Jan
26

Games: A Social Responsibility

While looking over at the Mass Effect 2 thread, I came across this forum entry:

This thread is about the merits of having a same-sex romance option in ME games.

Please refrain from general discussions about homosexuality and/or religion. Thank you.

I’m not going to go into the usual “I have no problems with homosexuality…BUT…” speech here cause I think that is really not the issue here (…and the conversation usually gets off track with it being about my views on the specific topic of sexuality in general…). I think the real issue when it comes to subjects like this is how much responsibility does the games industry have in reflecting social/political/religious/sexual topics within their games? Do they have a duty to represent every aspect of human existence…or at least the ones we care about now?

If there is a sex scene with a unmarried, handsome, athletic guy and a beautiful girl with a nice ass, then is seems we have all sorts of worms coming out:
- what about a girl and a girl? They can love too?
- what about a guy and a guy? They can love too?
- what about non-athletic, fat people? They’re hot too…
- what about ugly people? I know lots of heroes who are butt-ugly.
- what if they’re vegetarians…we should make sure they don’t eat steak after the steamy love scene.
- what about blind people…they can be heroes and get the girl too you know.
- why aren’t they in a wheel chairs to represent the fact that disabled people make contributions as well? Hey! Why doesn’t that set of stairs in the game have alternate access??!!!

Understood that sexuality is a very personal and hot topic that gets everyone’s panties in a knot, but do we really need to represent every single human condition within our games just to make a social point? It’s an interesting topic and ultimately I think the answer has to be “no”. If we insist that game designers start being socially conscious on every human condition, I think we’ll start really hating our gaming sessions. If we go by the theory that “games are art” (…/cringe…), then do we really want to tell the artist how they should create?

D out.

Posted in Editorial
40 Comments Posted by Darren

syncaine says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:36 am

You have to give props to Blizzard here, making WoW wheelchair accessible with WotLK. (sorry, too easy).

What I don’t quite understand whenever this topic comes up is why are people trying to force a certain element into someones story. If BioWare does not include a gay romance, that does not mean they hate gays, it just means for that particular story, a gay relationship did not fit. If someone wants to make a gay-themed story, would people object that they can’t get a straight version of it as well, or any of the examples you list above.

If the lack of a gay option is a major issue for someone, vote by not buying the game. Otherwise, enjoy it for what it is, and get your gay video-game love story someplace else.

Marchosias says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:38 am

I think you make a mostly valid point, but I think you’re also using a bad premise. What usually gets people upset isn’t so much when there is no representation, but when there is a poorly implemented representation. Just to take the example of homosexuality – The Sims did it right, you could date/marry/whatever with ANY of the other characters in the game. Dragon Age did it wrong, in that you could only carry on same-sex relations with very select characters… Just my .02.

If a game is going to actually try to represent something in-game as personal and “lightning rod” as religion, race, sexuality, disabilities, etc – they need to be very careful and at least try to put forth a decent implementation – not just “throwing out a bone” that’s poorly executed to seemingly placate a particular group. This will get them into a worse position than if they would’ve just left well enough alone.

Eckyman says:

January 26, 2010 at 11:42 am

I’ve given this some thought in the past and the cynic in me cant help but laugh when developers claim to put these features in to in some way represent every aspect of human existence. Perhaps if they dug a little deeper than just including the ability to get your rocks off then I could see some justification to it, as it is, the cynic in me is writing all this off as a poor attempt to reel in the more impressionable male demographic by flashing some boobs. Or generate some free publicity by having same sex encounters.

That may be a hasty assumption but I’ve seen nothing that leads me to believe any different.

If developers were really trying to do something more sophisticated with gaming experiences and attempting to recreate the issues we deal with in our day to day lives, we would be seeing more ‘Sigourney Weaver in Aliens’ style female lead characters, and less Umbra Witches and Rubi Malone’s. What we have is the opposite… muscle bound guys in mech suits, over sized breasts bouncing inexplicably around the screen defying gravity… hyped up side boob sex scenes in Mass Effect 1/2. I’m anything but a prude but I find the entire thing slightly patronising to be honest.

January 26, 2010 at 11:49 am

“The Sims did it right, you could date/marry/whatever with ANY of the other characters in the game. Dragon Age did it wrong, in that you could only carry on same-sex relations with very select characters… Just my .02.”

I largely agree with you but just to play Devils Advocate here, technically you would only be able to carry on same-sex relationships with certain people in reality. Namely people who are into same-sex relationships. To be picky about it, The Sims has it wrong as not everyone is Bisexual or willing to swap preferences at the drop of a hat.

Stabs says:

January 26, 2010 at 12:25 pm

The point we need to get to is where it doesn’t matter what the supposed morality of the game’s story is so much as how well the story is told. For example, Brokeback Mountain is just a plain good story. To say the author is just moralising and she should have stuck within conventional boundaries and written a boy-girl story is silly and misses the point.

As an artistic medium games aren’t there yet. But they will be one day. If SWTOR, as promised, establishes story-telling as a 4th pillar of MMO gameplay then we will see all kinds of stories eventually told. Not because someone wants to sermonise about broad-mindedness. Just because they’re good stories.

It seems ironic to me that Bioware get panned for always using the same tired old cliched plot and also get panned for breaking away from it.

SmakenDahed says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:02 pm

Agree, Darren.
Agree, Eckyman.

The day developers have to cater to the Checklist of Inclusion, is the day I stop being a gamer. I want games, not alternate realities that reflect the current down-trodden minority (which is quickly becoming white, heterosexual males).

Carry on.

Kendricke says:

January 26, 2010 at 1:57 pm

The Sims is an open sandbox design which allows players to basically create and choose to play the game however they wish. Dragon Age follows specifc story arcs and have characters with unique personalities and character traits. In The Sims, it’s internally consistent to the design to allow anyone to date anyone else. In Dragon Age, that would actually be inconsistent with the story/design Bioware created, and thus it would not make sense to allow any character to have sex with any other character (Just because you might want to find a tender moment or two with Stern doesn’t mean he’s into that sort of thing).

Cuppycake says:

January 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm

This subject is exactly why we started The Border House (www.borderhouseblog.com). I think it’s pretty sad that you think it would make for unfun gaming sessions if games accurately represent the humans who play them. I wonder if you weren’t a white able-bodied straight male if you would feel the same way?

Check out a post by one of our editors yesterday, “Designing Against the Default Human” – http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=1061

January 26, 2010 at 5:40 pm

@Eckyman: The Sims “did it right” as a game. Most people play games to get away from “real life” so of course they did it right in that anyone can play however they want to. Of course everyone in “real life” isn’t str8, but in a game like The Sims they can be, or they can all be bi, or whatever – that’s what’s right with the game – qua game. And it’s one of the key things that makes it one of, if not THE biggest game franchise ever.

@Kendricke: I think that’s just a red-herring argument. I played through Dragon Age twice and the story arcs were not so inflexible as to disallow any and all permutations. I didn’t really encounter any “story breaking” issues that would’ve intrinsically barred anyone to have relations with anyone else.

Matt says:

January 26, 2010 at 5:59 pm

“You have to give props to Blizzard here, making WoW wheelchair accessible with WotLK. (sorry, too easy).”
Comment of the week at least. Grats syncaine. I quit WoW after realizing just how ezmode it has gotten. I miss the comraderie terribly but I’m not going to pay for a social network game basically.
Anyways, I agree with Darren. Stabs and smacken said it well also. Someone somewhere will have a problem with anything that is out there. To try and please everyone would be a fruitless proposition.
I also agree that the whole “bedroom” scene in ME1 was way overblown. Barely even qualified as a “sex scene.”

January 26, 2010 at 6:26 pm

@Cuppycake: As a white, able-bodied, straight male – I’m the only type of person out there you are allowed to discriminate against.

Good times.

sid67 says:

January 26, 2010 at 7:02 pm

What I don’t quite understand whenever this topic comes up is why are people trying to force a certain element into someones story.

@Syn: It’s the agenda of the special interest. Not specific to Gay and Lesbians, they are just one of many groups. Religious groups being at equal fault in many situations. These groups all have one thing in common — they believe that they have to keep pushing the agenda or they lose ground.

There are countless examples of situations where the ‘middle ground’ makes the most sense and yet any step (by either side) towards that middle is perceived as a concession to their core beliefs. They are the ultimate believers in the slippery slope and any concession that something is “gray” or not as black and white as they paint is a threat to them. Ironically, for all the tolerance that gets preached, most of these groups are surprisingly intolerant of other ideas.

Randomessa says:

January 26, 2010 at 7:31 pm

I think most of the examples in your “what if” scenarios above can be addressed by the character creator itself – I have not played Mass Effect so I don’t know how robust it is, but it is certainly possible in some games to create an ugly character, an overweight character, etc. etc. At that point the only thing the game has to provide (if it so chooses) is a venue to pursue romances, in which case, sure, an ugly person can get love, an overweight person can get love, etc. Would it be so terribly damaging to the narrative to provide the option for both a male player character AND a female player character to have a same-sex relationship? What kind of story would that be, to be so affected?

Posts like this just make me wonder if people think representation is a zero-sum game, and I don’t see how it can be. Don’t worry, heterosexual white males are still all over the place; a black lesbian won’t upset the balance, I swear!

As for disabilities being represented, I won’t put words into that community’s mouth, but I can envision a futuristic or idealized world in which blindness or paralysis can be healed with science and medicine, hence a world of able-bodied people walking about. I’m not sure how comfortable I am with futuristic or idealized world in which there are, say, no black people (but there ARE insectoid aliens, for example). It makes me feel like, what, did we cure that too?

Do Game Designers Have A Social Obligation? | The Border House says:

January 26, 2010 at 7:49 pm

[...] in Console Games, General Gaming on January 26, 2010 Darren over at Common Sense Gamer asks a curious question – do game designers have a social obligation to consider issues such as race, class, ability, [...]

What, did we cure that too? « Casual Is As Casual Does says:

January 26, 2010 at 8:14 pm

[...] Posted by Randomessa under Uncategorized Leave a Comment Darren of Common Sense Gamer has a thought-provoking post about the issue of representation in gaming, and rather unlike myself, I actually bothered to [...]

8mph Ansible says:

January 26, 2010 at 9:26 pm

@Randomessa

Co-sign~!

For a medium that covets something like the imagination, why should we bother always having the “typical” to identify with? Does it really break any game or harm gamers to play a human that isn’t “typical”/enforced default? If anything having to abide by it is more of an agenda than wanting some other human type to identify with.

-Ani8

Akely says:

January 27, 2010 at 7:54 am

I think the question of sexuality is a non-issue in real life. Why should I even care who loves, and makes love to, who?

When in a game I can see the fun in role playing other genders, religions, outlooks and perhaps even sexual preferences. But I can not fathom why game developers should be in any way forced to cater for peoples real life preferences. If features are in a game, fine. Use them if you want to. If they’re not, tough.

I don’t think the gist of D’s blog was that having such options would be un-fun. Rather I think having all bases covered just to be politically correct would be un-fun. Personally I think it would be silly and pretentious.

January 27, 2010 at 9:37 am

I find it even sillier for yet another iteration of able-bodied-hetero-whiteboy saves universe who shares far too many physical and personality similarities to the last umpteen dozen able-bodied-hetero-whiteboy game characters all voiced by the same able-bodied-hetero-whiteboy voice actor.

It’s not a matter of political correctness to want something different than that!

And no one is forcing game developers to do it. They want feedback? Fine, well some of us are saying we want to look at something other than the boring generic character that some of us are wholly unable to identify with or is so static that it blurs into a pile of mush with all the other generic characters in other games that I bother telling apart because they’re all the same person.

What makes you think having characters beyond the “typical” able-bodied-hetero-whiteboy un-fun? Is it really hurting anyone or detracting from the numerous able-bodied-hetero-whiteguys main characters and cast members in games? Does it harm any actual players? Really?

Besides, gaming is a business as much as it is art. You cater to other players who aren’t able-bodied-hetero-white-male and you get a wider audience which means more money which inspires many other gamers who aren’t the “typical” target audience to create games who can help enrich the industry with new and different ideas. Long-term benefits for everyone than short-sighted, immediate self-interest.

And if you haven’t noticed, people actually do care who loves whom when it’s not the perceived/enforced norm.

Darren says:

January 27, 2010 at 10:54 am

@Cuppy: You’re not a able-bodied straight male, so how do you even know what my life experience has been beyond what is made up in your head?

Cop on or the job requirement of having to think « Exploring War Like Worlds. says:

January 27, 2010 at 11:32 am

[...] What, did we cure that too? Games: A Social Responsibility Do Game Designers Have A Social Obligation? Tags: Able, cope [...]

January 27, 2010 at 12:06 pm

Darren, when you’re defaulted as the targeted audience with much centered around you, about you or aimed to garner your favour–it’s difficult for Cuppycake to just make it up when it’s right there.

The marginalized already know the perspective of the enfranchised because society focuses more readily on the experiences of the enfranchised. However that does not entirely work vice versa.

-An8

Tesh says:

January 27, 2010 at 1:57 pm

Only games that are *about* representing the player as a character in the game need to worry about this sort of thing. Not every game falls into that category, not even every “Role Playing Game”. Even of those that do, NPCs do not always need to cater to the whim of the PCs. The Sims may be a fun little sandbox for anyone’s whim, but Dragon Age is telling a different story, and should not bend its game design or storytelling to cater to everyone.

There’s also a significant difference between representing appearance and actions. Sexuality is ultimately about actions, not appearances. There is little problem with letting players have significant control over their avatar’s appearance, but actions in a game are necessarily controlled by the devs as well as the players. If someone is trying to do something the devs don’t want them to do, for whatever reason, it’s not the devs fault. Players are playing in the devs’ world, and by the devs’ rules. If they don’t like it, move on, vote with the wallet, and so on. Devs also shouldn’t have to program the ability to do *anything*, even if it were technologically feasible.

If you want to play a RPG where you can bend the world completely to your will, find a tabletop game where your imagination is the limit, and find a sympathetic GM. They tend to be cheaper, too.

January 27, 2010 at 2:39 pm

@8mph – Disagree. To assume somebody is enfranchised just because they are part of a specific group or demographic is the worse kind of profiling and is simply wrong…end of story. I have very little patience for it…and so should you.

January 27, 2010 at 3:40 pm

One more thought on the subject, via my better half: if the character you create in Mass Effect can be either male or female, wouldn’t it be *easier* in fact for developers to include a same-sex romance option in the game, by virtue of having the romantically-inclined characters act exactly the same way toward the player character regardless of gender? From that perspective, there is either the option to romance a male NPC, or to romance a female character; the gender of the player character is irrelevent, and the game is not “including” a same-sex option. In fact, in order to have only a heterosexual option the designers are actually *removing* content that can more easily exist by default, by saying “you may romance this but not that.” There should (if my rudimentary experience can be trusted) be less coding involved in creating an omnisexual playground for the player character than a heterosexual one (fewer “else”‘s).

This doesn’t address the specific concerns of a player who wants to have a homosexual relationship exlusively, and is more taking the lazy way out than accomodating anyone, but at the very least gives the appearance of accomodation.

January 27, 2010 at 3:54 pm

People target demographics to… sell money. They’ll target the largest demographic to make that money, not the smaller markets. It’s common sense. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t target those demographics, they just have to understand that they’re reducing their profits by doing so.

For the most part the gaming industry has locked down males (no matter the color or sexual orientation). If you’re blind you haven’t noticed a shift in design and trends that is now working towards including females. This isn’t because of sexism, it’s simply because they’re expanding their target market to make even more money.

Some will argue that a certain female demographic tends to be the prime spenders, I’ve heard this to be the case in some industries. So perhaps it’s a realignment but unless you’re going to splatter pictures of Robert Pattinson (I think that’s how it’s spelled) all over the game boxes you’re not going to get that demographic so easily.

January 27, 2010 at 4:52 pm

@Smaken: Agreed re: marketing trends…and it will get to the sexuality issues as soon as they realize that there is an audience, and therefore, money in it. So…fight the good fight Cuppy on your site.

Happens in TV as well. Take a special note of the types of commercials that are played during sitcoms, which usually have the “white, able-bodied male” portrayed as a bumbling oaf (…see the now defunct show Raymond for a great example…). Most commercials in those sections are targeted at women, ages 20-40, homeowners who have husbands who…apparently….are bumbling oafs as well . Price of being “enfranchised” I guess. Big difference in that targeting even compared to 20 years ago.

…see Second Life for what happens when you simulate real life, and who really thinks that’s fun.

January 27, 2010 at 5:38 pm

You lost me. You disagree with me but agree with SmakenDahed who points towards market force that takes its aim at first a larger demographic which is considered the mainstream and as such the enfranchised before trickling towards the next largest from there?

January 27, 2010 at 6:37 pm

No…you missed my point I think.

I disagreed with you because you and Cuppy seem to have have some kind of built in assumption of social and political status of a person, i.e. me, due to race, gender and able-bodied status)…which says nothing about how “mainstream” a person is…nor should it say how “mainstream” they should ever become.

I have an anxiety disorder (…true story…) as well as being white, male and “able-bodied”. How “mainstream” am I now? Do you see me asking for characters in video games to wake up in cold sweats not able to breath thinking they are having a heart attack? No….I don’t.

That type of thinking is how we get into the messes we find ourselves in regards to civil rights.

Sara Pickell says:

January 27, 2010 at 6:42 pm

“but do we really need to represent every single human condition within our games just to make a social point?” – Darren

No, we need to represent every single human condition within games with variable protagonists because we’re decent human beings. Or if you really need more reason, it’s because all those people are playing games, and all of those people put up with being completely marginalized more than enough.

This thread has even gotten me thinking on how to do some really kick ass sci-fi wheelchair commandos.

January 27, 2010 at 6:59 pm

Sara, how many people play games wanting to be *in* the game as themselves? It’s been my experience that many players play games precisely to *not* be themselves for a while.

January 27, 2010 at 7:57 pm

Darren, your description still places you the generally chosen “default” even with your anxiety. You don’t have to ask for characters that look like you because there’s a glut of them that are already there (sure, mostly without your anxiety unless they’re weakly/wrongly deploying it for fabricated depth to a character).

Tesh, just because some players don’t want to play as some version of themselves in a game doesn’t mean they want to play the same character type over and over and over and over again.

January 27, 2010 at 9:09 pm

@Tesh
I do. Video games were, and in many ways still are my only way of expressing my true self without significant fear of repercussion or rejection. That you don’t, has no bearing on the issue. That I do also has no bearing on the issue however, since by your own reasoning we should be seeing more minority characters since that would actually allow people to be something they are not.

@Darren
That you are not mainstream in one way does not decrease your enfranchisement in all others. I am still enfranchised by the color of my skin, despite not being enfranchised by my gender identity. In many ways, I am still enfranchised by my birth gender despite not identifying with it. Males of all races are enfranchised by their gender, whites of all genders are enfranchised by their skin color, and all able bodied people are enfranchised by being so. The rich are enfranchised over the middle class by definition, and similarly the middle class over the poor. This is not a subjective opinion open to interpretation, nor is it some bias that you can be said to be guilty of, it is the truth of how our society operates. The only question in regards to this is whether you choose to introspect on that and attempt to correct the latent imbalance. It is the content of this post that suggests you have not done so or have misunderstood enfranchisement, not your skin color, gender or income level.

January 27, 2010 at 9:41 pm

“Darren, your description still places you the generally chosen “default” even with your anxiety. You don’t have to ask for characters that look like you because there’s a glut of them that are already there (sure, mostly without your anxiety unless they’re weakly/wrongly deploying it for fabricated depth to a character).”

No…you said I was enfranchised due to my race, sex and able-ness…you said nothing of mental state of being. Who said this was about looks only. Are you saying you can tell sexuality by looks? Are you saying that being enfranchised and having representation is based solely on how one looks?

…all right…let’s go to bat and open the can of worms…

According to most stats, 20% of the population suffers from anxiety or stress disorder (…that are reported…) as opposed to 5-10% who report that their sexual preference is not heterosexual:

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml
http://gaylife.about.com/od/comingout/a/population.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

Tell me then…why aren’t people with anxiety represented more in games, at least in proportion to “normal people”…and why do you think sexuality should be more represented than those with anxiety or mental/learning disabilities?

…see where I’m going? We can go on forever and it gets ridiculous.

Fact is…games for fun…real life for social politics.

Thanks for reminding me why I should not write about this stuff

January 28, 2010 at 5:16 am

Why, it was only within my parents’ own lifetime that a couple like my better half and I would not have been able to have gotten married in several US states due to the People With Depression not being able to marry the People Without Depression Act. As it is, we are lucky to live where we do because there are still places where my partner could be assaulted or killed for being openly arthritic. Even at work, I have hidden the fact that I am severely myopic because I am afraid I’d lose my job – I’m not a protected category under anti-discrimination laws. It is especially distressing to think about the places we are not able to freely travel to because a world leader recently declared that there were no people with asthma in his country, because it is illegal to have asthma there.

In short, good points! Homosexuality is not “normal” and all differences in the human condition are exactly the same.

January 28, 2010 at 6:30 am

Well Darren… I played Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth back when. That character sure did have anxiety disorder… Sorry could not resist.

Sure, playing non-stereotypical characters is a blast. But frankly I think it is better to have characters that are “different” from the norm in real (pen and paper) role-playing games. That at least takes away the constraints and limitations of a computer.

And before anyone flame me over using the word “different”… I mean “different” not “less”. You scan?

January 28, 2010 at 11:11 am

Darren: “…see where I’m going? We can go on forever and it gets ridiculous.”
Yes. Yes.

Darren: “Fact is…games for fun…real life for social politics.”
Yes.

January 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm

Darren, yes I said nothing about your mental state of being or that you can tell someone’s sexuality by looking at them. You are the one bringing it up and you are the one who are, for whatever reason, putting it alongside sexuality which just feels wrong. It only gets ridiculous (to me) because it looks like you’re trying to find some sort of out or loophole to whatever enfranchisement you possess. Please take Sara’s post to heart.

For me a game stops becoming fun when it, its players and/or part of the hobby is continually discriminatory or hurtful to me and others. They don’t exist in a vacuum; they’re considered a social experience and thus influenced by social politics; if they are to be considered as forms of art then they’ll have to endure criticism and critique just as all art has always been. If anyone chooses to ignore or continue misunderstanding that, then that is on them.

@Sara

This/That!

January 29, 2010 at 1:30 pm

Too funny.

Nahkti says:

February 5, 2010 at 7:08 am

If it’s going to happen it must never be forced, it should flow in the story line and not feel that it’s there to placate any minority group but is there to support the story. AoC has one quest, the quest giver mentions the fact his lover was male, it felt neither forced nor disruptive to the story, it was natural within that setting, now one out of hundreds doesn’t reflect the demographics of the real world but was enough and unobtrusive enough to make a simple statement (intended or not) about inclusiveness to those looking for it or needing it. ‘Marginalized’ groups should not be patronised by forced inclusion, I feel exactly the same way about political ‘quotas’ and I would hate to see it in games as much as I currently hate the glib homophobia of the large part of the gaming community (which only reflects the society at large).

Demographics say the majority of gamers are white, able bodied, young heterosexual men hence the over abundance of stereotypes and the accepted truth that the female characters armour always means less equals more protection, business dictates at the end of the day.

I think with time inclusiveness will happen to attract a wider audience, we are already seeing that when business realised that yes girls are gamers too, it shouldn’t be forced but I remain optimistic it will evolve.

Normality is subjective.

The Common Sense Gamer Putting some sense in the insane world of gaming.

Games: A Social Responsibility

40 Responses to "Games: A Social Responsibility"

Leave a Comment

Meta

Blogroll

Subscribe to SUWT

Shut Up. We're Talking.

Blogroll

Archives

Categories

Darren’s Eventual Gamespace

Meta