JoeSapphire: This reads like you're deliberately trying to be dismissive. Is that right?
No. I'm just tired of people, who make a statement like "Every time you make a new game that leads with strong white man and sexy woman you're strengthening the already-strongest image." and think that such statement proves something. While it is this statement that needs proof.
JoeSapphire: Lara Croft or Cindirella are already there to be picked. People
don't need a new Superman because superman is ingrained in the social subconscious already: It's part of the reason why
it's easy to make so many computer games from the same mould No, it's not easy. Exactly because people don't need a new Superman, you can't make another Superman and expect a game about this "new Superman" to be successful. So developer needs to make a game about something (or someone) that people had never seen before. Maybe this new "superman" has new powers, or new enemies, or new set of values. Maybe it well be not a Super
man, but Super
woman. That's exactly how Supergirl and Lara Croft were created - they had familiar set of abilities (Superman, Indiana Jones), but developers changed their sex.
However, instead of changing sex, they could make any other number of changes. Various origins, different moral code (Superman was pure hero, so new comics featured antiheroes and even villains as protagonists), and many other creative choices. All in hope that people will show interest in their work.
JoeSapphire: As someone mentioned already, part of the problem is that what's popular is what's successful, and what's successful provides a model for future works
BS. First Person Shooters were not successful initially, but developers pushed the boundaries of technology and software, until they became succssful. No one made RPGs with deep story until Fallout and Baldurs Gate. Even "Superman" idea wasn't really successful until the comics creators made a few adjustment for it to become popular.
JoeSapphire: not only is "Sexy woman, strong white man" easier to imagine in the first place, it's safer in a competitive marketplace.
And that's exactly the problem with your logic. Not only you demand for game develpers to take risks in the name of your views. You also admit that it is hard even imagine how to make things you demand work.
JoeSapphire: The
movement to prefer imagery-that-represents-the-less-represented over representing-the-already-represented is an attempt to
change what's easiest.
And that part just doesn't make sense at all. What's the point in the "movement to prefer" if you already prefer? To make others prefer? In other words to impose your views on others?!
And for whom is the change is supposed to be easiest? For you who jsut sit on the couch and demand or for developer who has to figure out how to satisfy your demands, despite the fact that you yourself admit it's hard for you to imagine what you want?!