Board 8 > Blizzard reveals their diversity tool

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mewtwo59 posted...

Huh. The reason I heard was that they didn't want a female protagonist because she'd be overshadowed by Rey since the game came out a month before Episode 9.

That's an excuse they made but it's patently ridiculous. Step back and look at the statement: "We can't have a woman because the other thing had a woman". Would "We can't have a guy because the other thing has a guy" make any more sense??

VintageGin posted...

Since you're essentially just looking at how "common" each quality is, I think it's probably a relatively objective way to measure things. Of course, you'd have to discount the fact that categorization is something that people are generally bad at (including those who built the tool).

The categorization is the problem since it's fully subjective, so the derived stats aren't objective at all. You can tweak the numbers however you like in order to create the conclusion you want.

They probably think it balances out by getting a bunch of different people's opinions in there to get a consensus on the numbers, but that's just design-by-committee, which is the most intensely biased method possible.

masterplum posted...

I mean, renegade fem shep is probably my favorite character in all of gaming, so you can have a minority have a personality.

This comes down to identity again. Shepard is designed to be an RPG avatar of the player, so you will naturally identify with them. The character itself is pretty terribly overall. But it's YOUR terrible, so you love them.

I don't think gamers have a problem identifying with women & minority avatars in general. It's the non-avatar characters that short-circuit their brains.

MariaTaylor posted...

no we don't.

yes we do

<a onclick="return show_quoted_message(8, 80019947, 965029532, '1de1d970');" href="/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests/80019947/965029532">GuessMyUserName posted... </a>

yes we do

this paradox has a simple conclusion. all they have to do is put characters that would want to see themselves represented in games in games. this satisfies both parties!

thanks gamefaqs

Is a female considered a minority in video games?

Waluigi1 posted...

Is a female considered a minority in video games?

depending on the role

lacking in protagonists depending on the genre (namely action/shooter), but heavily crowded as healer/support characters

and there are historically stated reasons for that such as arguments that boys can't relate to female protagonists thus targeting gaming as male-dominated often seeks a "relatable" dude, leading to stuff like Vaan existing to be the perspective character to Ashe's story (hell if you actually notice, all female-led mainline Final Fantasy games are actually designed as ensemble casts)

Reminder that this is a smokescreen to make people unaware of their union busting, just like with M&Ms revealing remodels of some characters amidst child slavery lawsuits, just like when Gillette releasing that "best men can be" ad when they got outed for destroying the environment to make their shit, and Blizzard in the past when they retroactively made certain characters gay to distract from some controversy like the guy who supported Hong Kong in Overwatch league or something and got banned.

GuessMyUserName posted...

(hell if you actually notice, all female-led mainline Final Fantasy games are actually designed as ensemble casts)

ffx2 goat

MariaTaylor posted...

"We want to see ourselves represented in games"

no we don't.

maybe you don't but I'd love it

dancing_cactuar posted...

like the guy who supported Hong Kong in Overwatch league or something and got banned.

it was hearthstone and not only did they ban him, he actually WON the tournament and they took away his prize and his win, and banned him from all future tournaments

GuessMyUserName posted...

depending on the role

lacking in protagonists depending on the genre (namely action/shooter), but heavily crowded as healer/support characters

and there are historically stated reasons for that such as arguments that boys can't relate to female protagonists thus targeting gaming as male-dominated often seeks a "relatable" dude, leading to stuff like Vaan existing to be the perspective character to Ashe's story (hell if you actually notice, all female-led mainline Final Fantasy games are actually designed as ensemble casts)

Yeah, but Vaan was created because Basch was too unrelatable as the protagonist, not Ashe.

MariaTaylor posted...

it was hearthstone and not only did they ban him, he actually WON the tournament and they took away his prize and his win, and banned him from all future tournaments

Oh so it was even worse situation than I remembered, that's real nice of Blizzard.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/2/8/4/AAZroiAADO20.jpg

dancing_cactuar posted...

Oh so it was even worse situation than I remembered, that's real nice of Blizzard.

it's even WORSE

they initially also fired and gave a permanent ban to both of the casters who simply interviewed the guy after the match. but then after a bunch of backlash the casters got to keep their jobs.

MariaTaylor posted...

it's even WORSE

they initially also fired and gave a permanent ban to both of the casters who simply interviewed the guy after the match. but then after a bunch of backlash the casters got to keep their jobs.

Absolute trash company, it shouldn't have taken until all the sex pests started getting outed for everyone to start hating them. But it won't matter really thanks to the whales that keep buying Overwatch lootboxes and mtx in Hearthstone, just wave a week's worth of profit to the court to settle and it's all forgotten. People constantly taking dumps on EA when Activision was doing the same shit at the same time only worse.

...you actually have a wiki page chronicling your rants about blizzard?

random anecdote time, i have a gamergater acquaintance who idolizes sam hyde

he is weirdly obsessed with blizzard and brings up the company whenever he can

hating blizzard for certain specific reasons is becoming one of those community pillars

can you think of any reason why a person might hate a company that molests its female employees and supports authoritarian regimes? I know it was discussed at the last gamergater dogwhistle meeting, and we all agreed that hating on blizzard was a way to secretly identify ourselves to each other

but I'm just wondering if there might be some other, legitimate reason that is causing otherwise normal people to be mistaken for gamergaters

MariaTaylor posted...

can you think of any reason why a person might hate a company that molests its female employees and supports authoritarian regimes? I know it was discussed at the last gamergater dogwhistle meeting, and we all agreed that hating on blizzard was a way to secretly identify ourselves to each other

but I'm just wondering if there might be some other, legitimate reason that is causing otherwise normal people to be mistaken for gamergaters

Nah, no possible way, hating Blizzard is like the secret handshake for freemasons that those filthy gamergaters use to identify each other. No controversies whatsoever have happened within the past several months that would get people to universally declare the company a dumpster fire, no siree.

MariaTaylor posted...

"We want to see ourselves represented in games"

no we don't.

This. I don't think I've seen a single game character that looks like me, and it's fine.

lordjers posted...

This. I don't think I've seen a single game character that looks like me, and it's fine.

Surely you see how you don't speak for everybody

He would need to use the diversity tool on his posts to speak for everybody

StealThisSheen posted...

Surely you see how you don't speak for everybody

surely you see how blizzard's poorly sourced research doesn't speak for everybody

2022 is a bit late to learn about parasocial contact hypothesis and the positive effect that consuming a diverse media has on humanizing outgroups to a broader ignorant society with no natural exposure to them. Like this is stuff that's been talked and forming our media for literal decades, you watch a show like Fresh Prince and you're exposed to a relatable cast of characters you can bond with, developing a parasocial attachment that allows you to empathize with people and their issues that you aren't normally exposed to.

When I was growing up, the media I consumed regularly and solely portrayed trans women as disgusting, perverted, deceptive men. Throughout my childhood and teenage years even though I was *very privately* exploring my own gender identity, I could not relate to the only depictions I was shown on TV that were always ridiculed - obvious I didn't want that to be me, and I was frightened at the thought of being found out and people thinking that of me.

The poor representation of transness in the media I grew up with kept me in the closet til my late 20s as I still had my own long-implanted issues with transphobia to unravel my own validity. I wish I could have opened up my world sooner but until time travel's a thing I'll just be glad to see greater representation for those after me.

If you just wanna chime in that you individually don't care to be represented then good for you, sit down and you can keep not caring while others do.

MariaTaylor posted...

surely you see how blizzard's poorly sourced research doesn't speak for everybody

Doesn't mean we answer poorly sourced research with equally poor generalizations.

Blizzard sucks

StealThisSheen posted...

Doesn't mean we answer poorly sourced research with equally poor generalizations.

okay genius let me break it down for you

blizzard: what gamers want is for characters to represent themselves
(some) gamers: no we don't
massively large brained egghead: HEY! CUT THAT OUT! YOU DON'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE!! >:^|

my response is not some sweeping generalization that there is not a SINGLE gamer who wants to see characters representative of themselves. it's a refutation to the idea that blizzard's premise is true. this is because I am speaking from a position that I feel very confident that "more diversity" is not a priority for a majority of gamers, and I know this because I'm one of those gamers who doesn't care about it at all.

now, blizzard literally published an article about how important this subject is, they funded research on it, they developed "tools" to help achieve their goal. to them, according to their own words, they believe that adding diversity to games is the MOST important aspect of development. they did all of this because this subject is SO important to them and they believe that it is true. (in fact, they believe in it so much, that as soon as there was any backlash they immediately posted an edit on their original article backpedaling on their stance!) blizzard is a multi billion dollar company with the ability to reach the eyes and ears of a massive audience.

now, on a message board post that maybe 50 people will read, I used the word "we" when you can argue I should have used the word "I"

it might be possible that blizzard is trying to speak for everyone just a little bit more than I am.

MariaTaylor posted...

now, on a message board post that maybe 50 people will read, I used the word "we" when you can argue I should have used the word "I"

Cool, so you understand why your initial post was stupid. That's pretty much where it ends.

Lmao got em

StealThisSheen posted...

Cool, so you understand why your initial post was stupid. That's pretty much where it ends.

yes, your pedantic, pointless chirping both starts and ends at the minor correction of one word which has literally no bearing or impact on anything else that was discussed in this entire topic by anyone.

congratulations, you did it.

I could watch Maria type all day tbh.

Love calling people who point out mistakes pedantic

StealThisSheen posted...

Surely you see how you don't speak for everybody

And I don't have to, but Blizzard thinks it does.

foolm0r0n posted...

Love calling people who point out mistakes pedantic

I was being extremely generous to STA in my use of the word "correct." what I said was not a mistake. people in this topic are literally trying to start an argument over whether or not MariaTaylor should use the word "I" or "we" to refer to a collective group of people who share the same opinion, but does not include every single gamer on earth. to me, that is extremely pedantic. but really, none of them are actually upset about what I said.

it's just the same people who whine about everything I say or do on the board, whining about something that I said or did. no matter what the contents of my post were, the same exact people would have quoted me and tried to make a witty response, made themselves look dumb, and then in the next topic they'll be mad about the fact that they looked stupid so they try the same thing again to get back at me. and then just make themselves look dumb again.

and surprise, foolmo joins team whiners. it's literally the same teams forming up as every single topic that has happened before, and will happen in the future. extremely boring, and honestly sad at this point.

you know we are all like over 30 now right? if you have spent more than 10 years hating me, maybe it's time to block me and move on with your life.

Oh and my take having read nothing here.

There are two main dynamics going on here with Blizzard. One is Blizzard is having PR, internal, and law issues with diversity. So they want to do something about it.

Then there are Blizzard employees who went through a lot of fucked up shit who wish to be heard. So Blizzard is going 'here, heard' and hoping no one notices the union busting and other things still going on.

I think my stance is I am cool with anything they want to do, adding customizations in WoW was awesome of them and a huge success. They just need to make sure the games were good while doing this and as a fan of blizzard in general (sorry Ulti) I am willing to give some of this quality a pass due to people who are gone. I mostly have enjoyed D3 the ten years it has been out and the core gameplay of WoW is fine, so if DIV is good and WoW turns around some of their systems then I will be happy with quality and they can do what they want. OW is diverse as hell and was fine until content draught in terms of core gameplay loop, so they can have their cake and eat it too.

So yeah, half big business, half pushed around employees wanting to feel heard. One is cynical, one is valid but maybe overzealous, and as long as the game fundamentals are better than the past few years post-launch everyone is chill. Chromie in WoW is trans but no one really cares because Chromie is awesome and well done in game.

MariaTaylor posted...

it's literally the same teams forming up as every single topic that has happened before, and will happen in the future. extremely boring, and honestly sad at this point.

You sure you didn't mean to quote-lecture Lopen about this? This is the first time I have ever agreed with SEP in recent memory, and I didn't even read any of his or your posts before this. All I saw was you calling the difference between "we" and "I" pedantic, which is dumb af. Just admit you accidentally used generalizing language. It's such a simple little mistake. Yeah we're 30, so that means we should stop caring about correct use of language? No. But it does mean you should be able to admit a tiny mistake.

GuessMyUserName posted...

2022 is a bit late to learn about parasocial contact hypothesis and the positive effect that consuming a diverse media has on humanizing outgroups to a broader ignorant society with no natural exposure to them. Like this is stuff that's been talked and forming our media for literal decades, you watch a show like Fresh Prince and you're exposed to a relatable cast of characters you can bond with, developing a parasocial attachment that allows you to empathize with people and their issues that you aren't normally exposed to.

When I was growing up, the media I consumed regularly and solely portrayed trans women as disgusting, perverted, deceptive men. Throughout my childhood and teenage years even though I was *very privately* exploring my own gender identity, I could not relate to the only depictions I was shown on TV that were always ridiculed - obvious I didn't want that to be me, and I was frightened at the thought of being found out and people thinking that of me.

The poor representation of transness in the media I grew up with kept me in the closet til my late 20s as I still had my own long-implanted issues with transphobia to unravel my own validity. I wish I could have opened up my world sooner but until time travel's a thing I'll just be glad to see greater representation for those after me.

I respect your experience and I think there's nothing wrong with having that opinion.

If you just wanna chime in that you individually don't care to be represented then good for you, sit down and you can keep not caring while others do.

However, this is where you completely lose the plot.

You seem to be under the impression that I was saying 'I individually don't care about being represented in games, and therefore no company should be allowed to create diverse characters.' And this is not accurate at all. It's basically the exact opposite of what is actually happening in this situation.

Blizzard has asserted that diverse representations of characters is the MOST important aspect of development. And based on my experience as an individual who does not consider it to be the most important thing, knowing that many gamers do not feel it is the most important thing, as well as citing and debunking Blizzard's own sources which they cited in the article that is being discussed in this topic, I am refuting their stance; it is NOT the most important aspect of development.

You know what I like to play as?

Magic wielding hero elves, talking animals, super powered intelligent robots, humans who pilot super robots, ambitious demons, deposed members of royalty, students of fantastical and unique worlds, someone who is going on an amazing journey, and sometimes even just a regular person. I like stories about drama, growth, adventure, the human struggle. I want to unify the warring states of japan. I want to link the eternal flame and bring an end to an age of darkness. I want to spend 48 hours in the life of this character getting to know the depth of their struggles, what brought them here, and what personal conclusions they come to at the end of it all.

I do not care at all about what genitals this character was born with, what they identify with, or what they currently have. I do not care what genitals they do or don't prefer to rub against. Or if they don't have anything, or don't have any attraction to anything. I don't care what color their skin is. I don't care about what part of the world the ancestor's of the person who voiced the character was born. None of those things have any bearing on, nor would they qualify or disqualify any of the characters I mentioned above. A character's appearance only matters to me as far as visual storytelling, and aesthetic appeal.

There is nothing else that ever needs to go into it.

Once again; I am not saying that Blizzard is not allowed to create diverse characters. I am saying that they are wrong about it being the most important aspect of development.

foolm0r0n posted...

You sure you didn't mean to quote-lecture Lopen about this? This is the first time I have ever agreed with SEP in recent memory, and I didn't even read any of his or your posts before this. All I saw was you calling the difference between "we" and "I" pedantic, which is dumb af. Just admit you accidentally used generalizing language. It's such a simple little mistake. Yeah we're 30, so that means we should stop caring about correct use of language? No. But it does mean you should be able to admit a tiny mistake.

the kid's table is over there, buddy:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/8-gamefaqs-contests

MariaTaylor posted...

it's just the same people who whine about everything I say or do on the board, whining about something that I said or did. no matter what the contents of my post were, the same exact people would have quoted me and tried to make a witty response, made themselves look dumb, and then in the next topic they'll be mad about the fact that they looked stupid so they try the same thing again to get back at me. and then just make themselves look dumb again.

and surprise, foolmo joins team whiners. it's literally the same teams forming up as every single topic that has happened before, and will happen in the future. extremely boring, and honestly sad at this point.

I don't think I've replied negatively to anything you've said in a long time, and foolmo and I certainly are pretty much never on the same "team." Might want to check that persecution complex. I pointed out your use of "we" was dumb in the context you used it, and it was. You even seem to half admit as much. Just, instead of fully admitting it and just moving on, since that's where the actual discussion between the two of us ends, you decided to take it as a personal insult, which lead to this ranting and raving.

MariaTaylor posted...

Blizzard has asserted that diverse representations of characters is the MOST important aspect of development. And based on my experience as an individual who does not consider it to be the most important thing, knowing that many gamers do not feel it is the most important thing, as well as citing and debunking Blizzard's own sources which they cited in the article that is being discussed in this topic, I am refuting their stance; it is NOT the most important aspect of development.

Blizzard referred to a specific survey that asked a just as specific question that is accurately described in the single 72-word opening paragraph which is the only place they make any "claim", the rest is describing how they are addressing it. I'm struggling to understand your issue because you're claiming a statement that is not present here.

• Blizzard has asserted that diverse representations of characters is the MOST important aspect of development.

^This is a false statement, unless you're looking at some other article that isn't in the OP but that's the only link on the first page and the only link you directly quote from.

What IS stated is a claim that people want diversity, followed by a reference to a survey sourced and accurately described of the actual claim.

• what they considered to be the most important factor in the growth of the gaming industry

"Most important factor of growth of the industry" and "MOST important aspect in development" are two vastly different statements

I'm sorry you typed more but it isn't even relevant, you're just descrbing your own personal desires which again is a datapoint, and one of an entirely different question than what's actually presented, and there exists plenty more datapoints in this topic that disagree from their own "experience as an individual". The survey referenced is freely linked and obviously no survey has respondants saying 100% x factor -- in this case diversity tops the responses at 61%, ahead of other answers which are at 58, 50, 45, 43, and 21%. So you may very well be in the 39% who said no and again that's all well and good for yourself but massive international publishers seek to reach as much of an audience they can and not just the people who don't care personally about something.

foolm0r0n posted...

You sure you didn't mean to quote-lecture Lopen about this?

I'm clearly mocking SEP here, not cheering him on

Which now I completely understand why you're on his side here. It does sound like the kind of point you'd make to soundly win an argument

Please tell me, Lopen, what argument you think I was making from the like three posts I made in this topic, most of which amounted to "'We' is a generalizing term.'"

StealThisSheen posted...

"'We' is a generalizing term.'"

That's exactly the argument I thought you were making

The argument literally no one but you cares about. Good job winning that point bud.

All things being equal, there's no reason to be up in arms about something like this. It actually speaks to something more disappointing about the modern creative space, and that's the commodification of storytelling to the point that parts have become so interchangeable that nothing matters aside from glutting your market with new, easily replaceable characters. Stories so ultimately meaningless that it doesn't matter what parts are played and by who. I had a professor in college who once challenged me to write a story where the characters reflected the exact demographics of their setting in terms of gender, sexual orientation, education, martial status, age, etc. And I found it difficult as an exercise because it forced me to re-examine the purpose of characters and alter what I thought the story was meant to be. But in that case, it felt more purpose-driven. In this case, it feels like a pachinko-style spin-the-wheel situation. Apples to oranges, I know, but there's no real meaning in the diversification here.

There is great value in not developing the same six characters over and over forever, however. I just think this is an easy way out of being bold or original. But as a thought exercise? I think it might open the door forward.

MariaTaylor posted...

[a lot of words ending with] Once again; I am not saying that Blizzard is not allowed to create diverse characters. I am saying that they are wrong about it being the most important aspect of development.

I am fine with this whole post but if you look back at your first post in this topic I think you'll find it eliminates a lot of the nuance necessary to convey your position. Yes the I/we thing confused the issue, but I think also responding to the "diversity is *most* important" part rather than the "we want representation" part would've helped.