The Problem with Diversity in Games: A Critical Perspective
Diversity in any media is always a looming criticism in any creative industry. There’s always the cries of sexism and creative directors favoring straight white males. This is generally most notable in films, however is an issue which carries over into games. Most video game protagonists are your typical white male, charismatic with some sort of sense of humour. While they could be criticised as being generic, these sorts of characters work. Characters like Joel from TLoU and Nathan Drake from Uncharted are likeable characters. They function for their purpose and they do make the game.
The issue here is not that the current protagonists for current games are not diverse, it’s that game plots are not suitable for differing archetypes of character.
The best example of this is Grand Theft Auto V - a game which is intended to be a hyperbole of American society. It features questionable representation of females, such as being strippers or prostitutes.
Could GTA V succeed without this type of ‘representation’? Unlikely, because then the game would not be achieving the same level of mockery it intends. When looking at games like this it’s important to differentiate between ‘equal representation’ and ‘accurate representation’. If a film is centred around a group of business higher ups, if 1/10 of these are female then that would be accurate representation, undeniably. Equal representation? Maybe not.
This is generally the opposite in japanese video games. A lot of japanese games are of the ‘dating sim’ variety and so feature more females.
Characters aren’t the only problem with diversity in video games.
AAA games have a lot riding on them. There are hundreds of employees who want stable salaries and secure jobs. Fans like to complain that companies only release the same games (Call Of Duty, Madden, Fifa) but these are games that consistently are the best sellers. It’s rare for a new IP to completely break boundaries in the way some games did (Such as The Last of Us) and so they should not be the standard. Companies want to profit on games and that is understandable. It can be annoying when it’s clear that profit is the only thing on their mind (for example Assassin’s Creed and Skylanders) and it is up to consumers to decide what they want. If Call of Duty didn’t sell, it wouldn’t get more sales. When games try to break tradition, it often doesn’t work as well. Mario games get criticised for seeming repetitive, but looking at the sales it’s the mario games most similar to the original that sell well (Super Mario World and the original mario remakes).
For diversity in story, style and characters it’s indie games we can look to. While there is more pressure for a game to succeed, as there is no huge backlog of money to keep the company going if a game flops, developers are often more open to try new things with story and style. While AAA games tend to lead the way with technical developments, Indie Games are where the design is advancing. An example would be Undertale, with its new and refined RPG system. Indie games cost less to make and often have fewer employees, so a smaller take-home revenue can be more influential for the individual person (see Notch, who is now super rich).
People like to say AAA games should be more like Indie games, shouting Journey and Binding of Isaac and Limbo as being examples of why Indie games succeed. But they don’t see the thousands and thousands of Indie games which sold less than 1000 copies, less than 100 copies, no copies. Journey succeeded because Sony threw money at it until it could get released, Ed McMillan already had a strong following from his Newgrounds days and Limbo is 1 in a million.
In the end, it’s all about risk. AAA games have found a formula that works, and what’s in it for them to change it? Any change might please the hardcore gamers but ultimately results in a lower profit.
