Support NeoGAF

[The Faceless Master]

Y'all win. I'm tired of people making up things I haven't said and deliberately misrepresenting the arguments that I have made.

i hope you can find solace in knowing that you are not the problem. it's always the same quantum mechanics bullshit where people agree about the overall data, but when specific examples of something show up, it's not actually the case for the specific examples used. no matter what game is used, people will explain why that specific game is a 'bad example' and hey try again buddy.

 

[Mael]

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.

I think that it's really a fool's errand, the way I see it if they want to open new market, expand and actually get the goddamn growth their shareholders so desperately want they need to be more inclusive and stop chasing the same market with the same products.
It's an opportunity cost in the end, I doubt the demographic for white male gamer is growing all that much, if they prefer to leave the rest of the market open for other companies...

 

[Zen_Arcade]

i hope you can find solace in knowing that you are not the problem. it's always the same quantum mechanics bullshit where people agree about the overall data, but when specific examples of something show up, it's not actually the case for the specific examples used. no matter what game is used, people will explain why that specific game is a 'bad example' and hey try again buddy.

Or, you know, they picked a bad example and people are pointing it out.

Not everything is a conspericy theory. The fact that people are agreeing with the overall data should tell you that there is just something wrong with the specific argument if those same people are talking about how it's a bad example.

 

[Darknight]

I think the OP meant that there are no minorities inside the actual Order cast. Even NPC Knights are all white people. Didnt see any other women there besides Isabelle so its all white dudes playing "god" or whatever. Guess this is what some people mean.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

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.

1. Who gives a crap what some random person said in a pre-release thread? Are we now all beholden to, and not meaning any offense, the forum idiot that spouts some nonsense? It went from this one person in the OP to suddenly "many" and attributing it as some widespread thing when there hasn't been any indication of it. The werewolf argument is a fucking straw man and needs to be dropped, because it isn't doing anyone any favors.

2. The article doesn't support its argument well at all. It doesn't highlight the issues of the 3 other games mentioned and the argument for The Order 1886 is only based on promotional material, not the game itself like it purports. The original Knights had no bearing on the story of the game in any significant capacity.

3. 2 characters isn't enough (one I would argue being the most important character in the game, and the most prominent/fleshed out outside of the player character), so how many? Half? Most? It's a rather small cast, but hey, you're the expert.

4. In-game, as mentioned several times here in case you're just basing arguments on assumptions and selective bias, there are a lot of moments and imagery that demonstrates the society issues that could/would extend to race. It's a significant undertone that, yes, would be undermined likely by having someone of minority in the current ranks of The Order. As I said before, it could have been written differently, but I'd argue the game wouldn't be the same without those undertones. It's important IMO in how certain characters end up interacting throughout the game.

Also, the arguments were for historical accuracy and such when it comes to diversity, not about throwing in characters into positions in spite of that messaging.

And sorry, I'm not behind OP's argument that the historical accurate blurb's primary intent is to excuse the white washing of characters. It's use doesn't pertain to that at all in games like Bioshock, Dishonored, The Witcher, or The Order, using the examples in the article. Again, feels like a straw man when the argument should be why doesn't the diversity of that time period also be reflected among those visual elements? Or '[Race] could have fit in this role just fine in this period, so why fall back again on a white (likely male) lead?

I think the OP meant that there are no minorities inside the actual Order cast. Even NPC Knights are all white people. Didnt see any other women there besides Isabelle so its all white dudes playing "god" or whatever. Guess this is what some people mean.

It's not what OP meant (maybe believed since they didn't play the game or just going off the article). It's about if the game is being historically accurate in its own way, why doesn't the cast/Knights reflect the diversity in London at the time or reflect that there were Knights of minority in the source material. And that's been answered in that these aren't the same people of Arthurian Legend, nor does the political climate suit the inclusion of minorities of The Order. Without spoiling anything, The Order is ugly in its own way.

But apparently people's ignorance coupled with their blind push for representation trumps the material.

 

[Green Biker Dude]

remember when super saiyan goku fought with the allies against hitler? me neither, but they better include him in the next ww2 call of duty since games have recently had a very low saiyan quota. rumor has it that prince vegeta has been getting triggered about the lack of saiyan representation in games

 

[BigDes]

remember when super saiyan goku fought with the allies against hitler? me neither, but they better include him in the next ww2 call of duty since games have recently had a very low saiyan quota. rumor has it that prince vegeta has been getting triggered about the lack of saiyan representation in games

Trunks and Goten actually did kick the fuck out of Hitler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBudU8BiQw4

 

[funkypie]

The op has repeatedly refused to admit he hasn't played the game. Making all his arguments invalid.

It is the equivalent of stating the order is a bad game without playing it.

 

[Green Biker Dude]

you don't need to play games to criticize them these days man. you can just cut random gameplay videos and upload them on youtube. context doesn't matter

 

[Crossing Eden]

I think the OP meant that there are no minorities inside the actual Order cast. Even NPC Knights are all white people. Didnt see any other women there besides Isabelle so its all white dudes playing "god" or whatever. Guess this is what some people mean.

There is at least three other female members of the order, they're seen in the council scenes sitting next to Sir Lucan, but she's not a major character in anyway. They also are examples of part of what I mentioned earlier in the thread about the game not having a lot of character faces. When the graphics are this good like in Ryse the devs cut back on the amount of actual faces that you see on npcs. They will change a few features here and there like the hair, but the face is the same, this saves on costs Just an example.

Just something that i'm starting to notice a bit more often now since games look so realistic.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Or, you know, they picked a bad example and people are pointing it out.

Not everything is a conspericy theory. The fact that people are agreeing with the overall data should tell you that there is just something wrong with the specific argument if those same people are talking about how it's a bad example.

it's like talking to a wall i swear.

it's always the same quantum mechanics bullshit where people agree about the overall data, but when specific examples of something show up, it's not actually the case for the specific examples used. no matter what game is used, people will explain why that specific game is a 'bad example' and hey try again buddy.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I think some better examples could be:

Resident Evil: A very diverse cast, but those that are of minority/not caucasian are typically tertiary in comparison to the caucasian leads. While not necessarily developed to be historically accurate in mind, we all remember some of the kerfuffle with RE5 and I'm sure quite a few people are wondering where the Middle Ages of Spain is located.

Uncharted: I think someone brought the game up earlier in the thread. For a game that goes around the world and ends up being in some real world locations, there sure is a lot of white.

LA Noire: Given the time period and what the game is about the main cast couldn't be anything but white, but the surrounding world didn't feel diverse at all.

Heavy Raid: All I know about Canada is from South Park, so Quantic Dreams needs to help me out here

Spoiler

That's all that's right at the forefront of my mind for games in real-world environments, with LA Noire the closest to a historic accuracy that yet can't really work out the main cast being anything else from what I can tell.

Are there any games, that strive for realism/historical accuracy where the main cast is in need of diversity?

 

[CrushDance]

The one thing I've noticed about this and why I frown at mainstream feminism as well, is the fact that every time these discussions about minorities in games are brought up, it's shut down twice as hard as compared to the discussion about women. When the topic of women in games or film,etc comes up, there is often so much empathy and "defense" of the topic at hand. But when it is regarding minorities, it's nit picking at its finest and crazy statements about "being unable to relate" and yada, yada. It's sad, because from talking to female friends and being on the internet long enough. It's clear that when most people think "feminism" or "women", they think of white women specifically, even the feminists themselves. Either minorities are forgotten about in most cases, or they're treated like children. Then it dawned on me that both men and women can be prejudiced and or turned off by minority characters, and that just because someone is fighting for their own place in the world, doesn't mean they are fighting for yours. And it suddenly made sense.

As for the order. Two of the more important characters are minorities and I feel that the primary cast itself is quite diverse. They may all be "white", but they're from different backgrounds. Play the game and see.

 

[sonicmj1]

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.

This is not the point of the article.

The point is that "historical accuracy" isn't an excuse for forsaking minorities, because if you do research, you can find historical examples of minorities in those situations. That's why the developer leads with the example from her Hamlet game where Ophelia is black. It's possible for those characters to exist in historical settings. The same is true for black or Arab Knights of the Order.

This doesn't mean that RAD was obligated to make the Order more racially diverse. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they meant the organization to skew heavily white to build some kind of parallel to imperial colonialism. But that is a wholly separate argument from historicity.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

The one thing I've noticed about this and why I frown at mainstream feminism as well, is the fact that every time these discussions about minorities in games are brought up, it's shut down twice as hard as compared to the discussion about women. Then it dawned on me that both men and women can be prejudiced and or turned off by minority characters, and it suddenly made sense.

As for the order. Two of the more important characters are minorities and I feel that the primary cast itself is quite diverse. They may all be "white", but they're from different backgrounds. Play the game and see.

Who is shutting it down? AFAIK most agree with the premise that representation is trash in the main cast in gaming and that games aiming for historic accuracy tend to not extend this to regional diversity in its main cast or even in the NPC population.

This is not the point of the article.

The point is that "historical accuracy" isn't an excuse for forsaking minorities, because if you do research, you can find historical examples of minorities in those situations. That's why the developer leads with the example from her Hamlet game where Ophelia is black. It's possible for those characters to exist in historical settings. The same is true for black or Arab Knights of the Order.

This doesn't mean that RAD was obligated to make the Order more racially diverse. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they meant the organization to skew heavily white to build some kind of parallel to imperial colonialism. But that is a wholly separate argument from historicity.

It's kind of an empty argument when framed that way, since so far no one has actually given evidence of it being used as an excuse in that manner. Bioshock, Dishonored, The Order, Uncharted...I don't think any developer has used the blurb historical accuracy in that manner. I'm still trying to figure out where that argument is coming from, other than an assumption.

And you're on to something there with the framing of The Order, but the point about the knights is moot since the Arthurian era Knights are at that point just as they are now, a legend.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

it's like talking to a wall i swear.

it's always the same quantum mechanics bullshit where people agree about the overall data, but when specific examples of something show up, it's not actually the case for the specific examples used. no matter what game is used, people will explain why that specific game is a 'bad example' and hey try again buddy.

Except for the fact that people have given multiple reasons why OP's point isn't valid when it comes to the Order. I don't need to try again, the rest of the thread did a damn good job of desconstructing the argument against the Order for me.

How about instead of giving me a shitty attitude, you prove someone wrong and prove OP right instead of generalizing and giving snippy ass remarks? This is just more of this recent bullshit to where if you aren't blindly agreeing with someone who is offended about something about a video game you must just be one of the people who doesn't care about the misrepresentation of minorities in video games at all. You can want more representation of minorities in video games without agreeing with every little thing people see as a problem. Especially when said problem can be disproved by actually playing the fucking video game.

OP supposedly hasn't played the game.
OP didn't give sound arguments about his point.
OP was proven wrong about the game multiple times by multiple people.

I don't even know why I bothered typing this, because you don't have any worthwhile response. You're just going to come in here and post the same bullshit without any reasoning or backup behind it.

 

[GobFather]

Y'all win. I'm tired of people making up things I haven't said and deliberately misrepresenting the arguments that I have made.

Nope. Quoted your own words in context, to prove that no one was making it up.. yet you keep saying this. :/

Except for the fact that people have given multiple reasons why OP's point isn't valid when it comes to the Order. I don't need to try again, the rest of the thread did a damn good job of desconstructing the argument against the Order for me.

How about instead of giving me a shitty attitude, you prove someone wrong and prove OP right instead of generalizing and giving snippy ass remarks? This is just more of this recent bullshit to where if you aren't blindly agreeing with someone who is offended about something about a video game you must just be one of the people who doesn't care about the misrepresentation of minorities in video games at all. You can want more representation of minorities in video games without agreeing with every little thing people see as a problem. Especially when said problem can be disproved by actually playing the fucking video game.

OP supposedly hasn't played the game.
OP didn't give sound arguments about his point.
OP was proven wrong about the game multiple times by multiple people.

I don't even know why I bothered typing this, because you don't have any worthwhile response. You're just going to come in here and post the same bullshit without any reasoning or backup behind it.

.

 

[Fnord]

How many people of color would seriously have been members of a group like The Order at that time in history? Honestly. They were a hair's breadth short of aristocracy. And racism was rampant.

From Wikipedia:

Around the 1750s, London became the home of many Blacks, as well as Jews, Irish, Germans and Huguenots. According to Gretchen Gerzina in her Black London, by the mid-18th century, Blacks comprised somewhere between one and three percent of the London populace.[31][32] Evidence of the number of Black residents in the city has been found through registered burials. The whites of London held widespread views that Black people in London were less than human; these views were expressed in slave sale advertisements. Some Black people in London resisted through escape.[31] Leading Black activists of this era included Olaudah Equiano, Ignatius Sancho and Quobna Ottobah Cugoano.

So, while London was a thriving port, part of the cargo was black slaves. Hardly who you'd expect to be a part of a semi-secret knighthood.

Spoiler

Using historical accuracy is the wrong way to go about making this argument. A better approach would be, "Well, there weren't Tesla Rifles in Victorian England, either, so the writers have already departed significantly from historical accuracy, therefore, they could have branched out in other areas, as well."

 

[RedSwirl]

I think people here are combining the "historical accuracy" argument and the "whitewashed history" argument in ways that misrepresent both points.

The original article is about the "historical accuracy" argument in regards to certain games having a lack of characters of color being bullshit. It's often bullshit because maybe the developers didn't do the research themselves. Or more importantly, maybe the people defending the games didn't do the research themselves. Furthermore, the article argues that a lot of people who may be making or defending the creative choices in these games with the "historical accuracy" argument are basing their views of history on media or just their own feelings instead of actual researched information.

All I'm trying to say about The Order is, don't defend it with the assumption the game represents the demographics of Victorian England in a historically accurate way. What proof do you actually have Ready At Dawn did extensive research into those demographics, or even made deliberate efforts to be super-accurate, Werewolves aside? The "historically accurate" argument probably shouldn't be made unless you've at least looked up things a little bit in order to back it up.

The overall argument of having more diversity among video game characters is a tangent discussion from this one. There are reasons for the need that have been covered in many other threads.

Edit: The post right above mine is a start (though it's the 1760's, more than a century removed from The Order).

Anyway, I'm interested in that Hamlet game the article centers around.

 

[Lime]

Apparently people are incredibly hung up over one example rather than actually addressing the fact that the argument "historical accuracy" against including people who aren't white cisdudes has been used time and time again in support of the status quo. The article soundly points out that this is such a flawed argument to make and introducing it into a conversation on diversity in an entertainment media serves no other purpose than maintaining the racist/sexist/oppressive status quo. The argument needs to buried and every discussion about inclusion and diversity would be better off without it rearing its implicitly harmful face.

And it's so easy to just ask questions about the relying on historical eras:

• Where are the Black cowboys in Red Dead Redemption, Gun, Call of Juarez, etc? What about slaves even, or the emancipated ones?
• Where are all the African-American soldiers who fought for the US in World War 2? Where are they in all the Call of Duty games, Band of Brothers, Company of Heroes, etc.?
• Where are all the Indians and Sikh soldiers that fought for the British Empire in WW1 and 2 games?
• Where are all the non-White people in all the goddamn pirate games we have gotten throughout the years?

Video games are white-washed (or homogenic in their character offerings) and excusing the oppressive status quo with historical accuracy is just not going to cut it. That's what the blog post is about, not whether or not one particular example could be justifiably criticized for its lack of diversity in its main characters (and the example functions well in retrospect because we have previously been witness to dumb bullshit excuses that a game with Werewolves and laser guns would be unbelievable if it included a non-White person in it).

So please - the historical accuracy argument should be exorcized.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

And it's so easy to just ask questions about the relying on historical eras:

• Where are the Black cowboys in Red Dead Redemption, Gun, Call of Juarez, etc? What about slaves even, or the emancipated ones?
• Where are all the African-American soldiers who fought for the US in World War 2? Where are they in all the Call of Duty games, Band of Brothers, Company of Heroes, etc.?
• Where are all the Indians and Sikh soldiers that fought for the British Empire in WW1 and 2 games?
• Where are all the non-White people in all the goddamn pirate games we have gotten throughout the years?

Video games are white-washed (or homogenic in their character offerings) and excusing the oppressive status quo with historical accuracy is just not going to cut it.

Well with the examples you listed, they strike me as generally historically inaccurate actually. It's not historically accurate to omit them, it's actually inaccurate.

Spoiler

Using historical accuracy is the wrong way to go about making this argument. A better approach would be, "Well, there weren't Tesla Rifles in Victorian England, either, so the writers have already departed significantly from historical accuracy, therefore, they could have branched out in other areas, as well."

As I pointed out on the last page, there are plenty of books that throw bizzare things like magic, dragons or sci-fi tech into a historical setting. With The Order as an example, it would be absolutely reasonable to have some prominent characters of color. But I wouldn't throw out all the trappings of Victorian England (e.g. The reality of racism, sexism and classism). Something like His Majesty's Dragon is set in the Napoleonic Wars but has prominent female characters. Great. But it also manages to remain grounded in reality by acknowledging 19th century sexism.

 

[Mael]

Well with the examples you listed, they strike me as generally historically inaccurate actually. It's not historically accurate to omit them, it's actually inaccurate.

That's where the corollary of 'it's not historically accurate' comes up : "it's not the creator's vision".

 

[SkyOdin]

How many people of color would seriously have been members of a group like The Order at that time in history? Honestly. They were a hair's breadth short of aristocracy. And racism was rampant.

It depends. In this case in particular, The Order is a bunch of warriors who have used special means to extend their lives for centuries. Within the context of the game, there is no reason that they would be bound by Victorian-era concepts of race. After all, the Order's membership is made of people who have been alive longer than the modern concept of nation-states, who (depending on what kind of backstory they have in mind for the Knights of the Round Table and the members of The Order) lived in a time when "English" wasn't even an ethnicity yet.

Also, it is not at all uncommon for social classes that are defined by military service to comprised of a significant number of foreigners or people of atypical ethnicity. Look at England itself: it was conquered by William the Conqueror, and was ruled by a class of French-speaking nobility with foreign ancestry for a few centuries as a result. You kind find plenty of examples where border regions where military power is necessary tend to lead to the people from those border regions becoming powerful and influential military leaders, despite their different ethnicity from people in core regions of the state.

To be honest, it is extremely strange that a group like The Order, if it really is composed of people who have lived for centuries, to actually at all fit the Victorian image of English men and women. If they really have lived that long, then they were born into a world that pre-dates that kind of ethnic ideology.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Apparently people are incredibly hung up over one example rather than actually addressing the fact that the argument "historical accuracy" against including people who aren't white cisdudes has been used time and time again in support of the status quo. The article soundly points out that this is such a flawed argument to make and introducing it into a conversation on diversity in an entertainment media serves no other purpose than maintaining the racist/sexist/oppressive status quo. The argument needs to buried and every discussion about inclusion and diversity would be better off without it rearing its implicitly harmful face.

And it's so easy to just ask questions about the relying on historical eras:

• Where are the Black cowboys in Red Dead Redemption, Gun, Call of Juarez, etc? What about slaves even, or the emancipated ones?
• Where are all the African-American soldiers who fought for the US in World War 2? Where are they in all the Call of Duty games, Band of Brothers, Company of Heroes, etc.?
• Where are all the Indians and Sikh soldiers that fought for the British Empire in WW1 and 2 games?
• Where are all the non-White people in all the goddamn pirate games we have gotten throughout the years?

Video games are white-washed (or homogenic in their character offerings) and excusing the oppressive status quo with historical accuracy is just not going to cut it. That's what the blog post is about, not whether or not one particular example could be justifiably criticized for its lack of diversity in its main characters (and the example functions well in retrospect because we have previously been witness to dumb bullshit excuses that a game with Werewolves and laser guns would be unbelievable if it included a non-White person in it).

So please - the historical accuracy argument should be exorcized.

I'm sorry Lime, but again, what devs have used 'historical accuracy' that fashion?

I'm sure plenty of ignorant consumers who might, but there's a lot of shit that gets said (even in this thread). But that doesn't seem to be what the article is targeting, but instead developers using the term. And I think the article was more about the lead characters not being diverse despite the source period/material allowing the chance for it. OP was the one suggesting it's all an excuse to oppress.

Edit: Good examples though Lime about in-game diversity issues that fit the setting/style/etc.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

That's where the corollary of 'it's not historically accurate' comes up "it's not the creator's vision".

This is interesting because, I think the "vision" defense gets both used and picked on too much. On the one hand, I feel like if the creator's vision is say a white cowboy, a la Call of Juarez, that's fine. It may not be contributing to diversity, but it is at least theoretically historically accurate. On the other hand, if your vision of the 19th century West somehow has no slaves, no emancipated slaves and no black cowboys, well that's not a "vision." That's just flat-out historically wrong.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Except for the fact that people have given multiple reasons why OP's point isn't valid when it comes to the Order. I don't need to try again, the rest of the thread did a damn good job of desconstructing the argument against the Order for me.

How about instead of giving me a shitty attitude, you prove someone wrong and prove OP right instead of generalizing and giving snippy ass remarks? This is just more of this recent bullshit to where if you aren't blindly agreeing with someone who is offended about something about a video game you must just be one of the people who doesn't care about the misrepresentation of minorities in video games at all. You can want more representation of minorities in video games without agreeing with every little thing people see as a problem. Especially when said problem can be disproved by actually playing the fucking video game.

OP supposedly hasn't played the game.
OP didn't give sound arguments about his point.
OP was proven wrong about the game multiple times by multiple people.

I don't even know why I bothered typing this, because you don't have any worthwhile response. You're just going to come in here and post the same bullshit without any reasoning or backup behind it.

there is no good example. people will agree on the larger issue but never agree on any specific example ever.

for some reason, you read my posts and fail to comprehend what i'm saying.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

there is no good example. people will agree on the larger issue but never agree on any specific example ever.

for some reason, you read my posts and fail to comprehend what i'm saying.

Because what you're saying isn't true. I'm not going to claim what you're saying NEVER happens, but you can't use those instances as blanket generalizations every time a similar argument comes up and people don't agree with you.

We literally have Lime on this page listing actual good, specific examples of video games where minority characters would have been appropriate but were left out.

 

[Crossing Eden]

there is no good example. people will agree on the larger issue but never agree on any specific example ever.

for some reason, you read my posts and fail to comprehend what i'm saying.

Maybe because games are way way less guilty with this compared to Hollywood.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

there is no good example. people will agree on the larger issue but never agree on any specific example ever.

for some reason, you read my posts and fail to comprehend what i'm saying.

That might be the case, but then what does that have to do with anything? Is it that the support to the argument not allowed to be discussed/challenged now, perhaps for one's convenience?

And there can be good examples. People can rail against something all they want, but if the example/support is good then it will still stand. As someone else brought up, Lime brought up some good examples.

 

[DaciaJC]

[*]Where are all the African-American soldiers who fought for the US in World War 2? Where are they in all the Call of Duty games, Band of Brothers, Company of Heroes, etc.?

The American armed forces were segregated for the duration of World War Two. Most African-Americans who served did so in a supporting role, such as truck drivers (you may have heard of the famous Red Ball Express). Nevertheless, there was a Call of Duty game, Finest Hour, that showcased the colored 761st tank battalion in action during the Battle of the Bulge, so there's that, I guess.

 

[patapuf]

It depends. In this case in particular, The Order is a bunch of warriors who have used special means to extend their lives for centuries. Within the context of the game, there is no reason that they would be bound by Victorian-era concepts of race. After all, the Order's membership is made of people who have been alive longer than the modern concept of nation-states, who (depending on what kind of backstory they have in mind for the Knights of the Round Table and the members of The Order) lived in a time when "English" wasn't even an ethnicity yet.

Also, it is not at all uncommon for social classes that are defined by military service to comprised of a significant number of foreigners or people of atypical ethnicity. Look at England itself: it was conquered by William the Conqueror, and was ruled by a class of French-speaking nobility with foreign ancestry for a few centuries as a result. You kind find plenty of examples where border regions where military power is necessary tend to lead to the people from those border regions becoming powerful and influential military leaders, despite their different ethnicity from people in core regions of the state.

To be honest, it is extremely strange that a group like The Order, if it really is composed of people who have lived for centuries, to actually at all fit the Victorian image of English men and women. If they really have lived that long, then they were born into a world that pre-dates that kind of ethnic ideology.

The only "conquerors" of england that weren't western european were probably some foreign legion garrisons of the romans... and even then, that's a very small number. There might be some non english knights from that era, but it's very unlikely they weren't european.

Englands rise as an empire and colonial power is more than enough justification for diversity in victorian england. No need to go back 500-1000 years.

 

[D i Z]

My god. You'd think that one poor example wouldn't be enough to completely sideline a topic with this much weight. I guess one is all that it takes.

 

[Messofanego]

It's kind of an empty argument when framed that way, since so far no one has actually given evidence of it being used as an excuse in that manner. Bioshock, Dishonored, The Order, Uncharted...I don't think any developer has used the blurb historical accuracy in that manner. I'm still trying to figure out where that argument is coming from, other than an assumption.

Kingdom Come. A history blog brought it up that the game could have people of colour if they wanted to. The developers didn't want to. Then the developers responded that they were being called "racist" apparently because of just bringing up the idea of people of colour in that time period. Or that they were being forced to include people of colour.

I think that what we are doing is really something no one has done before, and we are really trying to do it as well as we can – a realistic, historically accurate depiction of medieval Europe with a mature story.

And then we are called racist because there are no people of color in our medieval Bohemia world.

Even though no one was forcing them to do anything, this is the dev's response:

And they will never be happy. If you don’t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don’t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can’t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don’t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.

It’s a witch hunt and it’s affecting my artistic freedom.

http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/search/Kingdom+Come:Deliverance

 

[Mael]

My god. You'd think that one poor example wouldn't be enough to completely sideline a topic with this much weight. I guess one is all that it takes.

Never underestimate the power of the status quo.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

My god. You'd think that one poor example wouldn't be enough to completely sideline a topic with this much weight. I guess one is all that it takes.

Hence why it's aways important to be as accurate as possible and give the best examples possible. If you give poor examples, you open yourself up to derailment and delegitimization.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

It depends. In this case in particular, The Order is a bunch of warriors who have used special means to extend their lives for centuries. Within the context of the game, there is no reason that they would be bound by Victorian-era concepts of race. After all, the Order's membership is made of people who have been alive longer than the modern concept of nation-states, who (depending on what kind of backstory they have in mind for the Knights of the Round Table and the members of The Order) lived in a time when "English" wasn't even an ethnicity yet.

Also, it is not at all uncommon for social classes that are defined by military service to comprised of a significant number of foreigners or people of atypical ethnicity. Look at England itself: it was conquered by William the Conqueror, and was ruled by a class of French-speaking nobility with foreign ancestry for a few centuries as a result. You kind find plenty of examples where border regions where military power is necessary tend to lead to the people from those border regions becoming powerful and influential military leaders, despite their different ethnicity from people in core regions of the state.

To be honest, it is extremely strange that a group like The Order, if it really is composed of people who have lived for centuries, to actually at all fit the Victorian image of English men and women. If they really have lived that long, then they were born into a world that pre-dates that kind of ethnic ideology.

I think most of those in The Order are only a few hundred years old max. Only two active members I recall are older than that, and only one is supposedly from Arthur's time. Hell, there's someone essentially in the midst of joining at the early stages of the game.

Your way of thinking about The Order is the same that gets disenchanted when the realities of it unravel throughout the game.

Kingdom Come. A history blog brought it up that the game could have people of colour if they wanted to. The developers didn't want to. Then the developers responded that they were being called "racist" apparently because of just bringing up the idea of people of colour in that time period. Or that they were being forced to include people of colour.



Even though no one was forcing them to do anything, this is the dev's response:


http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/search/Kingdom+Come:Deliverance

See, now this is actually something, though still don't think this is the mindset all devs share like OP and Lime claim. In most cases, the historical accuracy is just for the benefit of the environment work and little else, not some grand scheme of oppression.

 

[Mael]

I think most of those in The Order are only a few hundred years old max. Only two active members I recall are older than that, and only one is supposedly from Arthur's time.

Your way of thinking about The Order is the same that gets disenchanted when the realities of it unravel throughout the game.

I haven't played the Order, I'm not sure if the Order being full on white male cast is an issue or not but I feel like the explanation while a little shaky at first can be reasonable.
That wouldn't explain the situation of no minorities (bar 2) in the whole game though.
But the Order might not be the best example ever either.

 

[WordsintheWater]

My god. You'd think that one poor example wouldn't be enough to completely sideline a topic with this much weight. I guess one is all that it takes.

Should have just admitted the article used a poor example and moved on, instead him and a few others sat here defending something they have no actual knowledge of, just what they were told. Of course everyone is gonna jump on someone when they say something wrong, it's a video game forum, it happens in every thread. The thing people need to learn to do is accept that they were wrong and move onto the greater topic at hand, instead it became all about 1 title because they couldn't let it go.

 

[The Faceless Master]

That might be the case, but then what does that have to do with anything? Is it that the support to the argument not allowed to be discussed/challenged now, perhaps for one's convenience?

And there can be good examples. People can rail against something all they want, but if the example/support is good then it will still stand. As someone else brought up, Lime brought up some good examples.

Maybe because games are way way less guilty with this compared to Hollywood.

Because what you're saying isn't true. I'm not going to claim what you're saying NEVER happens, but you can't use those instances as blanket generalizations every time a similar argument comes up and people don't agree with you.

We literally have Lime on this page listing actual good, specific examples of video games where minority characters would have been appropriate but were left out.

the OP had good examples. the level of defense rallied against one specific example because of totally unrelated circumstances is disheartening. that game being mentioned at all ruined the discussion not becsause it was a bad example, but because of the game itself an its position in some other war.

 

[WordsintheWater]

I haven't played the Order, I'm not sure if the Order being full on white male cast is an issue or not but I feel like the explanation while a little shaky at first can be reasonable.
That wouldn't explain the situation of no minorities (bar 2) in the whole game though.
But the Order might not be the best example ever either.

Just to reiterate the Order has a 2 other minority characters that become part of the cast at some point and 1 of them is the most important character in the whole game outside of the main character, she also takes up way more screen time then the others who are on the box.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

the OP had good examples. the level of defense rallied against one specific example because of totally unrelated circumstances is disheartening. that game being mentioned at all ruined the discussion not becsause it was a bad example, but because of the game itself an its position in some other war.

Are you saying that the examples of Bioshock and The Witcher are good? Or do you have something else I mind?

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I haven't played the Order, I'm not sure if the Order being full on white male cast is an issue or not but I feel like the explanation while a little shaky at first can be reasonable.
That wouldn't explain the situation of no minorities (bar 2) in the whole game though.
But the Order might not be the best example ever either.

I was a little curious as you were to some of that stuff when starting the game, but it stands on solid ground.

Spoilers in regard to Lakshmi and stuff with The Order

Spoiler

Seems that there was some sort of schism in the past with The Order. Lakshmi was given a vial of Blackwater by what seems to be one of the original Knights, and it's hinted that others had separated. Might have to do with that the leadership of The Order is more content in serving the whims of the East India Trading Company and the aristocrats than their code. Part of it due to conflict of interest in the half-breed department with the Lord Chancellor of The Order.

As for the minorities throughout the game, I haven't gone back to see what White Chapel NPCs look like. Hopefully there's more diversity there than Irish immigrant. I remember the Brothel being mono-race though, and ultimately I did come out those areas feeling like it wasn't as populated or diverse as they should have been, if there was even any diversity there.

the OP had good examples. the level of defense rallied against one specific example because of totally unrelated circumstances is disheartening. that game being mentioned at all ruined the discussion not becsause it was a bad example, but because of the game itself an its position in some other war.

Dude, grow up. There is no war, it's a goddamn video game. I couldn't care who likes it or doesn't. If you feel it's a good example in the context of the article, than support it. Same with the article's shout outs to Bioshock, The Witcher, Dishonored, and (which I agree) Uncharted.

 

[Kinyou]

My god. You'd think that one poor example wouldn't be enough to completely sideline a topic with this much weight. I guess one is all that it takes.

The derailment came more from people defending the bad example.

The thread isn't full of drive by "lol, the order actually has minorities" posts, but people claiming that those characters should have been in the promo material then etc.

 

[staticneuron]

And yet, all the marketing material featured nothing but white characters.

Aside from spoiling to much the only thing recreated from real life is some of the scenery. Other than that, the tech, the companies, the political system and even the knights themselves (trust me it isn't what you think), are fictitious.

So when they talk about painstakingly recreated what they really meant was buildings (sorta like unities claim to fame) everything else is not really a representation of that location in that time period.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Are you saying that the examples of Bioshock and The Witcher are good? Or do you have something else I mind?

i'm saying that people see things differently based on factors that may or may not even be in their control... even when one side is right, like with that dress.

 

[D i Z]

Should have just admitted the article used a poor example and moved on, instead him and a few others sat here defending something they have no actual knowledge of, just what they were told. Of course everyone is gonna jump on someone when they say something wrong, it's a video game forum, it happens in every thread. The thing people need to learn to do is accept that they were wrong and move onto the greater topic at hand, instead it became all about 1 title because they couldn't let it go.

Or, people need to learn to put aside the minor issue to address the real issue at hand. That is used to derail the topic. The defense force needs to sit back.

 

[Mael]

Just to reiterate the Order has a 2 other minority characters that become part of the cast at some point and 1 of them is the most important character in the whole game outside of the main character, she also takes up way more screen time then the others who are on the box.

We get it.
I'm not talking about the main characters (and even then it would absolve the Order if only 2 characters in the whole universe of the game are minorities?).
I'm talking about the side characters, npc, foes and the like.

I was a little curious as you were to some of that stuff when starting the game, but it stands on solid ground.

Spoilers in regard to Lakshmi and stuff with The Order

Spoiler

Seems that there was some sort of schism in the past with The Order. Lakshmi was given a vial of Blackwater by what seems to be one of the original Knights, and it's hinted that others had separated. Might have to do with that the leadership of The Order is more content in serving the whims of the East India Trading Company and the aristocrats than their code. Part of it due to conflict of interest in the half-breed department with the Lord Chancellor of The Order.

As for the minorities throughout the game, I haven't gone back to see what White Chapel NPCs look like. Hopefully there's more diversity there than Irish immigrant. I remember the Brothel being mono-race though, and ultimately I did come out those areas feeling like it wasn't as populated or diverse as they should have been, if there was even any diversity there.

If the brothels are not diverse, it's a problem where they didn't do much research at all or they simply whitewashed London...

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Or, people need to learn to put aside the minor issue to address the real issue at hand.

When the articles doesn't provide support to 4 of the 5 games it mentions and the last one (that OP focused on because of some prerelease comment some GAFer made that suddenly indicates everyone's belief) isn't a very sound argument in the context of the game, it's not really minor issues but the foundation of the argument. Just like OPs and some other's assertions that 'historical accuracy' is used to oppress minorities by devs, and didn't support it until one person brought one example from a game I haven't even heard of.

Lack of diversity, among the main cast, player character, and NPCs, is a problem. Agreed. Now how about we actually approach that argument on good ground instead of merely throwing words around and hoping something sticks?

Correcting information and trying to get to the root of the manner isn't derailing. Coming up with all these straw men, even within the OP, is derailment.

 

[Lime]

I'm sorry Lime, but again, what devs have used 'historical accuracy' that fashion?

I'm sure plenty of ignorant consumers who might, but there's a lot of shit that gets said (even in this thread). But that doesn't seem to be what the article is targeting, but instead developers using the term. And I think the article was more about the lead characters not being diverse despite the source period/material allowing the chance for it. OP was the one suggesting it's all an excuse to oppress.

Edit: Good examples though Lime about in-game diversity issues that fit the setting/style/etc.

Thanks for the compliment.

The article is targeting both developer and people in general ("Most people, designers and writers included). A common example that I think we are all familiar with: We have publicly seen the Gamergater Bigot behind Kingdom Deliverance or whatever it's called, who used the historical accuracy argument. I have heard the same argument used in regards to smaller games (from here in Europe), as well as film and literature, which took place in a historical setting.

In general, it is a commonly utilized flawed argument that helps no one except maintaining the same state of affairs we have had for so long. Whether or not the author is only addressing designers or developers do not matter in terms of the validity and applicability of her criticism of the historical accuracy argument against diversity.

The derailment came more from people defending the bad example.

The thread isn't full of drive by "lol, the order actually has minorities" posts, but people claiming that those characters should have been in the promo material then etc.

What I'm seeing is mostly people who don't want to admit that the whole "historical accuracy" excuse for white-washed entertainment media is bullshit and instead want to hone in on one particular example (which itself was used before release by people to utilize the historical accuracy argument to excuse the seemingly whitewashed video game with werewolves and laser guns).

 

[Spring-Loaded]

See, now this is actually something, though still don't think this is the mindset all devs share like OP and Lime claim. In most cases, the historical accuracy is just for the benefit of the environment work and little else, not some grand scheme of oppression.

If a specific instance has to be that blatant for you to acknowledge it's problematic, you probably won't think there's an overarching problem. How many instances of this do you need to see to be convinced? How blatant does each need to be?

For every person who makes their mindset public, there are more who've don't make where it on their sleeve, yet still perpetuate that harmful mindset passively.

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?

They stated there would be no minorities or possibility of in Kingdom Come because of the era and setting, last I read about it. I really want to know how many examples we need in order to convince people there's a problem.