This is complete bull. He brought up the Order justifiably because the historical accuracy argument was specifically used on NeoGAF quite prolifically in the defense of the game not including minority characters as if their existence would disrupt the plot more than the magical werewolves running around in the game. Some people disagree with using the Order as an example because a few minority characters exist in the game that are important to the plot. That doesn't excuse bad representation, but now everyone is focused on bashing the OP for including the Order as an example rather than actually discussing the very issue the thread is concerning.
Whether you consciously realize this or not, what you and others are doing is a technique known as FUD. Rather than actually facing the issue at hand and grapple with the ramifications brought up in the article OP has linked, you're changing the discourse to only focus on the Order being used as an example and claiming that its inclusion proves everything else he has said is wrong. This is ignorant at best, and completely disingenuous at worst.
You can call it FUD and I can call it holding people who I agree with to a higher standard. I actually fully agree with the larger point, but disagreed with the basis for reaching that larger point. That same basis caused a separate argument that could've been avoided entirely if it was sound. Maybe you think it's profane that I'm not the tip of the spear and have the nerve to criticize this argument, but I'm ok with that.
This discourse was already derailed. That was the problem with the argument. I came nowhere near saying the premise invalidated his larger point, I clearly said it needlessly distracted from it. The bolded is what's ignorant at best and completely disingenuous at worst.
You can call it FUD and I can call it holding people who I agree with to a higher standard. I actually fully agree with the larger point, but disagreed with the basis for reaching that larger point. That same basis caused a separate argument that could've been avoided entirely if it was sound. Maybe you think it's profane that I'm not the tip of the spear and have the nerve to criticize this argument, but I'm ok with that.
This discourse was already derailed. That was the problem with the argument. I came nowhere near saying the premise invalidated his larger point, I clearly said it needlessly distracted from it. The bolded is what's ignorant at best and completely disingenuous at worst.
I don't buy this at all. As a major in history it's important for me that a historical world is believable. Just because diversity is possible due to creative freedom doesn't mean it should be done.
In the case of The Order, black house slaves had been brought to England during the 18th century sure so they were present during the time, but that wouldn't justify them having a prominent place in society just because it's a game. Slavery was over but in no way was coloured people accepted, especially not with the biological racism that was very well grounded in the etno-nationalistic 19th century.
Nope, diversity for diversities sake is not a good argument at all. The same thing goes the paradoxical example stated at the beginning, it sure is as silly that historical films set in northern Africa contains Caucasian males.
Of course I haven't played it. I didn't realize the Order was a must play game. As a person of Indian descent, I still don't get to see my color represented in any type of marketing.
I'll never understand this position. Like Ready at Dawn or any other studio for that matter is somehow required to represent someone's culture/ethnic and if they don't they're offending that group. I would never open the internet if I were making a game, these things just exhaust me. Let people create whatever the hell they want.
But Lynch's response was basically, "this isn't our world, this isn't any specific time, it's a world created by me so I'll do whatever the fuck I want and I want a pregnant black woman to be a pirate captain so fuck off".
This isn't true and it's entirely reductive. The world is a kind of alternate history or historical fantasy. It is grounded in something from real life.
The moment the developers introduced fictional monsters, Knights that can live for 100+ years, and completely fictional weapons, all claims of realism flew out the window.
Then you thought wrong. It's about people claiming that certain games are too grounded in reality and historical fact to allow diverse characters to exist in the world, when they are, in fact, not accurate at all. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Including period-specific set-dressing doesn't make the world historically-accurate or too realistic to change the (perceived) racial dynamics without ruining the setting.
Jmood, it's an arguably important subject matter, but you and the author of the article have mishandled it so badly so as to never recover. At this point, one should assess where they made their mistakes and learn to better phrase and research their arguments so as to better make their point.
Digging in the heels and insisting the quoted parts and use of the Order were not mistakes is just going to increase the eye rolling and snickering and, for what? It's not like there aren't better examples to use.
I don't buy this at all. As a major in history it's important for me that a historical world is believable. Just because diversity is possible due to creative freedom doesn't mean it should be done.
In the case of The Order, black house slaves had been brought to England during the 18th century sure so they were present during the time, but that wouldn't justify them having a prominent place in society just because it's a game. Slavery was over but in no way was coloured people accepted, especially not with the biological racism that was very well grounded in the etno-nationalistic 19th century.
Nope, diversity for diversities sake is not a good argument at all. The same thing goes the paradoxical example stated at the beginning, it sure is as silly that historical films set in northern Africa contains Caucasian males.
The point of that example was to show that "historical accuracy" is a one-way street that is used to justify the exclusion of non-whites in popular media but does not lead to the exclusion of whites from settings in which they would not have been present.
Then you thought wrong. It's about people claiming that certain games are too grounded in reality and historical fact to allow diverse characters to exist in the world, when they are, in fact, not accurate at all. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Including period-specific set-dressing doesn't make the world historically-accurate or too realistic to change the (perceived) racial dynamics without ruining the setting.
Thread is a good debate to have with a garbage example. And for all the "you guys just don't want to discuss the bigger issue" I'm seeing from people, obviously they don't either because if they did they'd simply concede that The Order was a shit example so the thread could move on and discuss said bigger issues. Instead its just devolved to name-calling and assumptions because the internet has created this fucking terrible "if you're not with us, you're against us" mindset and nobody seems capable of acknowledging when someone just falls in the middle.
The moment the developers introduced fictional monsters, Knights that can live for 100+ years, and completely fictional weapons, all claims of realism flew out the window.
You still haven't brought up any good reasons why adding werewolves or fantasy elements automatically means everything must be completely diverse and everyone gets along.
They are using a historical basis. History was unkind to minorities, adding werewolves doesn't erase that.
If they made up a whole new setting, with no basis at all? Like Dragon Age? Then yeah, we could have that no problem, but that's not what they were making.
Then you thought wrong. It's about people claiming that certain games are too grounded in reality and historical fact to allow diverse characters to exist in the world, when they are, in fact, not accurate at all. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. Including period-specific set-dressing doesn't make the world historically-accurate or too realistic to change the (perceived) racial dynamics without ruining the setting.
There are diverse characters in it, they just don't support your claims that you're trying to make in your argument, so you're completely ignoring them to make points that have already been countered and shown to be incorrect. I really don't understand why you're on a crusade to prove this, you've already been refuted repeatedly by the facts.
You are willfully choosing to ignore all of the counterpoints that of been made about your claims up to this stage, so I'm not really sure what you're expecting.
All of this could've been avoided if you had just dropped The Order because it's not a good example of your point, and selected a different game to criticize on this topic, there are so many other choices.
And at not point did I say or suggest that. You and others keep making excuses about how a historical setting precludes developers from including non-whites, when that isn't the case. There were exactly 0 werewolves in England at the time The Order is set but their presence is somehow more palatable to many gamers than the thought of black aristocrats. That is a problem.
The point of that example was to show that "historical accuracy" is a one-way street that is used to justify the exclusion of non-whites in popular media but does not lead to the exclusion of whites from settings in which they would not have been present.
The African Choir were a group of young South African singers that toured Britain between 1891 and 1893. They were formed to raise funds for a Christian school in their home country and performed for Queen Victoria at Osborne House, a royal residence on the Isle of Wight. At some point during their stay, they visited the studio of the London Stereoscopic Company to have group and individual portraits made on plate-glass negatives. That long-lost series of photographs, unseen for 120 years, is the dramatic centrepiece of an illuminating new exhibition called Black Chronicles II.
This is just one of many examples in that article of people who couldn't be put into the game. First off, relevance? We never visit any of the places mentioned in that article. (Actually, we never even meet Queen Victoria.) Not to mention that the majority of people in Victorian London were, especially people above the middle class, were white.
And at not point did I say or suggest that. You and others keep making excuses about how a historical setting precludes developers from including non-whites, when that isn't the case. There were exactly 0 werewolves in England at the time The Order is set but their presence is somehow more palatable to many gamers than the thought of black aristocrats. That is a problem.
All i've done in this thread is refute the examples given as they were wrongly used. And funnily enough, even werewolves are a minority in RAD's version of Victorian London. We very rarely fight them. I specifically said this in a post as well, the majority of which you ignored to say that devs don't put a lot of research into their game despite having a game out there to prove it.
That doesn't mean that the devs can't or shouldn't try to create a version of that world that actually is much more diverse and/or progressive, but it doesn't mean that they have to or have an obligation to do, especially when they're trying to be "historically accurate." Nor does it mean that the fact that they didn't means that they're racist, ignorant, or sexist, or uninformed about the time period they based their game off of.
And dude, not only do we rarely if ever talk to aristocrats in the game. And the overwhelming majority of aristocrats in Victorian London were caucasian, this is a historical fact.
The point of that example was to show that "historical accuracy" is a one-way street that is used to justify the exclusion of non-whites in popular media but does not lead to the exclusion of whites from settings in which they would not have been present.
The problem there is the article doesn't put forth any arguments proving that's what it's use is for. It makes a throwaway mention of 3 games (Bioshock, Dishonored, The Witcher) without going into details, and then shines the light on The Order without getting into the world itself and bringing up characters that aren't a part of the game (so far) with no regard to the politics and setting.
If they had quotes or anything that actually shows that, then ok. Diversity is an issue in the medium. No argument there. But if that's the point of the article and your take...I'm sorry, it just doesn't have anything beyond it but assumptions.
Also, what really does some random GAFers comment (that wasn't even in this thread) have to do with everyone else? You keep bringing it up the werewolf thing and acting like it's many and the majority and acting like people here are actively pushing back against diversity when it isn't the case.
No, the moment the developers introduced fictional monsters, Knights that can live for 100+ years, and completely fictional weapons, all claims of realism flew out the window.
This point has been made so many times, so many.. in all threads about this topic. No matter how much time people waste to explain why this is such a dumb statement, you guys will not listen. Kudos tot hose who still reply to this.
Personally, I'll try to keep it short this time: http://www.steampunk.com/what-is-steampunk/ . I don't need more arguments, it's pretty much all here.
My advice: forget about The Order, Bioshock or the Witcher, they're all terrible examples. Pick something else.
Of course not, slavery had been abolished since long. But insurgence of black people into England came from the use of house slaves the century before. They weren't slaves any longer in the 1800s obviously, intermarriage between white and black house servants for instance wasn't very uncommon, though hardly generally acceptable. Point is, 19th century Europe was no multicultural multiethnic continent. The collapse of the colonial empires in the 50s is was started the greater influx of colonial migrants into the former mother countries.
The point of that example was to show that "historical accuracy" is a one-way street that is used to justify the exclusion of non-whites in popular media but does not lead to the exclusion of whites from settings in which they would not have been present
You still haven't brought up any good reasons why adding werewolves or fantasy elements automatically means everything must be completely diverse and everyone gets along.
Oh my god, you're deliberately making shit up that I never said. Having fictional elements means that they aren't strictly following any real world, so, if they wanted to, they could do whatever they wanted with the ethnic makeup and attitudes of the area. Again AT NO POINT DID I SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A DIVERSE LINEUP OF CHARACTERS. I'm saying that the excuse that you and others have made about them trying so hard to accurately portray that world that they couldn't change the racial dynamics to whatever they wanted makes no sense whatsoever.
There are diverse characters in it, they just don't support your claims that you're trying to make in your argument, so you're completely ignoring them to make points that have already been countered and shown to be incorrect. I really don't understand why you're on a crusade to prove this, you've already been refuted repeatedly by the facts.
No, the presence of any characters in the back half of the game simply has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The point is you and others making excuses for why non-whites couldn't exist in that world.
You are willfully choosing to ignore all of the counterpoints that of been made about your claims up to this stage, so I'm not really sure what you're expecting.
All of this could've been avoided if you had just dropped The Order because it's not a good example of your point, and selected a different game to criticize on this topic, there are so many other choices.
And at not point did I say or suggest that. You and others keep making excuses about how a historical setting precludes developers from including non-whites, when that isn't the case. There were exactly 0 werewolves in England at the time The Order is set but their presence is somehow more palatable to many gamers than the thought of black aristocrats. That is a problem.
Nobody says that it precludes it, you continue to have ignore the fact that The Order does include non-whites one who is a PROMINENT MAIN CHARACTER.
And how can you speak for all gamers saying that werewolves are more acceptable than black aristocrats? That's absurd, you keep on clinging to thinner and thinner threads for your argument.
Oh my god, you're deliberately making shit up that I never said. Having fictional elements means that they aren't strictly following any real world, so, if they wanted to, they could do whatever they wanted with the ethnic makeup and attitudes of the area. Again AT NO POINT DID I SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE A DIVERSE LINEUP OF CHARACTERS. I'm saying that the excuse that you and others have made about them trying so hard to accurately portray that world that they couldn't change the racial dynamics to whatever they wanted makes no sense whatsoever.
What is it exactly that you want then? Because I really don't understand your point at all. You contradict yourself in your own statement, accusing me of making it up, but then stating that they could have changed the dynamics of race relations because it's historical fantasy.
They elected not to, because they created a fantasy world that still has real historical portrayals and the unfortunate subjugation of minorities. That's just the end of it.
No, the presence of any characters in the back half of the game simply has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The point is you and others making excuses for why non-whites couldn't exist in that world.
1.When did anyone say that the they couldn't exist in the world? Did the devs say that? No, did we say that? No, what are saying is that it many would very likely not be aristocrats like you're requesting for some reason despite being told multiple goddamn times that we rarely if ever actually meet aristocrats in the game.
2.Why the hell are you still using games where they do exist in the world as examples?!
Pick literally any other game, and your point might be more clear. You keep using it for a game that it doesn't make sense to apply it too, and have refused to clarify with other examples, so there's just massive confusion about what you're trying to get at.
We don't really get a good picture of the race and class system is outside of what we see, but it's inferred that it's not different from it's real life version. That's just the end of it. That doesn't mean there aren't racially diverse characters in the game, or that they can't exist, maybe even some of the overseers for The Order are diverse. But you've clung to a really weird argument when so many others would have supported your point and offered good dialogue.
They're hung up about some comment in some other thread that they wrote about in the OP, and apparently that one comment reflects on many/most people, especially all those rabid defender types making excuses that are trying to shut down minorities.
Because you have done an absolutely horrid job of presenting it. Multiple times in this thread have posted your replies to the counter arguments presented as to why the order, witcher, and bioshock should be included as examples where history was whitewashed. No one has said that the argument presented in the OP is invalid, you and the author of the article have just chosen horrible examples while also being completely misinformed about the very games you were using as examples, that's a horrible way to do a debate. Not only that, but when presented with counter arguments the first thing you did was assume that everyone here defending the order was just a fanboy defending the game at all costs. Wtf, even after I told you to check my post history.
You can call it FUD and I can call it holding people who I agree with to a higher standard. I actually fully agree with the larger point, but disagreed with the basis for reaching that larger point. That same basis caused a separate argument that could've been avoided entirely if it was sound. Maybe you think it's profane that I'm not the tip of the spear and have the nerve to criticize this argument, but I'm ok with that.
This discourse was already derailed. That was the problem with the argument. I came nowhere near saying the premise invalidated his larger point, I clearly said it needlessly distracted from it. The bolded is what's ignorant at best and completely disingenuous at worst.
People were upset with the game because no members of the Round were diverse. OP argued against the "historical accuracy" defense by pointing out literature detailing black members. Your defense has nothing to do with members of the Round.
You think there is enough? So no game from now on should have an all white cast? When white people are in the majority in Europe and the US I don't see why we can't have a few games with only white people while others have people of every skin color. It's not that weird.
BUT, you somehow managed to misunderstand my post.
You're absolutely right, we're literally flooded with games with minorities taking the spots of characters that should rightfully be white.
And women? Tell me about it! I can't even come into a Gamestop without being shoved a game with a woman as the MC!
Good grief, next thing you know good honest games for honest white people won't even feature an all white male cast!
They're hung up about some comment in some other thread that they wrote about in the OP, and apparently that one comment reflects on many/most people, especially all those rabid defender types making excuses that are trying to shut down minorities.
Quite frankly due to the length of the game and the lack of exploration we don't really visit many historical places in the Order. Most of the plot is centered around the shit going down in white chapel.
They could have shown her sister, though at the time she would just be viewed as another rebel/antagonist and I'm sure OP and others making similar arguments wouldn't count it.
Somewhat separate note:
Something I noticed in the game, and maybe should go into the OT and discuss about, is how disconnected The Order (and those of prominence) is from places like White Chapel where it seems a good deal of the minority population was in the game (for what was or wasn't present). They walk into a shelter, and Gen. Lafayette can't even recognize what it is.
Given the politics that are hardly even brushed against in the game, there's plenty of reasons to see why minorities (despite having seats in The Order at its founding) wouldn't be present in that circle.
True, it could have been written very differently, but then it wouldn't be the same game. The tension is there and important, even if it's handled IMO poorly.
I still need to go back and look at the NPCs themselves (enemy and otherwise) and see what the diversity looks like there. Probably not that good, but then again I'm not sure if it matters since the article is talking about central/hero characters.
Quite frankly due to the length of the game and the lack of exploration we don't really visit many historical places in the Order. Most of the plot is centered around the shit going down in white chapel.
Yep, and I felt White Chapel wasn't given it's proper due like much of the rest of the game. As I say above, there were undertones that could have fleshed out everyone's place in this alternate universe's society, and it gets dropped before even being picked up.
They definitely could make an interesting story based on realistic reactions to a non-white character, or they could just include a non-white character with no justification, as is the case with the vast majority of white characters in games.
Yeah, but what's the point if nobody acknowledges it? If nobody acknowledges it, all it would do is break immersion. Sounds completely pointless to me.
The developers didn't say it would be more work than they were able to do at the time, but even if that was their reasoning: Why is this particular “mile” considered extra? Why is it charity (which sounds like "something not fundementally worth including, only if there's extra time/money" the way you've used it here) to include more options, or to even just reject the misconception that including/acknowledging diversity is just a bonus in games?
Because game development is ultimately a business. You don't waste money on a feature unless said feature makes you more money. I'm pulling numbers out of my ass here, but let's say properly implementing a black protagonist costs €100,000. Unless that "feature" sells another 2,000 copies, you just wasted a bunch of money. Will it sell those additional copies? I have no idea. Sounds like a risky proposition either way.
You did a terrible job of representing your argument and used examples that do not favor it, they in fact oppose it. You can't blame people for calling you out on some things, just because you were wrong doesn't mean those that pointed it out to you are a defense force, all you had to do was say you were wrong and moved the topic in another direction, instead everyone is piling on you now.
Something I noticed in the game, and maybe should go into the OT and discuss about, is how disconnected The Order (and those of prominence) is from places like White Chapel where it seems a good deal of the minority population was in the game (for what was or wasn't present). They walk into a shelter, and Gen. Lafayette can't even recognize what it is.
Given the politics that are hardly even brushed against in the game, there's plenty of reasons to see why minorities (despite having seats in The Order at its founding) wouldn't be present in that circle.
True, it could have been written very differently, but then it wouldn't be the same game. The tension is there and important, even if it's handled IMO poorly.
These are pretty good points here, particularly the first one, I think it goes to show how tone deaf members of the Knights are and goes along with the theme of them being out of touch with reality. Yeah, the political interactions could've been handled much better, but there's an interesting groundwork when Galahad finally realizes he has been living in a cultural and ideological bubble.
Can someone actually provide a good example to the article's premise besides that one game where the devs stated that there are less minorities because of the era?
Not even arguing the content of the game, just quoted someone defending no minorities in a prerelease thread and the thread goes up the wall saying it but it has 2 minorities!
Lets just keep ignoring he wants to discuss how the audience defends and readily accepts developers/publishers white-washing or omitting minorities in the name of historical accuracy (while also shafting them in fantasy too). We can suspend our disbelief for werewolves but hold the fuck up whats with this high class negro doing here.
Where do you see me painting a side with a blanket color here?
wsippel stated that devs using minorities is a feature somehow, I just pushed the logic to its conclusion or is that something we shouldn't be talking about because "videogames"?
Where do you see me painting a side with a blanket color here?
wsippel stated that devs using minorities is a feature somehow, I just pushed the logic to its conclusion or is that something we shouldn't be talking about because "videogames"?
Not even arguing the content of the game, just quoted someone defending no minorities in a prerelease thread and the thread goes up the wall saying it but it has 2 minorities!
Lets just keep ignoring he wants to discuss how the audience defends and readily accepts developers/publishers white-washing or omitting minorities in the name of historical accuracy (while also shafting them in fantasy too). We can suspend our disbelief for werewolves but hold the fuck up whats with this high class negro doing here.
So you think it's a good idea to present an argument while being very clearly misinformed about the thing you're criticizing and then resorting to call everyone who corrected you desperate to defend the game at all costs? While also using three other examples that not only are also bad examples for your argument? Because that's exactly what the article did and in part the OP did. Then there's the ridiculous implications/statements.
"Rapture and Columbia have real world counterparts."
^
Article
"The creators didn't do substantial research on the time period."
^ OP If you can find proof that these games (that happen to have minorities in them) omitted minorities or white washed Victorian London, two cities founded by racist people that also include minorities at some point, and a game series based off of Poland which doesn't have a lot of racial diversity then be my guest please. I'm a person of color, but I would love for someone to make an actual compelling argument about this topic in a good way. In fact, the article mentioned devs as the people doing this by not including minorities in the game when you and the OP are the ones presenting gaf posts as the point of it.
So you think it's a good idea to present an argument while being very clearly misinformed about the thing you're criticizing and then resorting to call everyone who corrected you desperate to defend the game at all costs? While also using three other examples that not only are also bad examples for your argument? Because that's exactly what the article did and in part the OP did. Then there's the ridiculous implications/statements.
"Rapture and Columbia have real world counterparts."
^
Article
"The creators didn't do substantial research on the time period."
^ OP
Where do you see me painting a side with a blanket color here?
wsippel stated that devs using minorities is a feature somehow, I just pushed the logic to its conclusion or is that something we shouldn't be talking about because "videogames"?
We should absolutely talk about it, but we always need to realize that it's still a business either way. If anything, we should talk about how to make diversity worthwhile.
The moment the developers introduced fictional monsters, Knights that can live for 100+ years, and completely fictional weapons, all claims of realism flew out the window.
You don't seem to understand the premise of alternate/fantasy history. What usually occurs is that a writer takes a real period in history and basically crafts a "what-if" world. What if we added vampires and werewolves to Victorian England? What if we add magic and dragons to World War II? What if
I mean here's an example. What if we took the Napoleonic Wars and added magic and dragons to it? Well, a book about just that exists. It's called His Majesty's Dragon. It's not the greatest book ever, but it's a poignant example here. According to you, the presence of some massive dragon should mean the claim of realism goes out the window right? Well I don't think Naomi Novik would agree with that because the book crafts a picture where everything (minus the dragons) is trying to be "real." The battles are attempted to be written with a sense of believability for 19th century warfare. The attitudes to women are fairly accurate (there are women in the military hierarchy but their existence is kept secret from the public). The main character's development involves his 19th-century "polite" values clashing with the more modern values of the Aerial Corps that he joins. This book is a great example because Novik throws in some "historically inaccurate" values for the Aerial Corps, but importantly she also backs it up with a historically accurate picture of English classism and sexism.
What if we want to use vampires and magic? Well then, if you transpose that vampire/magic onto The War of the Roses, you might end up with the world of The Dragon Waiting.
What if we want to use magic, talking stones and faeries? Well, couple it again with the Napoleonic Wars (like His Majesty's Dragon) and you might end up instead with Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell. This is another useful example because Clarke writes a book where "historically inaccurate" social events occur. In fact the ending wherein
the women, people of color, and poor whites defeat the antagonist
doesn't really jive with historical reality. It's an imagined outcome. But even with all the magic and fantastic stuff in the book, it's grounded in realism. Clarke writes the magic convincingly. Characters attempt to suppress the voices of various groups (women, minorities, poor people, etc). All of this magic is backed up by a real portrait of England in the 19th century.
This whole "Lol werewolves and fictional weapons" stuff needs to stop. It's nonsense.
The article was posted today. The game came out weeks ago, plenty of time to do a little research about the game. And once again, myself and many other people in the thread why it wouldn't have been a good idea to reveal the most important character in the game besides the protagonist who also happens to be a minority pre-release. If you wanna try to make an argument that it would've been or that they didn't wanna show a minority character not because of her involvement being a spoiler but because she is a minority then I have several posts in this thread that I can point out to you that provide way more likely reasons than "Oh no, we can't show off the Indian character. Even though the creative director is Indian."
