20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

And failed. Or do you believe in high virtue nobles? Where's thievery on the streets? How realistic are the distances? Why is it that somehow, realism is only a problem when is about gender or color of skin?

Not saying it was successfull. There are many things that can or at least could be criticized and would make sense to europeans. The absence of dark skinned characters in a game about midevial bohemia is about the least important problem such a game can have, and just show the US centricity of the people critisizing the game. Or that they wanted to hit the man, and not his product.

Lets not forget this is a product from the Czech Republic, produced to be sold worldwide. Maybe they should have considered not selling it in the US?

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

For any civilized adult, that's not how the world works, and this particularly juvenile argument is past its expiration date. If they market "realism", but only deliver a particular brand of said realism, people have the right to call on that.

That is exactly how our current capitalistic system works. Nothing juvenile about it. Vote with your wallet, and your voice will be heard.

On the second sentence I partly agree... but then, as I said, in todays insane world even history has become subjective. I am pretty sure what you believe to be how history actually went down would be propagandistic nonsense in parts for me, and the other way around. I guess that we might find common ground somewhere... still, there will be no one reading of history everyone agrees on. Just what finds the most agreement from the most amount of people.

As said, this argument can be wielded by both sides, in a civilization so partisan every side has their own news source and their own social scientists they trust.

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

The whole thing is absurd. No video game is realistic. Period. It's just another empty marketing word. It makes absolutely no sense to attack or defend a game based on that.

Yes, now we agree on something.

And this is why

a) game devs should completly ignore criticism like that (be it the "muh representation", or the "its not realistic" kind of criticism) and concentrate on making games run without bugs and actually fun to play

b) game devs also should stop virtue signalling to either camp of this culture war (so if you put extra minorities in, or more pronouns... just don't comment on it. And when the partisans pick it up, simply follow suggestion a and ignore it)

c) game devs should use a games actual features to promote it, and not try to follow societal fads hoping for easy marketing points.

20 hours ago, Thiago Monteiro said:

And this is why the discussion about realism in games always boils down to race, gender and such. Because at this point, it's just an excuse for bigotry.

Well... that B-Word is usually thrown around quick and loose nowadays... its getting a little bit old.

Maybe... just maybe... if race, gender and "such" would play such a big role in "marketing" (in this case virtue signalling is the better word), it wouldn't get called out so much by one side of the outrage warrior spectrum?

You know, again, if these things would be put in the game, and not be used as a marketing instrument so much, the whole "bigotry" you claim would die down quickly? If some devs wouldn't run a virtual victory lap everytime they put in something especially progressive into their game, they wouldn't attract so much hate?

23 minutes ago, Gian-Reto said:

b) game devs also should stop virtue signalling to either camp of this culture war (so if you put extra minorities in, or more pronouns... just don't comment on it. And when the partisans pick it up, simply follow suggestion a and ignore it.

Where does the BF5 trailer do this?

23 minutes ago, Gian-Reto said:

You know, again, if these things would be put in the game, and not be used as a marketing instrument so much, the whole "bigotry" you claim would die down quickly?

Or maybe... they're advertising features that are in the game to people who might take notice of those features. Which features are you claiming are not actually in the game here?

1 hour ago, Gian-Reto said:

If some devs wouldn't run a virtual victory lap everytime they put in something especially progressive into their game, they wouldn't attract so much hate?

"If X would stop doing Y, then maybe Z would stop spewing hate."

Because, you know, blaming the people who are being hated is exactly the right thing to do./s

Your entire argument hinges on the idea that none of this matters and that "both sides" are "outrage warriors" or that devs are virtue signaling or [whatever other buzzword or cliche "I'm in the middle" statement you want to use here].

Don't get me wrong, I can see how someone would see it that way when they're entirely disconnected from any of the issues and see nothing wrong with the existing status quo, but that's privilege blindness at work. For the rest of us this matters. I mean, asking to have characters we like or represent us or that we can associate with in games is an entirely reasonable thing to ask for, don't you think? And being met with extreme opposition and complaints is not a fair response to that request, I would say.

Of course, everything I've said so far ignores the most important element of the entire discussion, character customization is hella fun for a lot of people and a mechanic that sells rather well. And, naturally, by having character customization it only makes sense to be able to truly customize your characters gender or skin color or what-have-you. Restricting customization to some random set of white men is just... frankly lazy and ignores a huge part of the potential gaming audience.

TLDR; it's about money.

47 minutes ago, Gian-Reto said:

You know, again, if these things would be put in the game, and not be used as a marketing instrument so much, the whole "bigotry" you claim would die down quickly?

Can you show any proof of that? And why would they hide game features that can attract potential costumers? To not hurt the sensibilities of people that firmly believe the world owes all their attention to them? 

52 minutes ago, Gian-Reto said:

The absence of dark skinned characters in a game about midevial bohemia is about the least important problem such a game can have, and just show the US centricity of the people critisizing the gam

Again, can you show any proof that this is a US centric view of the world? Do you think representation equality is only a US (or US 'fans') thing?

1 hour ago, Gian-Reto said:

c) game devs should use a games actual features to promote it, and not try to follow societal fads hoping for easy marketing points

I don't see why. They should use whatever aspect of the game sells. 

1 hour ago, Gian-Reto said:

I am pretty sure what you believe to be how history actually went down would be propagandistic nonsense in parts for me, and the other way around

History,as written, is absolutely full of bias and propaganda. That's why history research is important. History, for me, is not a belief system. As with other branches of science, we have an accepted view, we have an understanding of where our knowledge is still insufficient and we are open to new data correcting or corroborating the current understanding. Even when confronted with 'propagandistic nonsense', I'd still check whether, maybe, there's something to it.

1 hour ago, Gian-Reto said:

and their own social scientists they trust.

On the one hand, I get the feeling that confirmation bias is extremely strong in the general populace's consumption of science information. On the other hand, if you think that scientists, and science in general, is a propaganda machine where they will do whatever to push a given agenda that political parties can use, let me dispel this gross misconception. First, there are many predatory journals which will publish whatever for money, and you will find most of pseudoscients there (which could be more political, but I don't follow much of the social literature). Those are not the places to look for (proper) science. Second, social scientists examine a deeply complex topic, which includes a large number of aspects impossible to analyze in a single study. Each little aspect is investigated, sometimes multiple times, by multiple people giving context, confirmation and weeding out results that are potentially incorrect. Those studies have varying degrees of statistical quality (sample size, variable, confounders), but in the long run we improve. That's why it's important to take any scientific result with context, and have a vague idea of their methodological quality. It's a burden on the media AND readers. 

1 hour ago, Gian-Reto said:

As said, this argument can be wielded by both sides, in a civilization so partisan every side has their own news source and their own social scientists they trust.

No, it cannot. If you cite whatever bogus source because it agrees with you, it just means your argument is very poor. Pretending otherwise just means lack of argumentation skill. Science, news or the topic is not at fault. It's whoever just wants to see what they already believe confirmed.

15 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

But during WWII women were not allowed in combat or anywhere near the front lines.

This is demonstrably false. The Soviets had female snipers, tank drivers, medics, anti-aircraft gunners, combat pilots, and other staff. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatyana_Kostyrina

Quote

She died in the battle for Adzhimushka, in which she killed 15 enemies after taking over the duties of the battalion commander, leading her battalion into the flight and remaining on the battlefield even after she was wounded in hand-to-hand combat. In a fight in the trenches a German soldier rushed at her but Kostyrina shot him first only to be killed by a stray enemy bullet. In total throughout her military career she killed 120 enemy combats,[2] for which she was recommended for the title Hero of the Soviet Union the day she died in battle by Major-General Gorbachev, which was posthumously awarded in 1944 with an Order of Lenin.[3][4]

33 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

The "SJW" people, who are actually "useful idiot" communists but that is a whole different subject ("social justice" is a 100-year-old "communist buzz word")

This is a logical fallacy and, I suggest, obsolete Cold War paranoia. Just because the communists pushed "social justice" doesn't mean "social justice" is inherently a communist thing, or that pushing for gender/racial equality makes you a communist, or even that pushing for social justice brings communism closer to being. Nazi Germany had a strong anti-tobacco movement and Hitler loved dogs; does being anti-tobacco and loving dogs make you a "useful idiot Nazi?" Does supporting a dog shelter mean I'm bringing my country closer to Nazi-ism?

Even if you're going be opposed to communism (or any particular ideology), that doesn't mean you have to be opposed to everything that communism (or that particular ideology) stands for. Doing that leads to obviously nonsensical positions and absurd behaviour.

18 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

For example, just based on this thread I would never play Battlefield V.  I have no interest in a wildly inaccurate WWII game that is trying to brainwash me with SJW propaganda.

This tells me all I need to know about you, your viewpoint and your position in this thread. You have no interest in discussion or in engaging in proper conversation about the topic, you're here to complain that you feel targeted by some propaganda machine that you think is forcing "other kinds of people" down your throat. News flash, they're not doing this for you, they're doing this for us.

If you're not going to play it because they decided to include some choices for me when I have few of them to start with, then by all means, don't play the game. I certainly won't miss you.

18 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

It's the same exact thing either way.  Putting black (or any other types of people) where they don't belong is "black washing" as much as putting white people into Shaka's army is "white washing".  There is no difference at all.  There is nothing racist about not having any black, Asian, white, whatever people in a story they don't belong in.

No, it's not. Putting characters where they don't belong might be jarring to someone who's looking for accuracy (of which you will find very little in movies or games, even when you think it's accurate - see depictions of the 20s as example), but it's not the same thing. People of other ethnicities have been silenced and stereotyped for decades (i.e. the token character, which many people hate due to the stereotypes they bring with them).

When 95+% of the people in movies or games are white, and you take out a black character, it's a huge freaking deal because there were almost none there to begin with. Not so much when you replace 1 white character in 100. To put it differently: it's way more noticeable to a bald guy when he loses a hair than it is for someone with a head full of the stuff, you feelin' me?

Feels like you didn't even bother reading the jelly bean analogy, to be honest.

18 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

As I mentioned in my last post, you discredit both your own message and yourself by doing this... so why would you want too do it anyway?  And you lose sales, you don't gain them. 

First, I don't know what message you think I'm discrediting. Inclusivity?

Second, Black Panther featured an almost entirely black cast, and look at how well it did. Sure it was a good movie but I'd wager a part of that success can be attributed to the very large number of black Americans who went to see it solely because of that fact.

If you think it's losing money then you're either daft or selfish and can't stand the spotlight being on someone different than yourself in the content you enjoy.

19 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

I was talking about the western armies.  Yes, women served in front line roles in the Soviet Army.  I think also the Romanian army, but not in western any armies.

Lest we forget, we're talking about a game trailer, unless there's something I've missed. Perhaps the women are Soviets in the game?