Maybe the left loonies should practice what they preach eh? Especially when it comes to dealing with people who disagree with their ideological stand point.

Liberals:
Always the first to use the word "tolerance"
Always the last to put it to use.

Ignoring for a moment that this ticks the box of just so many logical fallacies - before you ask:

logical fallacies- misconceptions resulting from flaws in reasoning, or a trick or illusion in thoughts that obfuscates facts

conservatism has never been friendly with tolerance or the advancement of knowledge, per its very nature, so that seems a peculiar insult...

jdreyer wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 15:12:
Changing corporate culture is hard. You do need both grassroots and C-level action to change it. Simply moving our company from waterfall to agile (something far less controversial than this) has been going on for four years and isn't even half way completed. People don't like change, or they don't see the need, or they have a vested interest in not changing, or they don't even know how to be different. I'm not sure her idea of "top down reorganization" would even work, but it's a pipe dream because it's not going to happen. No company will agree to it. She's just spitballing, but she's not wrong that bandaids won't work. But they have to change, b/c right now it's a shitshow. I'm sure there are experts out there who have done this at places and have techniques to accomplish it, but I have no idea what those look like.

Thank you for your reasoned and thoughtful response. Even on Blues, the signal-to-noise ratio of the commentariat is getting to be uselessly low, and it's nice to actually discuss something intelligently. All the usual suspects tend to do is preach at you or insult you.

I agree, changing corporate culture is hard. And, even worse, it is sometimes antithetical to business success. Sometimes the culture sparks the company in a way that a different structure could not. You see it every time a founding group of designers move on from a game company. Culture matters, and this is especially true in artistic endeavors, as well.

But, assuming you could change the culture and not kill the company, I don't think that any experts have actually found a way to do so in this case. If they had, they would have been trumpeted in every business magazine on the planet. I think that's the real problem. There's no way to do this quickly. You don't develop a talent and experience pool overnight, and the folks who want the change to happen now aren't amenable to plans that don't have boardrooms that "look like America" tomorrow. Instead, you get people promoted who aren't ready (because they don't have the talent or experience, and there aren't enough with the talent and experience yet to fill every opening), which just is counter-productive. What's the best way to convince a bigot he's right? Make his boss a person he hates who is obviously in over their head. Now he doesn't have prejudice; he's got evidence.

Honestly, this is a society-wide issue. Our economic system has worked so well to provide people with instant gratification and single-generation rags-to-riches stories that everyone assumes every need or want can be fulfilled immediately. Except you can't rush experience or knowledge. You can't create an interested population with the drive to succeed in that endeavor in a day. So no long-term strategies, no matter how successful, will ever be good enough. It's almost a law of nature at this point...

Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 15:01:

Beamer wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 13:59:

Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 13:34:

I'm always amused when I ask a question that the usual suspects can't answer. Then you get the deflections (focusing on the aside in parentheses and ignoring the actual substance of my comments), the dodging ("we explained it sooo many times," yet no one has ever seen these explanations and said explanations don't actually address the point), and the ad hominems ("if you don't agree with me, you are mentally incapable"). How about just answering the questions? Because you can't...

You're asking me what executives in an industry I'm not a part of will do, with you asking from a place of either confusion or willful ignorance

We need to step back with you. Ground you in reality, rather than the strawman fiction you think everyone else is in. Let's take privilege, since you start there. And I'll put it in terms you know.

Imagine an RPG like Fallout. Everyone has their stats. You have a 10 in intelligence. It's wonderful. You get to walk through a ton of situations with an intelligence check. Hell, you can talk your way through the final battle. It's excellent! Bob has a 1 in intelligence, and well, you absolutely have intelligence privilege over him, right? There are situations where your intelligence lets you walk through but his does not.
But let's say you're a 1 in everything else. Bob, however, is a 10 in everything else. So even though you have intelligence privilege, is the game easier for you? Doubtful. Some situations are, but not all.

That's like white privilege. Some situations are easier because you're white. A significant amount. All other things being equal, life will be better for you. But, of course, not all things are equal. Still, some things are absolutely better. Black celebrities discuss being pulled over by the police in their neighborhood, simply for driving in it, multiple times a month. White celebrities don't have that. Things being equal except race, being black means you're stopped by the police for nothing at all much more frequently.

If there are no benefits to being white, or being male, if you were to wake up in your bed tomorrow, put on your shoes, and go to your job, would you be ok if you'd woken up a black woman instead of white male? Do you think your life would be the same?

So, to the question, how do you fix it? Do you "top-down reorganize" the corporation by putting Bob in charge? I'll grant you that people have different experiences, cultures, economic realities, and other circumstances that affect their performance. So how does the industry fix this (you know, the point of the article)? Does it require a "top-down restructuring"? What would that look like?

See, I don't give a damn how we got to this point. That's in the past and can't be changed (no matter how many statues you pull down). How do we proceed from here? That's the question certain folks are always loathe to answer, either because they don't know how (and are just virtue-signalling their allegiance to the idea of the problem without caring about fixing it), or because they know that their solutions won't work to fix the problem (but will benefit themselves or their ideology). So what should EA, Riot, Twitch DO to solve this problem. Because no one needs you to endlessly bitch about what's wrong. Help fix it! Describe what the fix will look like.

Changing corporate culture is hard. You do need both grassroots and C-level action to change it. Simply moving our company from waterfall to agile (something far less controversial than this) has been going on for four years and isn't even half way completed. People don't like change, or they don't see the need, or they have a vested interest in not changing, or they don't even know how to be different. I'm not sure her idea of "top down reorganization" would even work, but it's a pipe dream because it's not going to happen. No company will agree to it. She's just spitballing, but she's not wrong that bandaids won't work. But they have to change, b/c right now it's a shitshow. I'm sure there are experts out there who have done this at places and have techniques to accomplish it, but I have no idea what those look like.

Beamer wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 13:59:

Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 13:34:

I'm always amused when I ask a question that the usual suspects can't answer. Then you get the deflections (focusing on the aside in parentheses and ignoring the actual substance of my comments), the dodging ("we explained it sooo many times," yet no one has ever seen these explanations and said explanations don't actually address the point), and the ad hominems ("if you don't agree with me, you are mentally incapable"). How about just answering the questions? Because you can't...

You're asking me what executives in an industry I'm not a part of will do, with you asking from a place of either confusion or willful ignorance

We need to step back with you. Ground you in reality, rather than the strawman fiction you think everyone else is in. Let's take privilege, since you start there. And I'll put it in terms you know.

Imagine an RPG like Fallout. Everyone has their stats. You have a 10 in intelligence. It's wonderful. You get to walk through a ton of situations with an intelligence check. Hell, you can talk your way through the final battle. It's excellent! Bob has a 1 in intelligence, and well, you absolutely have intelligence privilege over him, right? There are situations where your intelligence lets you walk through but his does not.
But let's say you're a 1 in everything else. Bob, however, is a 10 in everything else. So even though you have intelligence privilege, is the game easier for you? Doubtful. Some situations are, but not all.

That's like white privilege. Some situations are easier because you're white. A significant amount. All other things being equal, life will be better for you. But, of course, not all things are equal. Still, some things are absolutely better. Black celebrities discuss being pulled over by the police in their neighborhood, simply for driving in it, multiple times a month. White celebrities don't have that. Things being equal except race, being black means you're stopped by the police for nothing at all much more frequently.

If there are no benefits to being white, or being male, if you were to wake up in your bed tomorrow, put on your shoes, and go to your job, would you be ok if you'd woken up a black woman instead of white male? Do you think your life would be the same?

So, to the question, how do you fix it? Do you "top-down reorganize" the corporation by putting Bob in charge? I'll grant you that people have different experiences, cultures, economic realities, and other circumstances that affect their performance. So how does the industry fix this (you know, the point of the article)? Does it require a "top-down restructuring"? What would that look like?

See, I don't give a damn how we got to this point. That's in the past and can't be changed (no matter how many statues you pull down). How do we proceed from here? That's the question certain folks are always loathe to answer, either because they don't know how (and are just virtue-signalling their allegiance to the idea of the problem without caring about fixing it), or because they know that their solutions won't work to fix the problem (but will benefit themselves or their ideology). So what should EA, Riot, Twitch DO to solve this problem. Because no one needs you to endlessly bitch about what's wrong. Help fix it! Describe what the fix will look like.

Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 13:34:

I'm always amused when I ask a question that the usual suspects can't answer. Then you get the deflections (focusing on the aside in parentheses and ignoring the actual substance of my comments), the dodging ("we explained it sooo many times," yet no one has ever seen these explanations and said explanations don't actually address the point), and the ad hominems ("if you don't agree with me, you are mentally incapable"). How about just answering the questions? Because you can't...

You're asking me what executives in an industry I'm not a part of will do, with you asking from a place of either confusion or willful ignorance

We need to step back with you. Ground you in reality, rather than the strawman fiction you think everyone else is in. Let's take privilege, since you start there. And I'll put it in terms you know.

Imagine an RPG like Fallout. Everyone has their stats. You have a 10 in intelligence. It's wonderful. You get to walk through a ton of situations with an intelligence check. Hell, you can talk your way through the final battle. It's excellent! Bob has a 1 in intelligence, and well, you absolutely have intelligence privilege over him, right? There are situations where your intelligence lets you walk through but his does not.
But let's say you're a 1 in everything else. Bob, however, is a 10 in everything else. So even though you have intelligence privilege, is the game easier for you? Doubtful. Some situations are, but not all.

That's like white privilege. Some situations are easier because you're white. A significant amount. All other things being equal, life will be better for you. But, of course, not all things are equal. Still, some things are absolutely better. Black celebrities discuss being pulled over by the police in their neighborhood, simply for driving in it, multiple times a month. White celebrities don't have that. Things being equal except race, being black means you're stopped by the police for nothing at all much more frequently.

If there are no benefits to being white, or being male, if you were to wake up in your bed tomorrow, put on your shoes, and go to your job, would you be ok if you'd woken up a black woman instead of white male? Do you think your life would be the same?

Thank you.

Beamer wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 12:30:

Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 12:14:

Primalchrome wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 22:26:
I realize that the 'bootstraps' mentality is pretty well ingrained in American culture....but I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so brittle that they can't admit that *most* successful people's lives are built on a much larger cooperative effort. Family. Inter generational wealth in the form of money/knowledge/culture/skills/contacts. Social circles. Community resources. Hell, even something as simple as having parents that helped you participate in extra curricular activities.

Why is it so hard to see that some people just happen to have better access to some of those things as a result of their race, sex, genetics, health, geographic location, economic status, or being of a certain archetype? It's not like recognizing it diminishes anything someone else has achieved.

Ehhh, most people don't disagree that some people have better access because of their circumstances (though many might disagree on which circumstances. I find it humorous when someone asserts that Malia Obama has life worse because she's black than a white son of an Appalachian coal-miner. Economic advantages are generally the most important, followed closely by cultural ones). What we disagree on is the solution to the problem. Somehow the radicals on this board seem to believe that recognizing there is a problem automatically means that their stupid solutions are the only possible remedy.

See for an example, this quote from the blurb: “I think there really needs to be this top-down reorganization,” she said. “Setting up a diversity committee is not going to solve this problem.”

So what does "top-down reorganization" mean? If it means choosing to find women of equal talent and experience to the men as new hires and promotions, then not many people would argue. But the problem is, in this industry, that the demand for experienced and qualified women outstrips the supply. So do you then promote less qualified women over more qualified men? Do you ask women to start the long, arduous process of working their way through the company to be qualified, and know that it will take a while to fix the problem?

"Top-down reorganization" sounds a lot like "pick a woman who has not accomplished as much as her male peers and, simple because of her sex, put her in a leadership position." And that's not sexist, somehow. If that's not what it means, I'm open for alternate translations...

Literally not a single person says all black people have life worse than all white people, so your weird point about Malia Obama is incorrect and this has been explained to you at least 3 dozen times here.

At some point, you misunderstanding a point is your fault, not society's. Whether willful or mental incapacity, you seem to just never get it. That lack of ability or willingness to understand leads to you consistently being outraged and offended.

I'm always amused when I ask a question that the usual suspects can't answer. Then you get the deflections (focusing on the aside in parentheses and ignoring the actual substance of my comments), the dodging ("we explained it sooo many times," yet no one has ever seen these explanations and said explanations don't actually address the point), and the ad hominems ("if you don't agree with me, you are mentally incapable"). How about just answering the questions? Because you can't...

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jun 25, 2020, 13:09.

Eirikrautha wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 12:14:

Primalchrome wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 22:26:
I realize that the 'bootstraps' mentality is pretty well ingrained in American culture....but I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so brittle that they can't admit that *most* successful people's lives are built on a much larger cooperative effort. Family. Inter generational wealth in the form of money/knowledge/culture/skills/contacts. Social circles. Community resources. Hell, even something as simple as having parents that helped you participate in extra curricular activities.

Why is it so hard to see that some people just happen to have better access to some of those things as a result of their race, sex, genetics, health, geographic location, economic status, or being of a certain archetype? It's not like recognizing it diminishes anything someone else has achieved.

Ehhh, most people don't disagree that some people have better access because of their circumstances (though many might disagree on which circumstances. I find it humorous when someone asserts that Malia Obama has life worse because she's black than a white son of an Appalachian coal-miner. Economic advantages are generally the most important, followed closely by cultural ones). What we disagree on is the solution to the problem. Somehow the radicals on this board seem to believe that recognizing there is a problem automatically means that their stupid solutions are the only possible remedy.

See for an example, this quote from the blurb: “I think there really needs to be this top-down reorganization,” she said. “Setting up a diversity committee is not going to solve this problem.”

So what does "top-down reorganization" mean? If it means choosing to find women of equal talent and experience to the men as new hires and promotions, then not many people would argue. But the problem is, in this industry, that the demand for experienced and qualified women outstrips the supply. So do you then promote less qualified women over more qualified men? Do you ask women to start the long, arduous process of working their way through the company to be qualified, and know that it will take a while to fix the problem?

"Top-down reorganization" sounds a lot like "pick a woman who has not accomplished as much as her male peers and, simple because of her sex, put her in a leadership position." And that's not sexist, somehow. If that's not what it means, I'm open for alternate translations...

Literally not a single person says all black people have life worse than all white people, so your weird point about Malia Obama is incorrect and this has been explained to you at least 3 dozen times here.

At some point, you misunderstanding a point is your fault, not society's. Whether willful or mental incapacity, you seem to just never get it. That lack of ability or willingness to understand leads to you consistently being outraged and offended.

Primalchrome wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 22:26:
I realize that the 'bootstraps' mentality is pretty well ingrained in American culture....but I can't for the life of me figure out why people are so brittle that they can't admit that *most* successful people's lives are built on a much larger cooperative effort. Family. Inter generational wealth in the form of money/knowledge/culture/skills/contacts. Social circles. Community resources. Hell, even something as simple as having parents that helped you participate in extra curricular activities.

Why is it so hard to see that some people just happen to have better access to some of those things as a result of their race, sex, genetics, health, geographic location, economic status, or being of a certain archetype? It's not like recognizing it diminishes anything someone else has achieved.

Ehhh, most people don't disagree that some people have better access because of their circumstances (though many might disagree on which circumstances. I find it humorous when someone asserts that Malia Obama has life worse because she's black than a white son of an Appalachian coal-miner. Economic advantages are generally the most important, followed closely by cultural ones). What we disagree on is the solution to the problem. Somehow the radicals on this board seem to believe that recognizing there is a problem automatically means that their stupid solutions are the only possible remedy.

See for an example, this quote from the blurb: “I think there really needs to be this top-down reorganization,” she said. “Setting up a diversity committee is not going to solve this problem.”

So what does "top-down reorganization" mean? If it means choosing to find women of equal talent and experience to the men as new hires and promotions, then not many people would argue. But the problem is, in this industry, that the demand for experienced and qualified women outstrips the supply. So do you then promote less qualified women over more qualified men? Do you ask women to start the long, arduous process of working their way through the company to be qualified, and know that it will take a while to fix the problem?

"Top-down reorganization" sounds a lot like "pick a woman who has not accomplished as much as her male peers and, simple because of her sex, put her in a leadership position." And that's not sexist, somehow. If that's not what it means, I'm open for alternate translations...

* REMOVED *
This comment was deleted on Jun 25, 2020, 13:09.

Muscular Beaver wrote on Jun 25, 2020, 08:10:

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 09:18:

Red886 wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 09:13:
have been waiting for 10 years for them to go make your own games, rather than coming in subversively and ruining existing game franchises under the premise of fighting misogyny and sexism.

You should discuss this with your sister, mother, daughter, wife, aunt and grandmother.

Hm, my mother, GF and sister in law are also complaining about how disgustingly PC recent games/movies/series/TV and even books have become. They feel soulless, empty, artificial. As if someone wants to screw you over. They dont consume much of them anymore because of those reasons.

We have many different cultures on this planet. They almost all produce different works of art that fit their culture.
People like you always demand that only western cultures get more diverse. So if you want an LGBTQ+++++++++++++ game, then buy one. Theres enough of them. Dont demand that cultures and whole IPs change according to your imagination.
Coupled with your cancel culture (that you guys even try to use on me on this site) its authoritarian methods. Bullying. You wouldnt dare to tell the same thing to Chinese, Japanese, Muslims or Indians if you lived there, or probabaly not even from your position of privilege.
I wouldnt either, btw, because its their culture. If you want your own culture, you form it. You dont take over other cultures like fascists have done it and still (again) do it.

Nice rant.
Next time try using a linear train of thought and a smattering of logic.

You probably missed it while you were haphazardly tapping the keys, But the subject is on Harassment and Sexism and not whatever rabbit hole you dove headfirst into.

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 09:18:

Red886 wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 09:13:
have been waiting for 10 years for them to go make your own games, rather than coming in subversively and ruining existing game franchises under the premise of fighting misogyny and sexism.

You should discuss this with your sister, mother, daughter, wife, aunt and grandmother.

Hm, my mother, GF and sister in law are also complaining about how disgustingly PC recent games/movies/series/TV and even books have become. They feel soulless, empty, artificial. As if someone wants to screw you over. They dont consume much of them anymore because of those reasons.

We have many different cultures on this planet. They almost all produce different works of art that fit their culture.
People like you always demand that only western cultures get more diverse. So if you want an LGBTQ+++++++++++++ game, then buy one. Theres enough of them. Dont demand that cultures and whole IPs change according to your imagination.
Coupled with your cancel culture (that you guys even try to use on me on this site) its authoritarian methods. Bullying. You wouldnt dare to tell the same thing to Chinese, Japanese, Muslims or Indians if you lived there, or probabaly not even from your position of privilege.
I wouldnt either, btw, because its their culture. If you want your own culture, you form it. You dont take over other cultures like fascists have done it and still (again) do it.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 21:27:
@ Cutter. You accuse the quote of misandry, then defend the industry as "by men, for men." You're making her point for her. So congrats on that point.

As for "anyone can start their own business," it's nearly impossible at this point. The industry is mature and consolidated. Unless you're Chris Roberts, you must operate through one of the major publishers, all of which are run by men.

Do you think that "they" had this maturity and consolidation handed to them on a silver platter or, perhaps, they worked fucking hard to achieve it?

Hypothetical:
IF the next "Elder Scrolls" game comes out and it's fucking awesome...
I couldn't care less if it was made by all women/African-American/Asian etc or little green tree frogs.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 21:27:
You're basically arguing against implementing industry-wide changes to ensure that people treat each other with dignity and respect. Why would you oppose that?

Sure treat people with dignity but, you have to EARN my respect.
Maybe the left loonies should practice what they preach eh? Especially when it comes to dealing with people who disagree with their ideological stand point.

Liberals:
Always the first to use the word "tolerance"
Always the last to put it to use.

MattyC wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 23:27:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 23, 2020, 21:27:
@ Cutter. You accuse the quote of misandry, then defend the industry as "by men, for men." You're making her point for her. So congrats on that point.

I don’t really disagree with you on anything except “start a business” bit. This is the easiest it has ever been to start making your own game. Now I am not saying that has become an easy task, but with digital distribution, blogs YouTube etc to spread the word, Indy gaming being “in”, multiple free engines and developer programs, mobile adding a whole new subset of ‘gamers’, and so on, this would be the time to start. The article even says as much.

Now to the other point, I don’t agree with Cutter, but that is a stupid line. Some people have created some toxic online culture, but it wasn’t “the straight white men”. If you think there are no minorities who are sexist or homophobic or women who are racist playing games on the Internet you are sheltered, willfully ignorant, or both. I am ultimately on their side, but I think it would be hypocritical to not call out BS just because it’s on the side of history I choose to stand on. Stupid is stupid and benefits no one.

Sure, it's relatively easy to be a game dev as there are lots of online resources (although they require some startup costs like a computer and an internet connection), but I'm talking about the entire infrastructure: publishing, marketing, influencers, etc. As one of the itch.io devs said after their game bundle made their game popular (paraphrase), "I thought nobody liked my game, but it just needed exposure." And that's even more difficult to get if you're a minority.

Beamer wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 10:02:
Or, you're misunderstanding.

1) We're talking about the western market, not the eastern one. South Korean and Japanese companies aren't hiring Americans to come over and develop games, so let's table that

2) Within the US, companies are extremely heavily white male. Extremely. We had this discussion the other day. Go find a photo of your favorite company. Doom Eternal had the entire company in the credits. Epic puts out photos. Notice anything? I'm not singling these companies out or calling them evil. id and Epic are no differently representative than any other developer, and I'm certain both are at least as dismayed by it as any other.

3) Or, just look at protagonists in western games. How many games have a non-male character? Of those human, how many are non-white?

It's really shocking to me that saying that western games and game companies are predominantly white male is controversial. Or, that the best examples otherwise are either games not made in this region, or characters that aren't human.

I don't see where Cutter limited his description to the Western market. It seems to me that he said, in so many words, that white males made the video game industry what it is, on both the production and consumer ends. The reasoning seems to be that white males know what other white males want. If that's how the market works, then why is there such strong demand for Japanese games and hardware in the West?

Orogogus wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 09:55:

Red886 wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 09:24:

Orogogus wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 07:19:

Spektr wrote on Jun 24, 2020, 06:40:
Games are made for white men by white men? I bet you never heard of Japan. Your culture? I don't think so.

I'm pretty sure Cutter was always first to complain about video games featuring female protagonists, since he didn't feel represented, and equally quick to call it pandering when games, TV shows or movies reached out to audiences other than white males.

But yeah; obviously, Pac-Man, Street Fighter, Pokemon, Nintendo, Sega and Sony are just super niche footnotes in the annals of video game history. The top 2 games by player account according to Wikipedia are Crossfire and Dungeon Fighter Online, and are made neither by nor for white men, but that just means they're not mainstream.

Street Fighter is already redesigned for the woke crowd. Pac-Man is sexist, cause you can only play as Mr Pac-man. Crossfire and Dungeon Fighter are Chinese games and mobile games / free-to-play / internet-cafe games, and since Chinese players are limited to certain games approved by the gov, it's not an indication of actual quality and popularity.

there is no sacred game franchise of which they won't try to mutate to fit their ideology. Won't be surprised if Civilization gets the treatment next. (for featuring now disallowed historical figures)

Crossfire and Dungeon Fighter Online are both Korean, not Chinese. But the point was, none of these games were designed by white men, nor were they made for white audiences. Japanese companies and audiences have been a major influence on the industry since 1979, when Pac-Man was designed specifically to appeal to more than just the male demographic -- a "woke" move that made $14 billion and established a franchise that's still producing new games 40 years later. Anyone who believes that video gaming has been the sole province of white males up until now is living in a tiny, delusional world.

Or, you're misunderstanding.

1) We're talking about the western market, not the eastern one. South Korean and Japanese companies aren't hiring Americans to come over and develop games, so let's table that

2) Within the US, companies are extremely heavily white male. Extremely. We had this discussion the other day. Go find a photo of your favorite company. Doom Eternal had the entire company in the credits. Epic puts out photos. Notice anything? I'm not singling these companies out or calling them evil. id and Epic are no differently representative than any other developer, and I'm certain both are at least as dismayed by it as any other.

3) Or, just look at protagonists in western games. How many games have a non-male character? Of those human, how many are non-white?

It's really shocking to me that saying that western games and game companies are predominantly white male is controversial. Or, that the best examples otherwise are either games not made in this region, or characters that aren't human.