Okay, then here's an industry-related question: Is there any reason game publishers don't use the Hollywood system of raking in millions with surefire hits, then setting aside a portion of the profits SPECIFICALLY TO LOSE on riskier creative ventures? Sure, Deadly Premonition was sold for almost nothing, but they also didn't spend a massive amount of money making it. You would think that, with games apparently making sooooo much more money than films these days, there would be some kind of margin or leeway to allow publishers to be more open to crazy ideas. Even Fox has Searchlight Pictures. But is it only because they know there's an audience out there to receive that product? Do publishers have such a low opinion of gamers that they'll force-feed us pablum until we literally have to starve ourselves to get the point across? Is there some kind of system set up to throw money at DigiPen students in hopes that another Portal will come out of it? Why hasn't anyone bought Jason Rohrer a non-shitty house that won't kill his wife with asthma attacks?
I guess I'm not really sure how analogous the relationship between game publishers and developers is compared to filmmakers and producers, or if that even matters to the above discussion. Maybe the answer is simply that, like with any popular medium, video games are a hall of mirrors, and the state of the industry will reflect our collective tastes back at us regardless of the minority's desire to be acknowledged. But I don't want to be pessimistic... It's so obvious that there are problems with this industry in terms of accepting and promoting variety, and it's so easy to make excuses for it, but I still think the problems are far from insurmountable and not nearly as difficult to overcome as people think. Just... EXPAND YOUR DAMN MIND and THINK about what you're complaining about in the broader context of the entirety of culture, art, and the human condition. Just because you didn't have "fun" playing something doesn't mean it's not more relevant or worthy of appreciation than something that was more entertaining on the surface; most times, I find the opposite to be true.
Coming very late to this, but movie studios are actually doing this less and less. Near as I can understand, part of the reason the studios would fund some arty films isn't just because it earned them some prestige, but because they found a way to make money off them, largely through pre-selling the rights to foreign distributors and (here's the important part) the pay movie channels on cable. With the rights pre-sold, there was a decent chance that even the most unseen thing could at the very least make its money back.
However, two or three years ago the movie channels, hit by the economy like everyone else, decided to cut back on the number of movies they picked up. Naturally, most of them chopped away the arty/independent flicks in favor of movies that would get them more eyeballs.
As a result, nearly every studio has shut down their independent divisions. Fox Searchlight is I believe the only one that remains now, assuming you don't count Miramax (which may or may not be "indie" nowadays, and even then has had its release schedule chopped dramatically and was just sold off to something called "Filmyard Holdings"). It's gotten to the point that Kevin Smith said he can no longer make the kind of flicks he used to make anymore, because no distributors will buy them. That's why he went "studio" with Cop Out.
To be fair, I think the actual universe StarCraft is set in is supposed to be some sort of extremely racist near-apartheid state. In which case, I think Blizzard succeeded.
It's bloody "Dixieland in space", and all. Like what if Archie Bunker (not the actor who played him, Carroll O'Connor, but the actual fictional person) developed the first space program, instead of the USSR.
I always understood the Dixieland thing to be more of a motif and style, not necessarily that humanity was literally now racist on a galactic scale.
Although it would explain why the black units are the space janitors...
I thought the SC terrans weren't "all of humanity." The SC2 install, at least, goes into how SC terrans are space Australia what with them being prison ships that went off course and then turned into a civilization.
They're not (remember the UED?), which means that if "Terran" space, based off a shared culture, happens to be the hybrid of Space-Rhodesia and Space-Dixieland, complete with "the Moon will rise again!", the rest of humanity does not share the same culture necessarily. It'd be really hard to imagine the circumstances that would lead, for example, the hundreds of cultural traditions in continental Asia to suddenly abide by that (and, sure enough, those people are conspicuously absent).
I could be wrong, but two of the primary people we meet from the UED (i.e. the surviving descendants of the other ~99% of the human population who aren't from the American South) are actually two men of Russian background (they have Russian names and "accents"), who serve in the UED Navy. Which isn't surprising, given the Russian/CIS tradition of space travel. The human culture is radically different on their side, I would imagine.
But the Confederacy/Dominion where 99% of StarCraft occurs? Yes, I could see that having degenerated into a collection of institutionally racist populations.
I'd say it's less "interesting" and more "really fucking depressing." We'll still get the Oscar-bait of course, but the independent movie market is getting squeezed something fierce.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic here. The portables and the digital download services are becoming great places to find cool indie games, though I can't think of many that were particularly well-written.
To be fair, I think the actual universe StarCraft is set in is supposed to be some sort of extremely racist near-apartheid state. In which case, I think Blizzard succeeded.
It's bloody "Dixieland in space", and all. Like what if Archie Bunker (not the actor who played him, Carroll O'Connor, but the actual fictional person) developed the first space program, instead of the USSR.
I always understood the Dixieland thing to be more of a motif and style, not necessarily that humanity was literally now racist on a galactic scale.
Although it would explain why the black units are the space janitors...
I thought the SC terrans weren't "all of humanity." The SC2 install, at least, goes into how SC terrans are space Australia what with them being prison ships that went off course and then turned into a civilization.
They're not (remember the UED?), which makes even more sense that "Terran" space, based off a shared culture, happens to be the hybrid of Space-Rhodesia and Space-Dixieland, complete with "the Moon will rise again!".
I could be wrong, but two of the primary people we meet from the UED (i.e. the descendants of the other 99% of the human population who aren't from the American South) are actually two men of Russian background (they have Russian names and "accents"), who serve in the UED Navy. Which isn't surprising, given the Russian/CIS tradition of space travel. The human culture is radically different on their side, I would imagine.
I dunno, I bet their space janitors are also black.
Okay, then here's an industry-related question: Is there any reason game publishers don't use the Hollywood system of raking in millions with surefire hits, then setting aside a portion of the profits SPECIFICALLY TO LOSE on riskier creative ventures? Sure, Deadly Premonition was sold for almost nothing, but they also didn't spend a massive amount of money making it. You would think that, with games apparently making sooooo much more money than films these days, there would be some kind of margin or leeway to allow publishers to be more open to crazy ideas. Even Fox has Searchlight Pictures. But is it only because they know there's an audience out there to receive that product? Do publishers have such a low opinion of gamers that they'll force-feed us pablum until we literally have to starve ourselves to get the point across? Is there some kind of system set up to throw money at DigiPen students in hopes that another Portal will come out of it? Why hasn't anyone bought Jason Rohrer a non-shitty house that won't kill his wife with asthma attacks?
I guess I'm not really sure how analogous the relationship between game publishers and developers is compared to filmmakers and producers, or if that even matters to the above discussion. Maybe the answer is simply that, like with any popular medium, video games are a hall of mirrors, and the state of the industry will reflect our collective tastes back at us regardless of the minority's desire to be acknowledged. But I don't want to be pessimistic... It's so obvious that there are problems with this industry in terms of accepting and promoting variety, and it's so easy to make excuses for it, but I still think the problems are far from insurmountable and not nearly as difficult to overcome as people think. Just... EXPAND YOUR DAMN MIND and THINK about what you're complaining about in the broader context of the entirety of culture, art, and the human condition. Just because you didn't have "fun" playing something doesn't mean it's not more relevant or worthy of appreciation than something that was more entertaining on the surface; most times, I find the opposite to be true.
Coming very late to this, but movie studios are actually doing this less and less. Near as I can understand, part of the reason the studios would fund some arty films isn't just because it earned them some prestige, but because they found a way to make money off them, largely through pre-selling the rights to foreign distributors and (here's the important part) the pay movie channels on cable. With the rights pre-sold, there was a decent chance that even the most unseen thing could at the very least make its money back.
However, two or three years ago the movie channels, hit by the economy like everyone else, decided to cut back on the number of movies they picked up. Naturally, most of them chopped away the arty/independent flicks in favor of movies that would get them more eyeballs.
As a result, nearly every studio has shut down their independent divisions. Fox Searchlight is I believe the only one that remains now, assuming you don't count Miramax (which may or may not be "indie" nowadays, and even then has had its release schedule chopped dramatically and was just sold off to something called "Filmyard Holdings"). It's gotten to the point that Kevin Smith said he can no longer make the kind of flicks he used to make anymore, because no distributors will buy them. That's why he went "studio" with Cop Out.
Hmm...that's interesting. Did not know that.
As horrible as it sounds I think AAA titles should be funded by advertising and sponsorship in game, while newer IP's can then be self funded until they are proven to the sponsors.
Are there any black game designers? I'm trying to think of the big name ones, like Sid Meier or whatever, and they're all white as far as I know. Obviously Japan is full of Asian designers, but they're just as bad with race as the US.
Are there any black game designers? I'm trying to think of the big name ones, like Sid Meier or whatever, and they're all white as far as I know. Obviously Japan is full of Asian designers, but they're just as bad with race as the US.
To be fair, I think the actual universe StarCraft is set in is supposed to be some sort of extremely racist near-apartheid state. In which case, I think Blizzard succeeded.
It's bloody "Dixieland in space", and all. Like what if Archie Bunker (not the actor who played him, Carroll O'Connor, but the actual fictional person) developed the first space program, instead of the USSR.
I always understood the Dixieland thing to be more of a motif and style, not necessarily that humanity was literally now racist on a galactic scale.
Although it would explain why the black units are the space janitors...
I thought the SC terrans weren't "all of humanity." The SC2 install, at least, goes into how SC terrans are space Australia what with them being prison ships that went off course and then turned into a civilization.
They're not (remember the UED?), which makes even more sense that "Terran" space, based off a shared culture, happens to be the hybrid of Space-Rhodesia and Space-Dixieland, complete with "the Moon will rise again!".
I could be wrong, but two of the primary people we meet from the UED (i.e. the descendants of the other 99% of the human population who aren't from the American South) are actually two men of Russian background (they have Russian names and "accents"), who serve in the UED Navy. Which isn't surprising, given the Russian/CIS tradition of space travel. The human culture is radically different on their side, I would imagine.
I dunno, I bet their space janitors are also black.
Hey, I didn't say the rest of humankind was just or equitable. I just said they didn't probably worship Lynyrd Skynyrd, sweet ice tea, and white people.
Though this does conjure up the image of the stereotypical American visiting continental Africa. "Wow! There sure are a lot of African-Americans here!"
Are there any black game designers? I'm trying to think of the big name ones, like Sid Meier or whatever, and they're all white as far as I know. Obviously Japan is full of Asian designers, but they're just as bad with race as the US.
Derek Smart?
...
Well, if it helps, I can't think of any American game designers who aren't white (I thought there was one who was Latino, but I can't remember his name, and I can't think of any designers of Japanese or Korean background either). That being said, the number of famed developers in the US isn't that high (I tend to think of studios and corporations rather than individuals).
Okay, then here's an industry-related question: Is there any reason game publishers don't use the Hollywood system of raking in millions with surefire hits, then setting aside a portion of the profits SPECIFICALLY TO LOSE on riskier creative ventures? Sure, Deadly Premonition was sold for almost nothing, but they also didn't spend a massive amount of money making it. You would think that, with games apparently making sooooo much more money than films these days, there would be some kind of margin or leeway to allow publishers to be more open to crazy ideas. Even Fox has Searchlight Pictures. But is it only because they know there's an audience out there to receive that product? Do publishers have such a low opinion of gamers that they'll force-feed us pablum until we literally have to starve ourselves to get the point across? Is there some kind of system set up to throw money at DigiPen students in hopes that another Portal will come out of it? Why hasn't anyone bought Jason Rohrer a non-shitty house that won't kill his wife with asthma attacks?
I guess I'm not really sure how analogous the relationship between game publishers and developers is compared to filmmakers and producers, or if that even matters to the above discussion. Maybe the answer is simply that, like with any popular medium, video games are a hall of mirrors, and the state of the industry will reflect our collective tastes back at us regardless of the minority's desire to be acknowledged. But I don't want to be pessimistic... It's so obvious that there are problems with this industry in terms of accepting and promoting variety, and it's so easy to make excuses for it, but I still think the problems are far from insurmountable and not nearly as difficult to overcome as people think. Just... EXPAND YOUR DAMN MIND and THINK about what you're complaining about in the broader context of the entirety of culture, art, and the human condition. Just because you didn't have "fun" playing something doesn't mean it's not more relevant or worthy of appreciation than something that was more entertaining on the surface; most times, I find the opposite to be true.
Coming very late to this, but movie studios are actually doing this less and less. Near as I can understand, part of the reason the studios would fund some arty films isn't just because it earned them some prestige, but because they found a way to make money off them, largely through pre-selling the rights to foreign distributors and (here's the important part) the pay movie channels on cable. With the rights pre-sold, there was a decent chance that even the most unseen thing could at the very least make its money back.
However, two or three years ago the movie channels, hit by the economy like everyone else, decided to cut back on the number of movies they picked up. Naturally, most of them chopped away the arty/independent flicks in favor of movies that would get them more eyeballs.
As a result, nearly every studio has shut down their independent divisions. Fox Searchlight is I believe the only one that remains now, assuming you don't count Miramax (which may or may not be "indie" nowadays, and even then has had its release schedule chopped dramatically and was just sold off to something called "Filmyard Holdings"). It's gotten to the point that Kevin Smith said he can no longer make the kind of flicks he used to make anymore, because no distributors will buy them. That's why he went "studio" with Cop Out.
The Kevin Smith is a good example of this: in the 90's, his movies had great ROI and looked like they could potentially become bigger and bigger money-makrs, so the studios kept supporting "Kevin Smith movies. Then, over the last decade (Jay and Silent Bob -> Zach and Miri) his movies always make around 30 million dollars. That's not much money, even with a low budget, like Clerks 2. The potential market for a "Kevin Smith" movie was well-defined and had shrunk since the 90's. His movies also don't win a bunch of awards or prestige for the studio making them, so why would a studio continue to invest in Kevin Smith movies?
With games, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are all giving indie developers a chance with their digital download services. Smaller devs get a shot since they could potentially be a growth opportunity, like Kevin Smith in the 90's.
There's opportunity there, but it's not infinite. If it doesn't look like a game or developr can grow a fan base, it doesn't make sense, as a business, to keep investing in it.
Vin Deisel is not black. He has African-American ancestry.
I read an editorial from an African-American last week where he was writing, in part, about the President. His main point is that how someone who has both White and Black ancestry is always considered Black and never considered White. For instance the President who has the same amount of White ancestry as he has Black; yet everyone calls him the Black President and barely mention the other part.
Anyway, I agree with another post up above about racial mixes in sci-fi games. I understand that it might make the games look more plain but I would expect people to look a lot more tan and not have the majority of people White. But then I also find it funny that a lot of sci-fi include token accents. I guess there could be people with an Irish accent 300 years from now but my mind tells me there shouldn't.
Okay, then here's an industry-related question: Is there any reason game publishers don't use the Hollywood system of raking in millions with surefire hits, then setting aside a portion of the profits SPECIFICALLY TO LOSE on riskier creative ventures? Sure, Deadly Premonition was sold for almost nothing, but they also didn't spend a massive amount of money making it. You would think that, with games apparently making sooooo much more money than films these days, there would be some kind of margin or leeway to allow publishers to be more open to crazy ideas. Even Fox has Searchlight Pictures. But is it only because they know there's an audience out there to receive that product? Do publishers have such a low opinion of gamers that they'll force-feed us pablum until we literally have to starve ourselves to get the point across? Is there some kind of system set up to throw money at DigiPen students in hopes that another Portal will come out of it? Why hasn't anyone bought Jason Rohrer a non-shitty house that won't kill his wife with asthma attacks?
I guess I'm not really sure how analogous the relationship between game publishers and developers is compared to filmmakers and producers, or if that even matters to the above discussion. Maybe the answer is simply that, like with any popular medium, video games are a hall of mirrors, and the state of the industry will reflect our collective tastes back at us regardless of the minority's desire to be acknowledged. But I don't want to be pessimistic... It's so obvious that there are problems with this industry in terms of accepting and promoting variety, and it's so easy to make excuses for it, but I still think the problems are far from insurmountable and not nearly as difficult to overcome as people think. Just... EXPAND YOUR DAMN MIND and THINK about what you're complaining about in the broader context of the entirety of culture, art, and the human condition. Just because you didn't have "fun" playing something doesn't mean it's not more relevant or worthy of appreciation than something that was more entertaining on the surface; most times, I find the opposite to be true.
Coming very late to this, but movie studios are actually doing this less and less. Near as I can understand, part of the reason the studios would fund some arty films isn't just because it earned them some prestige, but because they found a way to make money off them, largely through pre-selling the rights to foreign distributors and (here's the important part) the pay movie channels on cable. With the rights pre-sold, there was a decent chance that even the most unseen thing could at the very least make its money back.
However, two or three years ago the movie channels, hit by the economy like everyone else, decided to cut back on the number of movies they picked up. Naturally, most of them chopped away the arty/independent flicks in favor of movies that would get them more eyeballs.
As a result, nearly every studio has shut down their independent divisions. Fox Searchlight is I believe the only one that remains now, assuming you don't count Miramax (which may or may not be "indie" nowadays, and even then has had its release schedule chopped dramatically and was just sold off to something called "Filmyard Holdings"). It's gotten to the point that Kevin Smith said he can no longer make the kind of flicks he used to make anymore, because no distributors will buy them. That's why he went "studio" with Cop Out.
The Kevin Smith is a good example of this: in the 90's, his movies had great ROI and looked like they could potentially become bigger and bigger money-makrs, so the studios kept supporting "Kevin Smith movies. Then, over the last decade (Jay and Silent Bob -> Zach and Miri) his movies always make around 30 million dollars. That's not much money, even with a low budget, like Clerks 2. The potential market for a "Kevin Smith" movie was well-defined and had shrunk since the 90's. His movies also don't win a bunch of awards or prestige for the studio making them, so why would a studio continue to invest in Kevin Smith movies?
There's also the fact that the Weinstein brothers were pretty much Smith's patrons from the start. But with their increasing struggles with the film company they started after they were ousted by Miramax, they have less of a chance to stick their neck out for the guy's modest-selling dick jokes.
Even without that, Smith is a good example because his $30 million-grossing movies could still bring in money under the old system. But with less opportunities to make money off indie films nowadays, they look like a poorer investment.
Coming very late to this, but movie studios are actually doing this less and less. Near as I can understand, part of the reason the studios would fund some arty films isn't just because it earned them some prestige, but because they found a way to make money off them, largely through pre-selling the rights to foreign distributors and (here's the important part) the pay movie channels on cable. With the rights pre-sold, there was a decent chance that even the most unseen thing could at the very least make its money back.
Awesome, thanks for this. I always knew there were monetary reasons behind the system, but regardless of the studios' motives, it did swirl the pool up a bit- and at the very least, it demonstrated that there was some desire on their part to promote these smaller gems, provided the resources were available. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak...
Nobody in Hollywood knows anything about anything, but it still manages to retain a faint patina of glamor and optimism and starry-eyed hope despite its flaws. Dreamworks coming out with a quality product like How To Train Your Dragon came off as a little surprising, yes, but you don't get a reaction comparable to "a mainstream video game with an actual PLOT and CHARACTERS THAT I CARE ABOUT? What a novelty!" For such a close-knit industry, you'd think developers would be more like Dreamworks trying to ape Pixar in terms of the solidity of their storytelling; this kind of copy-cat behavior could be said to have benefited DW's creative output this time around, but derivative behavior in developers seems more comparable to, say, Shark Tale. "Finding Nemo did awesome, it must be because there was fish in it!"
Maybe when the economy goes on an upswing, both industries will return to making riskier investments.
Are there any black game designers? I'm trying to think of the big name ones, like Sid Meier or whatever, and they're all white as far as I know. Obviously Japan is full of Asian designers, but they're just as bad with race as the US.
Um, they're forgetting a certain awsome general you get near the end of the game.
Edit: Wtf, you can't find him listed on the wikipedia article even, despite being a major character during the whole end run.
He's mentioned in the RPS article, but that "his appearances are fleeting compared to the rest of the plot-relevant characters". I haven't actually played SCII (and won't anytime soon), so I'm not actually sure how much this other character is involved and whether or not it's an oversight from the author of the article.
Yeah, I see it now, and they're dead wrong. Without dropping SC2 spoilers all over, he shows up at LEAST as often as Tosh does, probably more, and as far as importance to the main storyline goes he's far higher up the ladder. The only thing you don't get out of him that you do from Tosh is Tosh will join your crew for a bit (or permenantly if you side with him), while by the time you get Warfield other stuff is going on.
But yeah, how they could consider Tosh a big deal and not Warfield is beyond me.
He really doesn't. He shows up for the last 4-5 missions - Tosh is with you far longer than that.
I read an editorial from an African-American last week where he was writing, in part, about the President. His main point is that how someone who has both White and Black ancestry is always considered Black and never considered White. For instance the President who has the same amount of White ancestry as he has Black; yet everyone calls him the Black President and barely mention the other part.
The term escapes me, but this is a specific form of racial stratification that exists in the United States and a few other countries (basically, if someone is the product of two races, they are usually assimilated into the community of the race with the lower 'social standing'). It isn't limited to the President by any means.
Are there any black game designers? I'm trying to think of the big name ones, like Sid Meier or whatever, and they're all white as far as I know. Obviously Japan is full of Asian designers, but they're just as bad with race as the US.
I read an editorial from an African-American last week where he was writing, in part, about the President. His main point is that how someone who has both White and Black ancestry is always considered Black and never considered White. For instance the President who has the same amount of White ancestry as he has Black; yet everyone calls him the Black President and barely mention the other part.
The term escapes me, but this is a specific form of racial stratification that exists in the United States and a few other countries (basically, if someone is the product of two races, they are usually assimilated into the community of the race with the lower 'social standing'). It isn't limited to the President by any means.
Getting way off topic, but if you read his damn biographies, Obama himself identifies as 'black' so is it really so surprising everyone else does too?
Um, they're forgetting a certain awsome general you get near the end of the game.
Edit: Wtf, you can't find him listed on the wikipedia article even, despite being a major character during the whole end run.
He's mentioned in the RPS article, but that "his appearances are fleeting compared to the rest of the plot-relevant characters". I haven't actually played SCII (and won't anytime soon), so I'm not actually sure how much this other character is involved and whether or not it's an oversight from the author of the article.
Yeah, I see it now, and they're dead wrong. Without dropping SC2 spoilers all over, he shows up at LEAST as often as Tosh does, probably more, and as far as importance to the main storyline goes he's far higher up the ladder. The only thing you don't get out of him that you do from Tosh is Tosh will join your crew for a bit (or permenantly if you side with him), while by the time you get Warfield other stuff is going on.
But yeah, how they could consider Tosh a big deal and not Warfield is beyond me.
He really doesn't. He shows up for the last 4-5 missions - Tosh is with you far longer than that.
Or far less. If you wait to do the end mission, or side with him at the end one of that arc, he stays around to make comments occasionally. But those aren't important at all, since they had to be designed as optional, and if you finish his arc first you barely see him at all.
The general you see no matter what, and for the same length regardless, AND it's actually important instead of 'here is a vodoo comment on your last mission', so I'd still rank him far and away higher in importance.
Edit: The mere fact we're able to argue the point kind of proves what I'm saying: They're focusing on Tosh simply because he could be considered more 'controversial', and ignoring Warfield because it would nullify whatever race-baiting argument they were trying to make.
Are there any black game designers? I'm trying to think of the big name ones, like Sid Meier or whatever, and they're all white as far as I know. Obviously Japan is full of Asian designers, but they're just as bad with race as the US.
Derek Smart?
...
Try much, much, worse.
I don't think you can really compare how a country "is with race"--in that how they handle portrayals of race in popular media as well as actual social relations between those groups in life--that has an entirely different history and geographic location. I mean, it's like comparing apples, oranges, and fish.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming, by any means, that racism doesn't exist in Japan. But it's a radically different situation demographically, with different legal traditions and different definition of what is considered "race". The history is working against you--racism in America is defined, in large part, by the fact that we had several centuries of chattel slavery based almost exclusively on race. In the United States, I'm "Asian". In Japan, I'm Taiwanese. Conversely, my father, an Argentinean, is a non-Hispanic Latino (or something similar), whereas in Japan, he's just Latino.
Japanese racism is based on that same period in history, where Japan existed in near-complete self-isolation, and then entered violent rivalry/conflict with its neighbors, oftentimes along the lines of race as defined by the European superpowers that Japan sought to emulate. Each country has a specific situation that is hugely important to its current image of race that has no analogue in the other.
The relationship between "majority" Japanese and their own minorities--of which I was a member when I lived in Japan--is just so different, not only because of the degree of social tolerance/intolerance, but also because of the numbers involved and the process of assimilation.
Is racism in Japan bad? Of course, though you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it wasn't bad somewhere. In saying "much, much worse" though--in so much as you're addressing, for example, the social relation between Koreans or Okinawan or others and "majority" Japanese it's very hard to compare, because that only addresses one aspect of the racism. Now, speaking to the issue of racial stratification or social mobility, it can be more accurately pointed out exactly what the situation is in Japan compared to, say, the United States, but even that has fundamental differences. In Japan, you have a very closed (comparatively speaking) process of citizenship availability--that's going to inherently impact all race relations in Japan. Then again, in the United states, you have a portion of the population that is one out of ten Americans making up nearly half of the populations of all American jails--and given the huge size of the American incarcerated population, that's going to have impacts as well. Making broad generalizations requires that you take two nations that share some legal and social traditions--Japan and Taiwan, for example, or the United States and Canada--so you can actually establish a standard that you can realistically hold both countries too. Or narrowing it down to the effect of "how black people are portrayed in popular media in a long term", you could take individual materials and compare reasonably, but you wouldn't find much that actually reflected on the reasoning behind those portrayals and the actual social situations of either country, outside of general shallowness.
(And, of course, we're not all awesome--our social inequities extremely pronounced too, and very much along lines of race. But, as in Japan, it's something that is not considered polite to address and is widely ignored.)
Also, the movies/video games comparison breaks down under closer scrutiny (which makes it sillier that video game companies are trying to copy the blockbuster model).
The video game industry can't support as many blockbusters as the movie industry can. While they have comparable revenues, the model is different in two ways that benefit the movie industry:
- The market can support multiple movie blockbusters, but only a few game blockbusters. Movies are cheaper than games, so one person can afford to see many big-budget movies at $10-$12 a pop, so many movies can be successful. With videogames, the price of entry for a game release is $50-$60. One consumer can purchase many less full-priced videogames, so fewer can be true blockbusters. They just eat each other's lunch.
- Movies can sell you the same product twice for the same (or higher) price point. Once in the theater, and once on DVD. Games don't have an equivalent fallback market to double-dip in an effort to make a profit.
Um, they're forgetting a certain awsome general you get near the end of the game.
Edit: Wtf, you can't find him listed on the wikipedia article even, despite being a major character during the whole end run.
He's mentioned in the RPS article, but that "his appearances are fleeting compared to the rest of the plot-relevant characters". I haven't actually played SCII (and won't anytime soon), so I'm not actually sure how much this other character is involved and whether or not it's an oversight from the author of the article.
Yeah, I see it now, and they're dead wrong. Without dropping SC2 spoilers all over, he shows up at LEAST as often as Tosh does, probably more, and as far as importance to the main storyline goes he's far higher up the ladder. The only thing you don't get out of him that you do from Tosh is Tosh will join your crew for a bit (or permenantly if you side with him), while by the time you get Warfield other stuff is going on.
But yeah, how they could consider Tosh a big deal and not Warfield is beyond me.
He really doesn't. He shows up for the last 4-5 missions - Tosh is with you far longer than that.
Or far less. If you wait to do the end mission, or side with him at the end one of that arc, he stays around to make comments occasionally. But those aren't important at all, since they had to be designed as optional, and if you finish his arc first you barely see him at all.
The general you see no matter what, and for the same length regardless, AND it's actually important instead of 'here is a vodoo comment on your last mission', so I'd still rank him far and away higher in importance.
Edit: The mere fact we're able to argue the point kind of proves what I'm saying: They're focusing on Tosh simply because he could be considered more 'controversial', and ignoring Warfield because it would nullify whatever race-baiting argument they were trying to make.
He's with you before that mission - in fact, he's there by the 4th or 5th.
But if we're going to gauge importance by forced screen time, I wouldn't say one is more important than the other, but if you look at overall possible screen time, Tosh gets a lot more.
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
cloudeagle on
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
Well, I'm sure there are probably more. But just like with women you don't have too many big names.
Um, they're forgetting a certain awsome general you get near the end of the game.
Edit: Wtf, you can't find him listed on the wikipedia article even, despite being a major character during the whole end run.
He's mentioned in the RPS article, but that "his appearances are fleeting compared to the rest of the plot-relevant characters". I haven't actually played SCII (and won't anytime soon), so I'm not actually sure how much this other character is involved and whether or not it's an oversight from the author of the article.
Yeah, I see it now, and they're dead wrong. Without dropping SC2 spoilers all over, he shows up at LEAST as often as Tosh does, probably more, and as far as importance to the main storyline goes he's far higher up the ladder. The only thing you don't get out of him that you do from Tosh is Tosh will join your crew for a bit (or permenantly if you side with him), while by the time you get Warfield other stuff is going on.
But yeah, how they could consider Tosh a big deal and not Warfield is beyond me.
He really doesn't. He shows up for the last 4-5 missions - Tosh is with you far longer than that.
Or far less. If you wait to do the end mission, or side with him at the end one of that arc, he stays around to make comments occasionally. But those aren't important at all, since they had to be designed as optional, and if you finish his arc first you barely see him at all.
The general you see no matter what, and for the same length regardless, AND it's actually important instead of 'here is a vodoo comment on your last mission', so I'd still rank him far and away higher in importance.
Edit: The mere fact we're able to argue the point kind of proves what I'm saying: They're focusing on Tosh simply because he could be considered more 'controversial', and ignoring Warfield because it would nullify whatever race-baiting argument they were trying to make.
He's with you before that mission - in fact, he's there by the 4th or 5th.
But if we're going to gauge importance by forced screen time, I wouldn't say one is more important than the other, but if you look at overall possible screen time, Tosh gets a lot more.
Yeah, but the article in question claimed the general was totally unimportant, reason being otherwise their argument held little merit, and that's what I'm taking issue with. I personally didn't think Tosh was any worse a character than say Tychus or that doctor lady, and I'd say my favorites were Raynor, Horner, and Warfield, but even they were kind of stereotypes (washed up cop, idealist, and veteran).
I mean, looking at that mess and going 'Tosh is a bad stereotype!' is ignoring that they're ALL stereotypes, and he's not even the only black character, the other being a positive one. The argument from that article has to ignore too many things to make it's point, so it's just not a legitimate argument.
They also ignore that Tosh is a frigging badass - Sure, he acts a little odd, but if you pay attention to the story there is a reason for that, and the character as a whole is not presented in a negative light (especially if you side with him over Nova). Some people like to bitch about this kind of crap, they bitch when the cast isn't diverse enough, they bitch when it is because the characters don't act how they think they should, yadda yadda.
Um, they're forgetting a certain awsome general you get near the end of the game.
Edit: Wtf, you can't find him listed on the wikipedia article even, despite being a major character during the whole end run.
He's mentioned in the RPS article, but that "his appearances are fleeting compared to the rest of the plot-relevant characters". I haven't actually played SCII (and won't anytime soon), so I'm not actually sure how much this other character is involved and whether or not it's an oversight from the author of the article.
Yeah, I see it now, and they're dead wrong. Without dropping SC2 spoilers all over, he shows up at LEAST as often as Tosh does, probably more, and as far as importance to the main storyline goes he's far higher up the ladder. The only thing you don't get out of him that you do from Tosh is Tosh will join your crew for a bit (or permenantly if you side with him), while by the time you get Warfield other stuff is going on.
But yeah, how they could consider Tosh a big deal and not Warfield is beyond me.
He really doesn't. He shows up for the last 4-5 missions - Tosh is with you far longer than that.
Or far less. If you wait to do the end mission, or side with him at the end one of that arc, he stays around to make comments occasionally. But those aren't important at all, since they had to be designed as optional, and if you finish his arc first you barely see him at all.
The general you see no matter what, and for the same length regardless, AND it's actually important instead of 'here is a vodoo comment on your last mission', so I'd still rank him far and away higher in importance.
Edit: The mere fact we're able to argue the point kind of proves what I'm saying: They're focusing on Tosh simply because he could be considered more 'controversial', and ignoring Warfield because it would nullify whatever race-baiting argument they were trying to make.
He's with you before that mission - in fact, he's there by the 4th or 5th.
But if we're going to gauge importance by forced screen time, I wouldn't say one is more important than the other, but if you look at overall possible screen time, Tosh gets a lot more.
Yeah, but the article in question claimed the general was totally unimportant, reason being otherwise their argument held little merit, and that's what I'm taking issue with. I personally didn't think Tosh was any worse a character than say Tychus or that doctor lady, and I'd say my favorites were Raynor, Horner, and Warfield, but even they were kind of stereotypes (washed up cop, idealist, and veteran).
I mean, looking at that mess and going 'Tosh is a bad stereotype!' is ignoring that they're ALL stereotypes, and he's not even the only black character, the other being a positive one. The argument from that article has to ignore too many things to make it's point, so it's just not a legitimate argument.
Also - as long as you aren't using them in a horribly negative fashion - stereotypes are a useful storytelling device - they let the audience fill in a lot of background info on a character that you don't have that much screen time to devote to development - hell there are only something like 30 mins of movies/briefings in the entire game, how much character development are you expecting? (And as noted they use a lot of stereotypes for all the characters, for exactly this reason)
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
Well, I'm sure there are probably more. But just like with women you don't have too many big names.
Will Kim Swift ever be a "big name"? It would be nice to throw her up there on the marquee of game designers whom people can identify as individuals. Though, again, even the number of prominent male designers that I know by name are still pretty small.
Um, they're forgetting a certain awsome general you get near the end of the game.
Edit: Wtf, you can't find him listed on the wikipedia article even, despite being a major character during the whole end run.
He's mentioned in the RPS article, but that "his appearances are fleeting compared to the rest of the plot-relevant characters". I haven't actually played SCII (and won't anytime soon), so I'm not actually sure how much this other character is involved and whether or not it's an oversight from the author of the article.
Yeah, I see it now, and they're dead wrong. Without dropping SC2 spoilers all over, he shows up at LEAST as often as Tosh does, probably more, and as far as importance to the main storyline goes he's far higher up the ladder. The only thing you don't get out of him that you do from Tosh is Tosh will join your crew for a bit (or permenantly if you side with him), while by the time you get Warfield other stuff is going on.
But yeah, how they could consider Tosh a big deal and not Warfield is beyond me.
He really doesn't. He shows up for the last 4-5 missions - Tosh is with you far longer than that.
Or far less. If you wait to do the end mission, or side with him at the end one of that arc, he stays around to make comments occasionally. But those aren't important at all, since they had to be designed as optional, and if you finish his arc first you barely see him at all.
The general you see no matter what, and for the same length regardless, AND it's actually important instead of 'here is a vodoo comment on your last mission', so I'd still rank him far and away higher in importance.
Edit: The mere fact we're able to argue the point kind of proves what I'm saying: They're focusing on Tosh simply because he could be considered more 'controversial', and ignoring Warfield because it would nullify whatever race-baiting argument they were trying to make.
He's with you before that mission - in fact, he's there by the 4th or 5th.
But if we're going to gauge importance by forced screen time, I wouldn't say one is more important than the other, but if you look at overall possible screen time, Tosh gets a lot more.
Yeah, but the article in question claimed the general was totally unimportant, reason being otherwise their argument held little merit, and that's what I'm taking issue with. I personally didn't think Tosh was any worse a character than say Tychus or that doctor lady, and I'd say my favorites were Raynor, Horner, and Warfield, but even they were kind of stereotypes (washed up cop, idealist, and veteran).
I mean, looking at that mess and going 'Tosh is a bad stereotype!' is ignoring that they're ALL stereotypes, and he's not even the only black character, the other being a positive one. The argument from that article has to ignore too many things to make it's point, so it's just not a legitimate argument.
Also - as long as you aren't using them in a horribly negative fashion - stereotypes are a useful storytelling device - they let the audience fill in a lot of background info on a character that you don't have that much screen time to devote to development - hell there are only something like 30 mins of movies/briefings in the entire game, how much character development are you expecting? (And as noted they use a lot of stereotypes for all the characters, for exactly this reason)
Stereotypes are the result of nothing but lazy and bad writing.
Games with solid story telling don't rely on stereotypes to "fill the gaps" and instead opt for narrative techniques or character development.
This is also why SC2's story is, so far, somewhat uninspiring subjectively, but written poorly on an objective level.
SkyGheNe on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited August 2010
Yeah. I mean...Game Designers in general don't tend to have much celebrity status unless they're really big names.
Heck, I could count on my hands how many I know by name.
Um, they're forgetting a certain awsome general you get near the end of the game.
Edit: Wtf, you can't find him listed on the wikipedia article even, despite being a major character during the whole end run.
He's mentioned in the RPS article, but that "his appearances are fleeting compared to the rest of the plot-relevant characters". I haven't actually played SCII (and won't anytime soon), so I'm not actually sure how much this other character is involved and whether or not it's an oversight from the author of the article.
Yeah, I see it now, and they're dead wrong. Without dropping SC2 spoilers all over, he shows up at LEAST as often as Tosh does, probably more, and as far as importance to the main storyline goes he's far higher up the ladder. The only thing you don't get out of him that you do from Tosh is Tosh will join your crew for a bit (or permenantly if you side with him), while by the time you get Warfield other stuff is going on.
But yeah, how they could consider Tosh a big deal and not Warfield is beyond me.
He really doesn't. He shows up for the last 4-5 missions - Tosh is with you far longer than that.
Or far less. If you wait to do the end mission, or side with him at the end one of that arc, he stays around to make comments occasionally. But those aren't important at all, since they had to be designed as optional, and if you finish his arc first you barely see him at all.
The general you see no matter what, and for the same length regardless, AND it's actually important instead of 'here is a vodoo comment on your last mission', so I'd still rank him far and away higher in importance.
Edit: The mere fact we're able to argue the point kind of proves what I'm saying: They're focusing on Tosh simply because he could be considered more 'controversial', and ignoring Warfield because it would nullify whatever race-baiting argument they were trying to make.
He's with you before that mission - in fact, he's there by the 4th or 5th.
But if we're going to gauge importance by forced screen time, I wouldn't say one is more important than the other, but if you look at overall possible screen time, Tosh gets a lot more.
Yeah, but the article in question claimed the general was totally unimportant, reason being otherwise their argument held little merit, and that's what I'm taking issue with. I personally didn't think Tosh was any worse a character than say Tychus or that doctor lady, and I'd say my favorites were Raynor, Horner, and Warfield, but even they were kind of stereotypes (washed up cop, idealist, and veteran).
I mean, looking at that mess and going 'Tosh is a bad stereotype!' is ignoring that they're ALL stereotypes, and he's not even the only black character, the other being a positive one. The argument from that article has to ignore too many things to make it's point, so it's just not a legitimate argument.
Also - as long as you aren't using them in a horribly negative fashion - stereotypes are a useful storytelling device - they let the audience fill in a lot of background info on a character that you don't have that much screen time to devote to development - hell there are only something like 30 mins of movies/briefings in the entire game, how much character development are you expecting? (And as noted they use a lot of stereotypes for all the characters, for exactly this reason)
Stereotypes are the result of nothing but lazy and bad writing.
Games with solid story telling don't rely on stereotypes to "fill the gaps" and instead opt for narrative techniques or character development.
This is also why SC2's story is, so far, somewhat uninspiring subjectively, but written poorly on an objective level.
I'll grant you that, the story as a whole wasn't exactly the next great american novel. The game as a whole was quite pleasant though. When a game is going to admittedly have an awful story, using stereotypes so that they don't have to compound bad writing with even worse backstory isn't an entirely bad idea. Doesn't mean you should do that, but if you already are might as well at least do it right.
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
Well, I'm sure there are probably more. But just like with women you don't have too many big names.
Amy Hennig's probably the only 'big name' female designer out there, though there's undoubtably quite a few others in senior roles at developers.
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
So whats wrong with Derek Smart exactly? Aside from him being a troll and making shitty games.
Also, I think its kind of a double standard to say Tosh might have racist undertones and then not make that same accusation of other characters. Arcturus Mengsk could indicate that white people are power mongering despots who use propaganda, money, and military power to make people obey them.
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
So whats wrong with Derek Smart exactly? Aside from him being a troll and making shitty games.
Also, I think its kind of a double standard to say Tosh might have racist undertones and then not make that same accusation of other characters. Arcturus Mengsk could indicate that white people are power mongering despots who use propoganda, money, and military power to make people obey them.
Don't be silly, you can't be racist against white people.
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
So whats wrong with Derek Smart exactly? Aside from him being a troll and making shitty games.
Also, I think its kind of a double standard to say Tosh might have racist undertones and then not make that same accusation of other characters. Arcturus Mengsk could indicate that white people are power mongering despots who use propaganda, money, and military power to make people obey them.
Except the main character, the main character's right-hand man, the main character's handyman, etc. etc. are all white too.
Undead Scottsman on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited August 2010
It's kind of the point when it comes to minorities and females in general.
Usually unless the game/film/whateverthefuck is a for a certain group their will only be so and so many people of a certain gender or race in a movie.
Because of that it makes it more glaring when that person is of a negative stereotype because they're the only person there. So basically you end up with it looking like the writer is saying all persons of this group are all like this because well...you only have a single person in the medium representing all said people.
It is true that you can have white males representing negative stereotypes in films but you usually have a larger case of white males in movies too so they can have a much broader spectrums of personalities.
That's the gist of it really.
So basically, it gets to the point that since your movies will only have a handful of minorities you either have to make the person generally positive as far as stereotypes go or face being called racist. When in truth...a better solution would be to simply have a wider range of characters so you could escape tokenism altogether. Or to simply make the person more realistic so they just aren't a basic stereotype.
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
So whats wrong with Derek Smart exactly? Aside from him being a troll and making shitty games.
Also, I think its kind of a double standard to say Tosh might have racist undertones and then not make that same accusation of other characters. Arcturus Mengsk could indicate that white people are power mongering despots who use propaganda, money, and military power to make people obey them.
When did this become about Dances with Smurfs?
lowlylowlycook on
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
QUESTION: If every single character in Starcraft 2 were either black, female, or both, would it have affected sales? The game's popularity seems to have been predestined from the start, so if race is really so arbitrary in the face of the overall blandness of the character writing, what would it matter to the legions of fans who were going to buy it anyway?
I have no answers for this question, I'm just curious as to what, in theory, would have happened if the devs made a crazy last minute decision and just swapped all the skin tones and genders.
So the two black game designers people can come up with is Derek Smart, that horrible excuse for a human being, and Aureia Harvey, creator of truly pretentious and stupid games like The Path (To Get Raped).
Sigh.
So whats wrong with Derek Smart exactly? Aside from him being a troll and making shitty games.
Also, I think its kind of a double standard to say Tosh might have racist undertones and then not make that same accusation of other characters. Arcturus Mengsk could indicate that white people are power mongering despots who use propaganda, money, and military power to make people obey them.
Except the main character, the main character's right-hand man, the main character's handyman, etc. etc. are all white too.
There were other black characters in the game though. General Warfield, and at least one of the mechanics on the ship.
I guess thats not diverse enough though... so it MUST be racist.
Black_Heart on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited August 2010
...Starcraft 2 has a story to it?
I honestly didn't know. I'm not a big RTS person so I always thought most of them were just about having little mans run around a field and kill each other.
@Blackheart: Dude, you really need to bring it down a level. You say you don't really care about it but you seem to be getting in a bigger huff about it than most people.
Posts
Hmm...that's interesting. Did not know that.
They're not (remember the UED?), which means that if "Terran" space, based off a shared culture, happens to be the hybrid of Space-Rhodesia and Space-Dixieland, complete with "the Moon will rise again!", the rest of humanity does not share the same culture necessarily. It'd be really hard to imagine the circumstances that would lead, for example, the hundreds of cultural traditions in continental Asia to suddenly abide by that (and, sure enough, those people are conspicuously absent).
I could be wrong, but two of the primary people we meet from the UED (i.e. the surviving descendants of the other ~99% of the human population who aren't from the American South) are actually two men of Russian background (they have Russian names and "accents"), who serve in the UED Navy. Which isn't surprising, given the Russian/CIS tradition of space travel. The human culture is radically different on their side, I would imagine.
But the Confederacy/Dominion where 99% of StarCraft occurs? Yes, I could see that having degenerated into a collection of institutionally racist populations.
I'd say it's less "interesting" and more "really fucking depressing." We'll still get the Oscar-bait of course, but the independent movie market is getting squeezed something fierce.
Anyway, I'm getting off topic here. The portables and the digital download services are becoming great places to find cool indie games, though I can't think of many that were particularly well-written.
Asside from Breath of Death, of course. :P
I dunno, I bet their space janitors are also black.
As horrible as it sounds I think AAA titles should be funded by advertising and sponsorship in game, while newer IP's can then be self funded until they are proven to the sponsors.
Derek Smart?
...
Hey, I didn't say the rest of humankind was just or equitable. I just said they didn't probably worship Lynyrd Skynyrd, sweet ice tea, and white people.
Though this does conjure up the image of the stereotypical American visiting continental Africa. "Wow! There sure are a lot of African-Americans here!"
Well, if it helps, I can't think of any American game designers who aren't white (I thought there was one who was Latino, but I can't remember his name, and I can't think of any designers of Japanese or Korean background either). That being said, the number of famed developers in the US isn't that high (I tend to think of studios and corporations rather than individuals).
The Kevin Smith is a good example of this: in the 90's, his movies had great ROI and looked like they could potentially become bigger and bigger money-makrs, so the studios kept supporting "Kevin Smith movies. Then, over the last decade (Jay and Silent Bob -> Zach and Miri) his movies always make around 30 million dollars. That's not much money, even with a low budget, like Clerks 2. The potential market for a "Kevin Smith" movie was well-defined and had shrunk since the 90's. His movies also don't win a bunch of awards or prestige for the studio making them, so why would a studio continue to invest in Kevin Smith movies?
With games, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are all giving indie developers a chance with their digital download services. Smaller devs get a shot since they could potentially be a growth opportunity, like Kevin Smith in the 90's.
There's opportunity there, but it's not infinite. If it doesn't look like a game or developr can grow a fan base, it doesn't make sense, as a business, to keep investing in it.
I read an editorial from an African-American last week where he was writing, in part, about the President. His main point is that how someone who has both White and Black ancestry is always considered Black and never considered White. For instance the President who has the same amount of White ancestry as he has Black; yet everyone calls him the Black President and barely mention the other part.
Anyway, I agree with another post up above about racial mixes in sci-fi games. I understand that it might make the games look more plain but I would expect people to look a lot more tan and not have the majority of people White. But then I also find it funny that a lot of sci-fi include token accents. I guess there could be people with an Irish accent 300 years from now but my mind tells me there shouldn't.
There's also the fact that the Weinstein brothers were pretty much Smith's patrons from the start. But with their increasing struggles with the film company they started after they were ousted by Miramax, they have less of a chance to stick their neck out for the guy's modest-selling dick jokes.
Even without that, Smith is a good example because his $30 million-grossing movies could still bring in money under the old system. But with less opportunities to make money off indie films nowadays, they look like a poorer investment.
Nobody in Hollywood knows anything about anything, but it still manages to retain a faint patina of glamor and optimism and starry-eyed hope despite its flaws. Dreamworks coming out with a quality product like How To Train Your Dragon came off as a little surprising, yes, but you don't get a reaction comparable to "a mainstream video game with an actual PLOT and CHARACTERS THAT I CARE ABOUT? What a novelty!" For such a close-knit industry, you'd think developers would be more like Dreamworks trying to ape Pixar in terms of the solidity of their storytelling; this kind of copy-cat behavior could be said to have benefited DW's creative output this time around, but derivative behavior in developers seems more comparable to, say, Shark Tale. "Finding Nemo did awesome, it must be because there was fish in it!"
Maybe when the economy goes on an upswing, both industries will return to making riskier investments.
Aureia Harvey, Tale of Tales.
He really doesn't. He shows up for the last 4-5 missions - Tosh is with you far longer than that.
The term escapes me, but this is a specific form of racial stratification that exists in the United States and a few other countries (basically, if someone is the product of two races, they are usually assimilated into the community of the race with the lower 'social standing'). It isn't limited to the President by any means.
Try much, much, worse.
I am a freaking nerd.
Getting way off topic, but if you read his damn biographies, Obama himself identifies as 'black' so is it really so surprising everyone else does too?
I am a freaking nerd.
Or far less. If you wait to do the end mission, or side with him at the end one of that arc, he stays around to make comments occasionally. But those aren't important at all, since they had to be designed as optional, and if you finish his arc first you barely see him at all.
The general you see no matter what, and for the same length regardless, AND it's actually important instead of 'here is a vodoo comment on your last mission', so I'd still rank him far and away higher in importance.
Edit: The mere fact we're able to argue the point kind of proves what I'm saying: They're focusing on Tosh simply because he could be considered more 'controversial', and ignoring Warfield because it would nullify whatever race-baiting argument they were trying to make.
I don't think you can really compare how a country "is with race"--in that how they handle portrayals of race in popular media as well as actual social relations between those groups in life--that has an entirely different history and geographic location. I mean, it's like comparing apples, oranges, and fish.
Japanese racism is based on that same period in history, where Japan existed in near-complete self-isolation, and then entered violent rivalry/conflict with its neighbors, oftentimes along the lines of race as defined by the European superpowers that Japan sought to emulate. Each country has a specific situation that is hugely important to its current image of race that has no analogue in the other.
The relationship between "majority" Japanese and their own minorities--of which I was a member when I lived in Japan--is just so different, not only because of the degree of social tolerance/intolerance, but also because of the numbers involved and the process of assimilation.
Is racism in Japan bad? Of course, though you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it wasn't bad somewhere. In saying "much, much worse" though--in so much as you're addressing, for example, the social relation between Koreans or Okinawan or others and "majority" Japanese it's very hard to compare, because that only addresses one aspect of the racism. Now, speaking to the issue of racial stratification or social mobility, it can be more accurately pointed out exactly what the situation is in Japan compared to, say, the United States, but even that has fundamental differences. In Japan, you have a very closed (comparatively speaking) process of citizenship availability--that's going to inherently impact all race relations in Japan. Then again, in the United states, you have a portion of the population that is one out of ten Americans making up nearly half of the populations of all American jails--and given the huge size of the American incarcerated population, that's going to have impacts as well. Making broad generalizations requires that you take two nations that share some legal and social traditions--Japan and Taiwan, for example, or the United States and Canada--so you can actually establish a standard that you can realistically hold both countries too. Or narrowing it down to the effect of "how black people are portrayed in popular media in a long term", you could take individual materials and compare reasonably, but you wouldn't find much that actually reflected on the reasoning behind those portrayals and the actual social situations of either country, outside of general shallowness.
(And, of course, we're not all awesome--our social inequities extremely pronounced too, and very much along lines of race. But, as in Japan, it's something that is not considered polite to address and is widely ignored.)
The video game industry can't support as many blockbusters as the movie industry can. While they have comparable revenues, the model is different in two ways that benefit the movie industry:
- The market can support multiple movie blockbusters, but only a few game blockbusters. Movies are cheaper than games, so one person can afford to see many big-budget movies at $10-$12 a pop, so many movies can be successful. With videogames, the price of entry for a game release is $50-$60. One consumer can purchase many less full-priced videogames, so fewer can be true blockbusters. They just eat each other's lunch.
- Movies can sell you the same product twice for the same (or higher) price point. Once in the theater, and once on DVD. Games don't have an equivalent fallback market to double-dip in an effort to make a profit.
He's with you before that mission - in fact, he's there by the 4th or 5th.
But if we're going to gauge importance by forced screen time, I wouldn't say one is more important than the other, but if you look at overall possible screen time, Tosh gets a lot more.
Sigh.
Well, I'm sure there are probably more. But just like with women you don't have too many big names.
Yeah, but the article in question claimed the general was totally unimportant, reason being otherwise their argument held little merit, and that's what I'm taking issue with. I personally didn't think Tosh was any worse a character than say Tychus or that doctor lady, and I'd say my favorites were Raynor, Horner, and Warfield, but even they were kind of stereotypes (washed up cop, idealist, and veteran).
I mean, looking at that mess and going 'Tosh is a bad stereotype!' is ignoring that they're ALL stereotypes, and he's not even the only black character, the other being a positive one. The argument from that article has to ignore too many things to make it's point, so it's just not a legitimate argument.
I am a freaking nerd.
Also - as long as you aren't using them in a horribly negative fashion - stereotypes are a useful storytelling device - they let the audience fill in a lot of background info on a character that you don't have that much screen time to devote to development - hell there are only something like 30 mins of movies/briefings in the entire game, how much character development are you expecting? (And as noted they use a lot of stereotypes for all the characters, for exactly this reason)
I am a freaking nerd.
Stereotypes are the result of nothing but lazy and bad writing.
Games with solid story telling don't rely on stereotypes to "fill the gaps" and instead opt for narrative techniques or character development.
This is also why SC2's story is, so far, somewhat uninspiring subjectively, but written poorly on an objective level.
Heck, I could count on my hands how many I know by name.
I'll grant you that, the story as a whole wasn't exactly the next great american novel. The game as a whole was quite pleasant though. When a game is going to admittedly have an awful story, using stereotypes so that they don't have to compound bad writing with even worse backstory isn't an entirely bad idea. Doesn't mean you should do that, but if you already are might as well at least do it right.
I probably remember more for being BAD at their job than those who are good.
I am a freaking nerd.
John Romero's about to make you his bitch!
Amy Hennig's probably the only 'big name' female designer out there, though there's undoubtably quite a few others in senior roles at developers.
So whats wrong with Derek Smart exactly? Aside from him being a troll and making shitty games.
Also, I think its kind of a double standard to say Tosh might have racist undertones and then not make that same accusation of other characters. Arcturus Mengsk could indicate that white people are power mongering despots who use propaganda, money, and military power to make people obey them.
Don't be silly, you can't be racist against white people.
I am a freaking nerd.
Except the main character, the main character's right-hand man, the main character's handyman, etc. etc. are all white too.
Usually unless the game/film/whateverthefuck is a for a certain group their will only be so and so many people of a certain gender or race in a movie.
Because of that it makes it more glaring when that person is of a negative stereotype because they're the only person there. So basically you end up with it looking like the writer is saying all persons of this group are all like this because well...you only have a single person in the medium representing all said people.
It is true that you can have white males representing negative stereotypes in films but you usually have a larger case of white males in movies too so they can have a much broader spectrums of personalities.
That's the gist of it really.
So basically, it gets to the point that since your movies will only have a handful of minorities you either have to make the person generally positive as far as stereotypes go or face being called racist. When in truth...a better solution would be to simply have a wider range of characters so you could escape tokenism altogether. Or to simply make the person more realistic so they just aren't a basic stereotype.
When did this become about Dances with Smurfs?
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I have no answers for this question, I'm just curious as to what, in theory, would have happened if the devs made a crazy last minute decision and just swapped all the skin tones and genders.
There were other black characters in the game though. General Warfield, and at least one of the mechanics on the ship.
I guess thats not diverse enough though... so it MUST be racist.
I honestly didn't know. I'm not a big RTS person so I always thought most of them were just about having little mans run around a field and kill each other.
@Blackheart: Dude, you really need to bring it down a level. You say you don't really care about it but you seem to be getting in a bigger huff about it than most people.