Media, criticism and co-opting of wokeness

[H4run]

Friend, you are a white, male, strong and sexy guy with a military background and an air of mistery. You are literally 90% of video game protagonists, especially for action-oriented games, of course you don't have a problem with representation. You are represented in nearly every game, often as the protagonist. Imagine if there was literally not a single game with a male, white person. I just can't imagine you saying the same thing you're saying now.

Bah Jung lets bet he look at the mirror directly with a smug smile after reading this, you should do lots of editing and adjustment first before you post this.

You are just too too kind!

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Bah Jung lets bet he look at the mirror directly with a smug smile after reading this

this is true in virtually any scenario. If I had the money I'd have a mirror installed opposite of my mirror so I could look at myself while I'm looking at myself. life would be complete and all screens would be superfluous.

 

[Commodore]

Maybe you're an actual roleplayer, but a lot of people seem to want to play an avatar of themselves in a game.
More choices should satisfy both groups but some people seem to feel that choice is an affront to them.

In games that allow character customization, I usually randomly generate whatever I can just to force myself to play characters with different play styles and appearances.

I'm with you on the more choices thing as well. The point I was trying to make was that people need to quit getting hung up on the appearance of a character. That includes, and is mainly directed at, the manchildren that get upset about a protagonist being depicted as a minority or as a woman.

Like I remember back when Battlefield 1 came out, a bunch of those manchildren were raising a stink about a black soldier from the Harlem Hellfighters being depicted on the original box art. I remember thinking how ridiculous that was at the time because it was both historically accurate and I thought it was cool that the Harlem Hellfighters were getting some mainstream attention and couldn't really understand why that would be a problem.

Friend, you are a white, male, strong and sexy guy with a military background and an air of mistery. You are literally 90% of video game protagonists, especially for action-oriented games, of course you don't have a problem with representation. You are represented in nearly every game, often as the protagonist. Imagine if there was literally not a single game with a male, white person. I just can't imagine you saying the same thing you're saying now

Maybe. I'm just trying to say race/gender is not something that really factors into my opinion of a character. If they have a narrative that I relate to or enjoy, then I like them, if they don't, then I don't. Doesn't really matter to me what their skin color is or what bits they have between their legs. I mean, I absolutely loved Iden Versio in Battlefront 2 because she had a narrative that I could kinda relate to. In fact my biggest criticism of Battlefront 2 was that we didn't really get enough of her story.

Also, I wouldn't describe myself as strong and sexy anymore. I've let myself slide a bit since my Army days.

 

[amadeus]

To some extent the "professionals" got replaced by YouTubers, who in many cases do a better job. "Professional" reviewers/critics have increasingly been put in conflict of interest situations, penalized for giving some games/movies bad reviews.

Put another way, as critics cease to function professionally at the purpose of their work, they also cease to be relevant. YouTubers ARE the new professionals at this particular job.

That's what I was getting at. I've heard it called the "democratization of the media" and I guess it's kind of true? Not just dissemination but production costs; anyone with a phone could produce content almost as good as what's on TV minus some of the fancier computer effects.

Naive, simple, indecisive, strong belief, easily get trap vulnerable, blind optimism and super lucky. I just realized, how being smart and sophisticated is often aligned with cunning and mad.

Like haroon says.
The typical American hero, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, not necessarily stupid, but certainly not presented as well-educated or sophisticated.
I can think of a couple of exceptions though not from recent years. Cary Grant, though actually English, came across as American and suave, and Jimmy Stewart was sometimes educated though not sophisticated or suave.

Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry wasn't smart? He was certainly perceptive and thorough. Perhaps Americans don't have these kinds of characters so prevalent in the media because the country did not have such a formalized aristocracy like European countries did.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Clint Eastwood in Dirty Harry wasn't smart? He was certainly perceptive and thorough. Perhaps Americans don't have these kinds of characters so prevalent in the media because the country did not have such a formalized aristocracy like European countries did.

I didn't say the American hero couldn't be smart. Some are but not all. Dirty Harry wasn't suave or sophisticated was he though. Compare him to the archetypal British hero, James Bond.
I'm not saying our archetypal hero is a better model, its just as much of a stereotype.
Better not to have stereotypes at all.

 

[aelf]

Entertainment is art. It's very hard to separate the two, especially when you consider that the intentional absence of any kind of (divisive) politics is also a political statement. If you "play it safe" by avoiding political connotations that your viewers or general consumers may find upsetting, you both contribute to the status quo (as media - all media - is a reflection of life in the time it was made) as well as limit your own artistic vision.

I understand where you're coming from, but I also simply consider it an extension of the greater problems with the world at large (particular in terms of what people often describe as a "culture war").

If someone's hamfisted insertion of politics makes the product worse, then that is reflected in the product. It doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

A point of note would be that people criticise specific politics being included in mainstream, modern cinema. That's the other problem here. Some politics are okay! Especially politics that reflect the status quo, because we live in a world where such things are presented as apolitical.

Do you think injecting a "woke" agenda makes something art, or tries to make something art? Because that is what I could gather from your post.

I don't think whether something is political or not is what differentiates art from entertainment. That's not what the OP is saying. Mass entertainment can absolutely be political, even if the politics are mainly conservative (as in politically conservative), which, as Gorbles said, is often the case.

I think what makes something art rather than mass entertainment, in popular perception, is how the product is executed. At any point in time, there are techniques and innovations that can make a piece out to be a work of art. These may eventually become popular and enter the popular realm, and perhaps what the OP is talking about is found in that threshold.

Say, the technique of 'subverting expectations'. It's nothing new in artistic productions but it's now being used in mass entertainment, sometimes in an unsuitable way. So, in that sense, perhaps I was too hasty to say that the line should not be blurred - it's an osmosis that has always been happening. Perhaps failed experiments and controversial application of artistic techniques are simply doomed to happen, and suffer through them we must.

I fully agree with you that criticism has never been truly objective and that it is now slowly lifting that veil, but what does that have to do with my reply? Yes, critics are definitely now more open about their (political, ideological) affiliations and that's fine, but none of this seems to touch on the material conditions I mentioned at all?

I just don't think your narrative works because nothing has fundamentally changed. The material conditions of today didn't really change the nature of criticism. It just changed how criticism is performed.

When someone grumbles about LGBTQ characters in games, it's a political statement. It reflects a reality in our history that that person misses. If a game where LGTBQ people aren't represented is an escape for that person, it says something about that person (whether they want to admit it or not).

And yet we don't see these crusades saying we should ban, revise, or otherwise censor films like American History X for being too political. Shawshank Redemption is another good one. These things only seem to surface when minorities get their due on the big screen.

Corporations add another twist to it. Performative activism is definitely a large problem, but the society in which we live is driven by capitalistic intentions. For a lot of people, the choice is make something and have it seen by nobody, or luck into a contract and make a deal with a company that doesn't care for your politics insofar as it cares for its own bottom line. I don't like performative activism. But I also don't think all high-budget Hollywood movies (for example) are automatically that.

I don't think like this at all, in fact injecting a woke agenda makes it even more obvious that it is a product, not a work of art (again, not really a dichotomy, but I'll play along for now).

Alright, might as well deal with the woke issue now.

I see, with some amusement, that wokeness tends to muddy the discussion and this thread is no exception. I saw the woke issue as mainly a distraction and sort of tried to head that off first before setting out my critique in the OP. But, at the same time, I recognise that it figures prominently in contemporary debates about the enjoyment of mass entertainment.

First, I do think that the "injection of the woke agenda" is a spurious accusation. As others have said here, just because characters happen to be LGBTQ or minorities does not mean it's some kind of radical political statement. I'd even go so far as to say that making white characters non-white is not a problem, though someone like TMIT would probably vehemently disagree. It's about opportunities in the industry, and I think minority actors still don't get enough.

Does the 'injection' happen sometimes? Maybe. There are certain instances (like, IIRC, in The Last Jedi), where it does seem like the creators deliberately wanted to make a point, but the few examples I can think of seems to wind up making the non-cis white male characters look worse, so I'm not sure what they're trying to prove. Most probably they were simply handled badly for whatever reasons, perhaps commercial ones.

Which brings me to the point of the co-opting of the 'woke agenda'.

I feel like this is something that doesn't happen as much (or as egregiously) in the creative process as it does in the marketing process, and that's where my issue with it lies. The OP has already mentioned using wokeness as a defense against criticism, but of course you see that in marketing materials too. The most cynical thing about this business is, its usage is clearly geographically-dependent, and in regions where wokeness is not popular, the marketing reflects that. For example, in China, IIRC, John Boyega was made much smaller in the film posters for Star Wars so as to better appeal to the local audience.

Needless to say, such practices suck. But it's not like they provide more ammunition for the anti-SJW crowd either. The vocal anti-SJW crowd will hate on LGBTQ and minority representation regardless.

 

[amadeus]

I didn't say the American hero couldn't be smart. Some are but not all. Dirty Harry wasn't suave or sophisticated was he though. Compare him to the archetypal British hero, James Bond.
I'm not saying our archetypal hero is a better model, its just as much of a stereotype.
Better not to have stereotypes at all.

Well, stereotypes can reflect some sort of truth however distorted they may be. I think the important thing is to look at these characters as a reflection of where some cultural values lie and not as objective statements of being good or bad.

One stereotype off the top of my head is that of the Germans, being very rule-bound and obedient. Dirty Harry is not whatever that is. Does that make Americans better than Germans, or the other way around? I don’t think so, and I think that’d be too much to read out of a movie.

 

[Gorbles]

But why does anyone, minority or not, need their character to be a reflection of themselves to be able to relate to them or enjoy the experience? I agree with you that diversity is good in games as it allows the player more options to play how they want to play, but I just never got why anyone gets upset about the race or gender of a fictional character. Whether or not I can relate to a character depends more on how they are written and their personality traits rather than their appearance or what demographic they come from.

It isn't necessarily a need. It's often a preference, though. Why are pen-and-paper roleplaying games so popular? Why is Skyrim so popular? Why does everyone into Star Wars want to build their own specific lightsabre (well, most folks)?

These are all questions not necessarily that reflect a complete identity, but definitely parts of the whole. To that end, a woman might want to play as a woman. She may not. She may not want to play exactly as herself, but she may want to play what the game presents as an idealised form of herself. Or a completely different character. Same goes for anyone that enjoys that kind of creative aspect of video games. The same argument can be applied to protagonists in films (as well as fixed-design characters, often in story modes, for certain AAA video game genres like Call of Duty or Battlefield).

Your preferences for what you look for in characters aren't necessarily everyone's - the main driving force behind escapism is intensely personal. The kind of game I want to play (and I play an astoundingly wide variety - from the more involved 4x games all the way down to cookie clicker whatevers(, depends mainly depending on my mood and what is up with my head at the time. Like @yung.carl.jung said, you're a white dude, right? Me too. I'm never suffered adversely from not seeing (a theoretical version of) myself in popular media. Especially when I was a bit younger and doing water polo more consistently (lockdown has also completely stuffed that, hah). Nerdy dude with decent physical fitness - I could relate to so many protagonists. At the surface level sure. And like you say this doesn't necessarily correspond to good writing. But it's a psychological factor that helps our immersion more than it might help someone who isn't white and / or male.

Add to that the fact of being a marginalised minority, and it's more than just helping immersion. It can easily be perceived - whether that was the intent or not - of reinforcing a worldview that excludes these minorities. This turns what is meant to be escapism into actual pain. This is based on accounts I have read of others - I definitely can't claim any magical insight into what someone from any of these demographics would feel.

 

[Kyriakos]

Being online as a woman should be a totally different experience. I remember during mirc era, entering some random chat-room where it's packed with people but the public chat was as good as a grave, and no one talk back to me lol.

So I went back again but this time I know what happened and what should I do, I use a "girly" user name, I still remember the nick name was "Bidadari_Rapuh" or "Fragile Angel", and suddenly messages, PM and conversation just popping around like madness, all those flirty messages and conversation maneuver just crawl out like a stream from the deep abyss of doom hitting me like madness, dang, I remember I laugh so hard at that time, it's two different world, reality and perspective that male would not able to comprehend, well except if he use the name Laura or Kind_Angel or GamerGurlz he might get some tiny piece of how does it feel.

Pretty sure that most MIRC girls weren't girls

Those were very different times. Can't happen again, with FB etc, where it is pretty clear from the start who you are.

 

[GenMarshall]

I dunno Criticisms of mainstream gaming culture as having a (large) problem with misogyny doesn't revolve around appeals to a Bible. They're rooted in practical demonstrations that there is arguably a lot of evidence for.

I do not find any evidence that there’s rampid misogyny within gaming culture that’s on an epidemic scale. Again, Timmy on CoD spouting his mouth out with racist and sexist comments, don’t represent the entirety of gaming culture. Any such misogyny that I hear during a match in Overwatch when I have a female teammate with me, I’d quickly hit the “report player” and report the offending teammate.

[quote]I mean, let's flip it around. You game for escapism, and I can relate to that. What about a marginalised minority that wants escapism, but can't see themselves reflected in the vast majority of video games? Is it an agenda to cater to these people?

I mean, for huge franchises, I get it. It's easy (and understandable) to be cynical. But for gaming in general? I don't see the harm in diversity. It's impossible to do such a thing and [I]not[/I] get "brownie points", yeah? Good representation will get you a good pro-diversity reputation whether you want it or not. It can be difficult to separate that out from the performative stuff, I agree. But it's better than not having it at all.[/QUOTE]
You’re going to have a hard time doing that with established franchises because you’re gonna end up ticking off a majority of your fan base if you go “woke” (Get woke, go broke became a meme onto itself), and shoehorning diversity characters for the sakes of diversity. Can you do that with new IPs within an established company or an indie developer? Of course you can. Though you’re gonna have to accept if they make an LGBT game, it’s gonna end up being a niche market largely due em part that the majority in the planet are streight.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Get woke, go broke" tends to happen because the crushing majority of developers that do it throw in token representation characters that rub their minority aspect (whatever it is) in your face...but then forget that they actually still need to be characters rather than caricatures for people to like their role in the story. Assuming this sort of game has a story. You know it's a problem when the only thing people can remember about the character is "the gay one" or "the black one" etc. Good characters don't look like that. Good characters look like Lucian in League of Legends, a good chunk of the cast in Overwatch, Kerrigan in StarCraft, etc. They are mostly not defined by appearances/what they physically are, but their backstory and what they do in the games...even if some of them can be annoying to play against. I hear some fighting games do a good job of this also, but I defer to people who actually played them in the past decade or so.

~~~

As an aside, a significant proportion of criticism of "misogyny in gaming" came from the "gamergate" stuff. A fiasco that mixed proven liars going out of their way to claim victimhood (facts be ----ed) and baited-out some of gaming's lowest common denominators in the process. That was a clown fiesta but that's not an honest representation of misogyny typical of gaming, insofar as it exists (the extent to which it does varies wildly by game genre and sometimes specific games by necessity).