Restricting Player Representation in Video Games
Belghast wrote a succinct and personal rebuttal today regarding the iniquities of restricting player representation with video game characters. Escape from Tarkov creator’s Battlestate Games, are currently involved in a rather tired and predictable controversy over the lack of playable female characters in the aforementioned title. If you want chapter and verse about this sorry state of affairs then visit The Verge who have all the salient information. Part of me can’t help feeling that it’s 2020 so shouldn’t we all be done with kind of bullshit? Apparently that’s not the case and some parts of society and indeed the world, still think its the 1950s. Sadly the video game industry seems to be a habitual offender when it comes to these sorts of debacles. Their desire to self flagellate and elect to be continuously on the wrong side of history is perplexing. So once again it is time to counter yet another false narrative and shed some light via the medium of facts, rational thinking and logic on that increasingly lonely place known as reality.
Deciding between content creation or gender representation is often presented as some sort of Hobson’s choice by some developers. The argument being that if you divert resources into creating “female” character models, you’ll bankrupt the game studio, they’ll be no more regular content and all the staff’s children will go without shoes. This is the sort of spurious bullshit argument that second rate politicians trot out when trying to defend cuts to vital services. The most simple and obvious question is why do we have to choose? Why can’t we have both? Plus if you really are pushed for resources and have to choose, which I seldom believe to be a legitimate reason, I’d take representation first and foremost as it will bring more players to your game, thus increasing revenue that can then go towards creating new content. Where is the business sense in alienating 50% of your potential customers? Plus, as a business, if your revenue is so low that such decisions are having to be made to begin with, you may want to reconsider what industry you work in.
Putting aside the respective moral and ethical rectitude of such ideals as equal representation and diversity in video games, let us consider it from alternative perspectives. Social issues do not always have to be examined through the prism of what society perceives to be right or wrong. Representation as a marketing and business angle is now a very real thing. One could go so far as to say it is becoming a financial imperative. Disney after years of eschewing this concept, have now come full circle and embraced it. Compare the white Anglo-Saxon princess of Sleeping Beauty (1959) to the likes of Moana (2016). We now live in an era of unparalleled diversity and representation with popular, multi billion dollar franchises such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Would Black Panther have been made two decades ago? Of course not. I’m sure this change may not be purely driven by a sense of altruism but more through business acumen. However, what is important is that the change has happened and continues to do so.
Now objection on lore grounds can hold water on occasions but many examples are just spurious. I’d argue that this is the case in this instance and that Battlestate Games are either too lazy or too institutionalised to do or say otherwise. Too often resistance to social change simply come downs to an unreconstructed worldview by parts of the existing customer base and the male dominated video games industry. They simply don’t like social progress and anything that differs from their mindset is seen as an assault upon them personally. This highlights wider societal ills, like the fact we don’t as a society universally teach critical thinking. Or the fact that criticism of an idea that you may personally hold, isn’t a personal attack on your character. Plus people these days don’t want to be held to account for their actions. The growth in societal cognitive dissonance is worrying. But I digress. Essentially, all of this is “just too bad” for the usual suspects. Identity politics doesn’t appear to be going away. And from a business perspective, just take a look at the success of the PG-13 film rating. There is a financial sweetspot when it comes to making a movie accessible to a wider audience. The same is true of video games with regard to representation.
As for those individuals over at Battlestate Games, all I can really say with regard to their recent Twitter statement and current stance on this issue, is that that they’ll “pay the price for your lack of vision”, if I may quote the Emperor Palpatine. This is not a moral threat but simply a prediction that you’ll suffer financially by being on the wrong side of this particular debate. Players like to see themselves represented in the virtual worlds that they inhabit. Happy players are more disposed towards staying in-game and spending money. Furthermore, the modern gamer often wants the companies that they support, to act in an ethical fashion and reflect contemporary values. As previously pointed out, it ultimately doesn’t matter if developers do this pragmatically, as long as they just do it. Failing to do so just sends a very clear message that certain potential customers are not welcome. Since when has that been a recipe for financial success?
