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 comment. I have several other thoughts about the subject, though, so I am posting the overflow here.
Darren, and others in his comments, seem to wonder how much representation is enough, for minorities of all shapes and sizes, or rather how much is too much – how can one game represent every type of person in existence, and more importantly, should it be expected to? Is that a responsibility of a game, a noted method of escape and fantasy, to represent every minority, every uncomfortable reality, every frailty of human existence?
I can understand the resistance – it seems excessive on the face of it – but with a little consideration I pointed out in my comment that the apparently Herculean task of representing anyone and everyone at all largely comes down to a robust character creator and then a very few additional options if one wants to go down the path of portraying a romance. Furthermore I realized that none of this should have an effect on the story the game is trying to tell at all; unless a character’s ability to reproduce with their partner is paramount to the plot, I’m not sure why Soldier McHet needs to be straight at all. The key word here is option; if you want to be Soldier McHet, I believe it should be possible. I do not believe that the presence of other options should affect any player’s opinion of the game or story at all.
Further on the subject of representation, I continue to struggle with my fantasy life versus my real life representations in each new game. On the one hand, I would like to create an idealized character I enjoy looking at while I play. On the other hand, there is no shortage of tall, leggy redheads running about the game world, so why bother, amirite? What I usually end up doing is attempting to create a character that looks more like an idealized me. The reason I usually end up doing so is because I figure, if I don’t, who will?
This also has the effect of highlighting the number of game worlds in which someone who looks even remotely like me does not exist. I am a visible minority in my place of residence, the USA. Many games ported from Asia, with their singular skin tones and three hairstyles, are guilty of rendering me non-existent. Sometimes I play them anyway. Sometimes I am just sad. Who wants to not exist? Why would I want to fantasize about an idealized world in which I do not exist?
In worlds in which diversity consists of aliens with different physiologies, or magical universes with talking Orcs, or the ability to blow yourself up with fire you summoned from your very own soul, please don’t ask someone to be pleased that they have been “cured away” by magic, by fantasy, by futuristic science and medicine. It’s really not that hard to imagine that we are there, if you try just a little. Trust me.
Edit: The Border House has thrown in its two cents.
Casual Is As Casual Does 
[…] What, did we cure that too? Games: A Social Responsibility Do Game Designers Have A Social Obligation? Tags: Able, cope […]
Then again, there are gamers like me who are less interested in putting ourselves in the game, and are content to accept whatever “role” a JRPG assigns to the protagonist, or whatever has decent lore in an MMO. I want to explore the world. It matters very little what my avatar looks like. (For instance, I don’t like playing Forsaken/Undead in WoW simply because I can’t identify with their lore. The character looks are almost irrelevant.)
That’s not to say that my way of playing is superior, just different. More… investigative, less introspective. It’s nice to have room for both.
I can’t help but be a bit saddened by devs who *do* make a robust character generator and skimp on actual game content, though. In the balance, I believe that game content needs to be the priority.
I think JRPGs or ARPGS like the Witcher are a different kettle of fish than one like Mass Effect or your more general MMO (which I am more familiar with, not having much of an interest in single-player games). I don’t believe anyone in the discussion is referring to a game with a pre-determined character such as these. Personally I do not enjoy JRPGs because I feel like all I am doing is completing a few battles to get to the next 5
minute cut-scene :).
Quick question, not specifically to you – would you (general “you”) entertain putting yourself in the shoes of a JRPG character that was homosexual in the service of role-playing?
“I can’t help but be a bit saddened by devs who *do* make a robust character generator and skimp on actual game content, though. In the balance, I believe that game content needs to be the priority.”
Why would it be necessary for one to be subordinate to the other in any case? I am certainly not expecting anything less.
I would also suggest that the ability to “choose” NOT to play a character that looks like oneself is a privilege that many minorities often do not have. Until very recently that choice did not exist in most cases. In my brief stint in WoW, I actually chose to play a Draenei – I thought their story was most interesting and the character art appealed to me. If there were only the option to play a human character of varying palettes, what would you *choose*? What color is your Puzzle Pirates character, and why?
If it is truly more imaginative and less introspective to play a character so different from oneself, then why not remove “human” as an option altogether? If we can entertain that possibility seriously, then I am all ears.
I have all sorts of colors for Puzzle Pirates characters. The one I chose for my “main” looks like an old Corran Horn (old, grey white guy), because I like the idea of Corran being a pirate. Everyone else (thirty pirates or so) is all over the place.
I don’t mind playing a nonhuman character, Dranei being a good example. My WoW main is a Dwarf because I like the lore, and my “main alt” is a Night Elf because I wanted to play a Druid. I play a game on its own terms, rather than try to insert myself into it.
But that’s just me. Those who want to insert themselves into a game aren’t doing anything wrong philosophically, *unless* it runs contrary to the devs’ intent for the game. Then it’s just a player asking for something the devs have every right to ignore. If, however, they intend for you to insert yourself into the game, then by all means, yes, they should provide a good character creator. In that case, it’s a core feature of *how the game plays*, not just a cosmetic dev sinkhole.
I just think that avatars don’t count much as content in my book. I don’t look at other players and categorize them by their avatar, I wait to see what they *do*, then file them away in my “idiot” or “cool” folder. I fully recognize that’s not normal, though. *shrug*
As to the homosexual character, as I noted over at the linked article, there is a significant difference between appearance and action. Giving players control over appearance is benign, and I’m not philosophically opposed to it. Giving players control of a character’s actions, and telling them that they are in the steering wheel, but mandating homosexuality, rubs me the wrong way. Sexuality is about actions, not appearances, and telling a player he or she is in control… except for this significant part of how a character is supposed to *act*… just doesn’t work for me.
It’s a philosophical game design disagreement; it works equally well for someone playing against type as a straight person playing a homosexual and vice versa. To me, it’s a core game design principle. Either give players control or don’t, but don’t go halfway, either as a sermonizing measure or an “equality” (patronizing) measure.