Has BioWare's policy of diversity started to become mainstream?

Hacks of the diversity industry patting themselves on the back. Pathetic.

Um, hi *waves*

I check in on bsn once a month maybe to see how things are going, and I saw this thread and noticed I could reply as a guest so just wanted to share some thoughts on this because there are things that people, I think, are getting very wrong about diversity :/

Im generally a pro-diversity person, I think its beautiful that there are authors, writers, producers etc out there that want to give people characters that they can really relate to and improve their emotional ties to whatever type of fiction is being discussed. Its great for me to have characters I can ship together, romance options I can enjoy, etc. Its just NICE, when I see portrayals of LGBT+ characters, it just makes me happy - and is a benefit to many people in the world.

Diversity, and representation, are very important to people in minority groups, and women also. We live in a world where people can face anything from execution and torture, to hate crime, discrimination and general hate for being who they are. The households that people are raised in can be outright hostile towards children who happen to differentiate from what their families want consider the 'norm', and then there are societies and governments to consider that can treat people in an overtly negative way - governments that won't act for the benefit of all, instead acting on the behalf of unproven, outdated and at times VERY illogical beliefs.

In the situations that many minority groups face, even in the most 'advanced' countries in the world, having people like you represented in media is nothing but a positive thing. We live in a world where media can have a huge effect on the way people live, and think, and it can help people from minority groups who might feel very alone through difficult parts of their lives, and help them to understand that who they are is ok - something that will do nothing but benefit their mental health, rather than damage it that can be an issue.
But also, the more diversity and representation, the more people will come to empathize with those that they disagree with. Often people will exist in enclosed spaces. They will receive media from only sources that agree with them, talk to people who only share their beliefs - and this is a bad thing. Rather than having biases challenged, they will have them confirmed, which can lead to hate and extremism. If media can share stories about LGBT+ people, for example, it can help to humanize them in the eyes of people who may never have a chance of communicating with different people otherwise. It can breed empathy, and compassion - and thats a benefit to all, to society, and to the human race as a whole.

People mistake diversity for an inherently political thing far too often. Im not denying that its possible to use diversity to preach a particular viewpoint, but theres NOTHING political about diversity as a whole - people are mistaken in thinking that it can come from only one 'side' and one source.

Another reason why writers, developers, producers etc will include a diverse set of characters is because... its a representation and reflection of humanity.

Humans are a diverse species. In the world, there are people from all different backgrounds, nationalities, ethnicities, colors, creeds, sexes, sexual orientations and gender identities. Whether a person agrees with everyone from that list, or wants them to be portrayed in media is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you consider something a sin, or a mental illness, or morally wrong - it doesn't matter. It doesn't change humanity - it doesn't matter to what extent you believe people exist. They exist. It isn't a political act to portray something as the way it is, no matter what side of the spectrum someone happens to be on. Portraying a blue pen as a blue pen isn't political. To portray humanity in the diverse light in which it actually exists is more intellectually honest than those that want to exclude parts of the human race based on their own beliefs and opinions - that isn't a true portrayal of humanity, just how some people would like it to be. The most truthful and honest option is the most diverse, not the most convenient.

As another point, I just want to say something:

My favorite author of all time is Brandon Sanderson. He is someone who I disagree with on maannnyyyy things. He was born in Utah, raised as a Mormon, worked as a missionary and is a conservative. In the past, he has spoken about his disapproval of gay marriage, and his belief that homosexuality should be resisted in the same way he would resist cheating on his wife. He and I disagree on many things, but there are 3 points I want to make.

1) Despite the fact I have moral issues with many of his beliefs, it doesn't stop me from enjoying his books, fangirling over the things he writes and me generally thinking hes one of the best people in the world.

2) Even if a writer/producer/developer beliefs certain things or holds certain views, doesn't mean that they will be an inherent part of their work. Brandon Sanderson's books don't really have a political/religious bias... more they seem to have themes that deconstruct religions and point out their flaws, strangely Im an aspiring author myself, and Im also a pacifist - but most of my characters commit acts of violence, and they often make cases FOR violence (believing its the right thing, etc). Thats just a general comment

Now for the big one:

3) DIVERSITY IS NOT POLITICAL. Despite being a religious conservative, Brandon Sanderson's works have a VERY diverse cast of characters. Youll see badass female characters like Vin from the Mistborn series, and Jasnah from the Stormlight Archive. Youll see non-white people being main characters and having the most important roles in the story. He even writes LGBT characters, such as Drehy from the Stormlight Archive (who is said to be courting a man), and Ranette from the second Mistborn era who is said to be in a relationship with a woman called Misra.

Here is a quote he once gave in an interview:



And that, is why hes one of my favorite people in the world, even though I disagree with him so much.

So yup, I think thats all I have to say.

The points Ive made aren't an excuse for tokenism, btw, diversity just to tick boxes. Neither is it an excuse for people telling others how to think in the fiction they create - using a quote from one of Brandon Sanderson's characters, "The purpose of a storyteller is not to tell you how to think, but to give you questions to think upon." - but I think Ive explained my points well... maybe.

I think the reason why people are called bigots often for their disapproval of diversity is because... well, it can be seen as being against acts of kindness and disapproving of empathy, and is nearly always based on the selfish desire to have everyone conform to their political beliefs. To be a bigot, is to be intolerant to people that disagree with you - something that can come across, whether its true or not, in discussions where things are often a matter of kindness, compassion, representation etc.


To answer the question though:

I would like to think its become mainstream??? Not sure it has or not though :/

Looking at the recent games that are gonna be released, there are definitely improvements (I cant wait for AC Odyssey oh my goddddddddddd)

I think game developers are starting to ignore vocal (and occasionally hateful) parts of their fanbases, which I think is a positive thing. Partly because of creative freedom, partly because of the diversity and representation that comes with it Its also a win-win for the developers, I think. They get political points and a good reputation, their games can appeal to a wider fanbase, they have opportunities to spread compassion and empathy AND if the worse parts of their fanbase don't buy their games because of their diverse approach - a nicer community, and therefore more constructive (rather than politically motivated) feedback. I think, partly, theyre tired of people abusing/harassing them for doing certain things in their games, and you can see an increase in like... not only game developers, but producers, actors, etc, essentially taking the view "If you don't like it, don't watch/play/read it". Im quite happy that people are standing up for what they believe in, and are being stubborn even with all of the trolling and harassment that can be thrown at them when they act in a way that people disagree with, no matter how minor.


So, um, yeah.


*waves* *vanishes*

Did you even see the trailer? 

And this is the issue again. Any type of criticism is immediately shifted towards people being angry because there is a woman in the game. That is not the issue, that never was the issue. If that was the issue, games like Tomb Raider wouldn't be a success. Neither would Overwatch be. Or Mass Effect. 

You are unwilling (or unable) to acknowledge the problem, which is why this interaction is futile.

Yes, Bioware's policy does indeed seem to be becoming mainstream. As evidenced by the increasing shrillness of the incel crowd, who are, unsurprisingly, well-represented in this thread. These are both highly positive developments, though the latter admittedly solely for its entertainment value than for any substantive reason. Little in this world more amusing than rightwing regressives trying to work their way backwards from impotent nerd-rage towards something resembling an argument or line of reasoning.

Do you even know what an Incel is? How does someone disliking what happened to BFV equal being an Incel? Really. Tell me the correlation. I'll be waiting. 

With the point about immersion/consistency, it would depend on the context.
In a 100% fictional world, the lore imo should come first - but with it being a fictional world, the lore can be as diverse as the creator wants it to be.
In a historical setting - depends on the context. Media that make no claims about 100% historical accuracy take liberties with historical events all the time without anyone getting upset. In these situations, entertainment, and as many people enjoying the media as possible would, imo, come first. Because its just a fun thing
But, if a form of media was making claims of 100% historical accuracy and was a form of non-fiction, then the consistency and immersion would come first because they would be vital to the product theyre trying to sell. That said, telling the stories of everyone rather than a select group would be a part of that, and recognizing the importance of all people in history is historical accuracy (thats just a general comment, not related to the conversation necessarily)

Most of the time, diversity comes at no price though Having characters of particular types doesn't really change anything


As for your other thing about isms etc... I think that all reasonable conversations about it were doomed from the start tbh :/ Long before anyone used any word ending in -ism or -ist.

Elsewhere on the internet in forums (also on Twitter - I dont have Twitter, but a website Im on has a Twitter feed where gaming things will appear and ive been browsing things), Ive been reading things in threads about Battlefield V, good and bad. I think its important to understand why people think certain things Not things from news sources, things that people have been posting, FYI

But, based on what Ive actually seen people post (and Ive questioned and discussed occasionally) I think youre wrong about the motivations behind their disapproval about women being in the game :/

When I looked at the most used phrases, and most often discussed topics as I was reading, historical accuracy was rarely mentioned, and never spoken about as a topic. If it was mentioned at all, it was in passing and not the focus of what people were saying.

The most common focus for posts etc was politics. Phrases like "sjw" "disabled woman" "notmybattlefield" - those were the priority for the people who took issue with it, not the extent its possible for a woman to be fighting in WWII. So to me anyway, it seems more about politics (or what some men imagine the politics of the game developers are)... Because thats all that Ive seen talked about (and not a small number of people btw, many).

I think that someone who cared about historical accuracy, rather than making posts that are 99% about politics, would see the trailer differently. Would they be skeptical? Maybe, but there are any number of reasons why a woman would find herself fighting. After watching the trailer, and Google searching a few things (Im not an expert on history), there are quite a few different reasons why:

Sniper - in the trailer, the woman is shown using a rifle. There were factions in WWII that employed female snipers. *shrug* She could have been caught up in a battle by mistake.

SOE - like Nancy Wake, there were female SOEs. Would explain the british accent.

Mercenary - Not 100% sure of the use of mercenaries in WWII, but I imagine there were some - and would explain why she has lost an arm but still fighting - it would be more of an unofficial thing

Defending her home - There were women who fought to defend their homes in WWII against invasion.

But no one (other than the people who defend the game) mention those.

Those, to some extent, would be plausible scenarios that would explain her role in the trailer. 3 of them are very possible and there are examples of them in history - Im a little mehhhh about the mercenary idea, because I dont know enough about it to make a judgement - it seems possible to me, but I cant be sure.

But, thats another thing. Not knowing enough about it to make a judgement. Another thing against it being a thing about historical accuracy. Based on a short video (which is more representative iirc of the multiplayer chaos/character customization than any comment on historical accuracy), the judgements people are making are based on that person being a woman. They arent giving a thought as to why she could have found herself in the situation in the trailer, or historically plausible scenarios. Instead, the judgements are made without context, without enough information, before the game has even been released only on the basis that there was a woman in the trailer. It doesnt seem like people who care about historical accuracy, especially when you look at the words and topics they mention most often. Seems to be about political biases.

Another point against it: the developers (iirc) have said that they will choose entertainment over historical accuracy. To me, this would shut down all of the discussions about historical accuracy, because theyre not aiming for it/have more priorities. As I said, its nothing unusual for media to take liberties with a historical setting for fun purposes, and I cant imagine that people will complain every time it happens - it would involve a loooootttt of complaining, even just with WWII. So again, theyre acting like this because shes a woman, rather it being unusual for things to bend history for entertainment. And, despite the developers mentioning their priority being entertainment, complaints about are still happening.
Its fine, imo to want a realistic WWII game - but like peiple arent really limited in choices, and it seems verrryyyy unusual why they would take such a disliking to one game in particular.
So essentially: you have people still complaining about a woman being historically inaccurate, despite it being nothing unusual for things to take liberties with historical setting, and the developers saying that they prioritized entertainment. Theyre complaining about historical accuracy for a game that didnt prioritize it... Because there was a woman.

If you look at the things people have said/done, it will be this:

There are people on the internet who viewed the Battlefield V trailer (which was meant to be multiplayer focused iirc). They saw a woman featuring in it. In the name of historical accuracy, they ignored all plausible historical scenarios that would explain her presence, acted without any context, and without the game being even released before complaining about... historical accuracy, using rl examples and scenarios politics. Once the developers explained they prioritized entertainment, they understood, as many different forms of media take liberties with historical scenarios to make them more fun, and character customization options are good additions to a game continued to complain about politics.

Seems... reasonable

Ofc, there will be people who do actually care about historical accuracy (and I guess theyre likely the people who werent as vocal or unreasonable, but for the majority of the arguments Ive seen against it, its 99% about politics, unfortunately :/ It might be possible the many many opinions Ive read might have just been idk somehow from a bad group, but thats the opinion Ive formed after looking at what people have said/havent said. Im making no judgements of people from particular groups (it would be unreasonable), but after hearing many opinions - I do feel that for the vast majority, the thing about Battlefield V is political and not about intellectual honesty or historical accuracy. And not because I WANT it to be political, i dont care if it is/isnt (it makes no difference to me, I dont really care about the game), but based on observations... a conclusion.

As a small note, I was asking someone to explain their opinions after they made a post and I thought it would be interesting to learn more. They somehow managed to infer that the trailers message was that men suck.

I have no idea how they reached that conclusion, because the POV character took down a plane with a machine gun and killed a lot of people, whereas the woman was shot pretty immediately and then only killed one guy... when I pointed that out, they kinda said I should read the bible and insinuated I would be going to hell.

... for disagreeing with them about the trailer of a video game.

It was definitely an interesting conversation I was nothing but nice to them, but oh well




Ill pass, but thanks I made a decision, and there were times I didnt necessarily feel welcome, so Im happy just to give the occasional check in/ghost

This will be my last post before I fade into the ether *spooky music* I hope this posts anyhow 0_o

*waves*

The only thing Bioware needs to do is to create interesting characters and storylines first and not to include diversity aspects as if it is some type of checklist. They had to delete that awful segment regarding that transgender character in Andromeda ( i never played that scene, but i did happen to see it online..cringwworthy stuff) just to say "hey we have this in our game" aren't we inclusive?.... .


The Last of US 2 trailer started out with Ellie and some chick kissing each other.....that in itself was not the issue...moreso how it was portrayed....Ellie just got finished talking to this girls supposed "ex"..and it seems like this guy still has feelings for her, yet Ellie goes on the dance floor and proceeds to kiss this chick in front of the guy...the way he camera pans around them...the detailed moments of the kiss itself just screamed "we are inclusive and we have this in our game"


Some say Ellie has been like this since the DLC, but if you did not play the game you would have not noticed that.....i don't mind that Ellie is gay, but the way it was portrayed at least in that particular trailer was a bit forced....in the initial trailer that showed Ellie playing the guitar, it seemed as if Joel was a ghost that might have died and she was just reflecting on getting revenge....nice trailer and a nice way to set up the plot without forcing Ellie's sexuality as the forefront of the game which could be explored or discussed as we played the game ourselves....



I'm all for gay/ transgender/minority characters in games, just don't treat them as checklists or benchmarks to achieve when creating these games....

To be fair you are kind of fabricating a cost here because it's the wrong focus. 

Take Battlefield as the example. I have argued many times that the games were never wholly historically accurate, and the arguments about them not being realistic, as fair as they are, are hollow ones because that game has been made. Dozens of times now, across at least five franchises that I can think of. To entertain the thought though, the cosmetic buys are relegated to a single new mode, Combined Arms, so far. It's the "we get a group of mates together to form our bad-ass squad with our loot" mode, as compared to the single-player style story modes and the standard conquest modes, to accomplish co-op missions. 

Can you bring them into the main game in conquest? Probably. If it's anything like the gun-skins and rare-weapon drops they had in Battlefield 1 though, it's kind of innocuous when you are shooting folks down the sights of your rifle. I am to busy trying not to be shot vs worried about someone holding a gold-plated Gewehr M.95, and probably wouldn't notice a hook hand or their gender as they shoot me dead when push comes to shove. I suck at Battlefield 1 as it is.

But the focus of a lot of the criticism seen and heard in the end was not the above. It was the true misogyny message, number 2. Developers, publishers, journalists, everyone in the industry pushed back against the "diversity angle" because it was the angle they saw. An angle that I can't fault based upon the majorities behavior in their response. 

Number 3 might be different, but at the end of the day, it's still a hollow criticism. And for developers, I frankly can't help but side with them on this one because hostile folks falling into that camp are no better than the true sexists out there when they engage in shit behavior. We cannot pretend that everyone in number 3 is not doing so; we know people in groups 1 and 2 are being toxic in their own ways, probably more of a majority in 2 than anywhere else, but 3 is not immune. It's ultimately a semantical game that is poorly focused, because the question you asked is not answered by discussing diversity as the root of the problem. 

And the reason why it's not answered is the "price" were paying for, the lack of loot boxes. 

It's all about money. DICE wanted front and center to promote the gameplay mode they are gambling on making it for Battlefield V with the first trailer. New guns, cosmetics, all of them accessible and the only microtransactions found in-game are the hook hands and flyer jackets (which are period accurate, to be fair). Front and center, the money maker, laid out for you to buy instead of buying a random box with random loot.  It would be foolish to not say that monetization had a hand in the decision for these cosmetics. And we know that there is too much money off the table if they are not included or marketed.

So if the price we pay is grasping onto realism in a gameplay mode where realism is already out the window most of the time, id say it's justifiable considering alternatives to that, paying for guns or power, or paying for a game that is $90-$120.  That is where the intellectual honesty really lies, instead we have folks arguing over nothing and developers taking a stand; I think they figured out that it doesn't matter anymore. 

We are rapidly approaching a time where there will be no more living veterans of World War II, and these games, either for their 1 for 1 reverence to the battles fought through gameplay, to the hollywood-style storyline that seem authentic, to the general nods creating a pastiche experience, are all ripe for the same tangential learning. These games are going to be the way many people learn about this war going forward over movies, because they can experience all of the beats and drama of a movie like Saving Private Ryan by just playing Call of Duty: WWII. 

 I'm willing to give that experience a try here, diversity and all, if it piques their interest in the end.

Idk. I don't care really.

As a German, whose "representation" in gaming is 99.99% nazis and 1 likeable character (Reinhardt from Overwatch), I would like to take this opportunity to laugh about the entire discussion. And then have a beer.

Here's to your "diversity". Prost!

This shows what a joke the whole 'diversity' movement really is. 'Diversity' is about including the ones that are loud politically, which means mainly feminists and LGBTQ. The rest can burn apparently. 

It can even become dangerous when the political agenda for 'diversity' is used to distort historical facts. Or biological, social, physical and cultural facts for that matter.