You can make a good argument against poorly written characters, and how forced diversity (similar to the token-minority of old - implementing diversity without giving reasonable care or interest in the inclusion) along with poor writing can push previous players away while also insulting new audiences... but ultimately that's an argument solely against poor writing merely taken from the viewpoint of someone biased against diversity.
Even the argument "nobody cares or will buy a game based on who's represented - so why change things?" is flawed. This is statistically untrue:
Using a sample of 399 box art cases from games with ESRB ratings of Teen or Mature released in the US during the period of 2005 through 2010, this study shows that sales were positively related to sexualization of non-central female characters among cases with women present. In contrast, sales were negatively related to the presence of any central female characters (sexualized or non-sexualized) or the presence of female characters without male characters present.
Which is why games developers were for a long time economically incentivised to feature male leads: why? Because the predominant video game audience was men, and the data shows most male gamers like playing as men. If you think this means that "gamers prefer playing as men" or "male protagonists lead to better games/stories" that's your prerogative. Honestly, though, which is more likely: men are a special gender that all gamers prefer, or in general, most gamers want to play their favourite types of games featuring characters that mirror their own identity (and in the 2000's male gamers were the driving force in sales).
One of my biggest problems with the modern world is how often I see viewpoints which could be broken down to the elementary belief "it doesn't matter to me, so it shouldn't matter to anyone else". It's quite tragic.
Log in to comment