I explained this a few times prior to this: I was talking about game companies targeting ANY easily influenced people of any group for the sake of making money.....similar to cig companies targeting easily influenced groups(in this case kids and teens, but also other groups) with cig ads to make money.

Are minorities more easily influenced?

So in the story, the bad guys happen to be white religious people, and good guys trans or diverse. Do you think this makes people think that ALL white religious people are bad guys? Do you think this makes people think that ALL trans people are good guys?

My point is that it's confined to a single story (that might have some factual accuracy looking at some views on trans and gay people by the religious right in some countries), and that most people understand that. They won't massively stereotype an entire group of people because of one vidya game...?

Did vidya games where you could play as a nazi killing allied troops make us into blood thirsty nazis IRL? I think not.

You keep on going about the 'right' and 'wrong' reason to include diversity in entertainment goods.

But you've never once elaborated on what the 'right' reason to include diversity is. With examples.

You've clearly mentioned all the 'wrong' reasons to include diversity (omg, making stories more relatable to minorities, shock horror), but not really talked concretely about the 'right' reasons.

Yeah um, if you can get away with racial slurs in 2020, good for you. Actually, scrap that, not good for you.

Maybe not today. But back in the 80s most folks who worked for gaming press weren't really "journalists" to begin with. Since they had no formation in the area and weren't even officially recognized as "press" (no press pass). Gaming press then was more akin to Fanzines rather than information media. Thus the reason why videogames magazines in the 80s were mostly seen as "juvenile publications".

With the 90s it all started to change. And I believe that most gaming journalists nowadays are real professionals, with specific formations in mass communication and writing.

That's what I meant by "special". Game journalism began as something which didn't take itself too seriously (I specially remember a games magazine - C+VG - where the "reader's section" was basically people writing to the magazine in order to be publically insulted and joked by the staff). It was videogames being reviewed by people who loved videogames, for a pulic of videogame lovers. Of course, even then there were people who took their job seriously and others not so much.

Agreed

Two wrongs don't make a right, still a point: Not everyone points out the "other side" doing something to excuse their own behavior.....some point such out just to point it out. etc.

What if some ( a few) people have good reasons(or think they do at least in their minds) for doing so?

=================

I said easily influenced people from ALL groups(I am going to hazard a guess that there are easily influenced people in any group of people).

==================

You obviously don't know how easily influenced some people(of any group) can be.....there are some(for example) who take social media posts by random people as the truth without checking.

Read above

I don't think those games pushed a nazzis are good, everyone else bad message.

I'm not here to do all your work....you can do some yourself....or do I have to spoonfeed you all the way?

The fact you put those bits in quotes and the bits in parenthesis show me you're not likely willing to bother seeing this from my POV.....again why should I bother if your mind is likely closed to all but your take on the matter?

As the saying goes(that people should imo follow more): Sticks and stones can break my bones....also as I said, some groups joke about their own group(as in their own sexuality/gender/race) all the time & have a laugh with it without any problems

Words only hurt if you let them, and people are way too over sensitive these days.

Wow dude. What are you so afraid of? Actually explaining what you mean, and backing it up?

A bunch of stuff that boils down to:

"I cannot backup what I said and I actually don't know why I said those things, so please disregard everything I say".

Good. I thought so. Get back to me when you can explain yourself.

Yeah, I guess you "win" the argument....you win a whole 5 social points and can brag about it to all your e-friends that you are indeed a "master debater".......happy?

(As I said: your mind is seemingly closed to being changed or considering other viewpoints, so debating you on this would be a likely waste of time....but if you ever want to debate without resorting to jabs and trickery & act more "honest" in a debate you know where to find me)

And MY point was that only a tiny number of people actually hate "minorities" or whatever people you claim to be "marginalized". Most people, like the ones that are disparaged by the games like Last of Us Part 2, Battlefield V or Mass Effect: Andromeda have problems with poor quality of the product. Which in turn suffers because developers seek to please agenda-pushing pseudo-journalists instead of actually trying to make a quality product. But, of course, people like you see only mysoginy, hate and bigotry.
But all of them had the same motivation. They wanted games to be engaging and fun. That's why they evaluated games by how interesting it was to play them. Not how good they are as political statement.

Again, you dodged the question.

It is not only at the crux of the discussion, it's something you repeated 4 or 5 time just prior. You said on numerous occassions that diversity is ok in entertainment goods if done for the 'right' reasons, the 'wrong' reasons being having diversity for the sake of it, i.e. a token black guy.

You never once actually explained what the 'right' reasons were to have diversity in entertainment goods. Yet, you used it as a reply and counter argument everytime the issue of diversity was brought up.

Is it so much to ask, what did you mean by this? What did you mean by the 'right' reasons, since you mentioned them 5 times!?
So you're saying there's a direct correlation between including diversity as 'developers seek to please agenda-pushing pseudo-journalists' and quality of the product?

They made an inferior quality product because they included diversity in their story? They wasted too many resources writing a black guy in, instead of a white guy, making the rest of the game worse?

How does that make sense?

It depends on what do you mean by "diversity". It usually means a lot more than simply "writing a black guy instead of white".

Also, if game includes only black people or only gay men - it's not diverse. Not more diverse than a game that includes only white people or only straight girls.

Re: Post 130(GOG screwed up my post so I had to reply this way):

One could likely infer some of the reasons I find right and the ways I find right, and I would gladly go over them with anyone I felt was taking this seriously....tbh I feel you are leading me on and laughing at me from behind your screen with how you've been replying(since day one). With that feeling I have, why should I bother replying further?

Why, so you can put more words in my mouth I didn't say, ask leading questions some more, toss aside my points seemingly without considering them much, etc?
----------------------------------


Fine.....one example is all i'll give: Trek

Uhura was a good example, as was Tuvok in later series of Trek...both done well, imo.

There, you got one example....if that's not enough for ya than I dunno what to tell ya.

Didn't really reply to the question...

Didn't really reply to the question...

What exactly were the 'right' reasons to include diversity in Voyager? Why was the portrayal of Tuvok done well without upsetting the boycott hate crowd? What did Tuvok being black add to the story? Is the real reason you didn't mind Tuvok being black that he didn't actually displace a white guy for the role?

I'm still amazed how someone can be so averse to explaining himself after using something as an argument 5 times.

Because you didn't really ask the question.

This thread stopped being about gaming journalism a while ago.

Can't we just agree that games journalists are like all internet personalities - weird?
I don't know how, but so many people end up saying pretentious crap online that they totally wouldn't say in real life. So many sound like a caricature of some sort when they get famous online. Not sure why.

Also, it seems like many games journalists clearly don't want to play video games anymore and think of themselves as 'grown ups', but they are making good enough money writing easy articles to keep going. That's what it seems like on the outside anyway.

These are the 4 questions I asked - all related to each other, and all you could answer with a sentence or two to clarify your position.

1. So you're saying there's a direct correlation between including diversity as 'developers seek to please agenda-pushing pseudo-journalists' and quality of the product?

2. They made an inferior quality product because they included diversity in their story?

3. They wasted too many resources writing a black guy in, instead of a white guy, making the rest of the game worse?

4. How does that make sense?