http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57412796-235/ea-stirs-controversy-by-adding-gay-characters-to-star-wars-game/#!
EA and Bioware made an announcement nearly a year ago of downloadable content [DLC] for The Old Republic that would allow for player-characters to play same gender romances [SGR]. By igniting controversy in the gaming world, and the popular media sphere at large, this announcement has brought together unlikely allies and broadened the fight for LGBTQI representation in society.
The gaming world isn't exactly a renowned proponent of queer society, but it is known for battling conservative efforts to censor gaming content. In this discursive intersection, however, gaming pundits have sided with conservative groups that oppose the DLC proposal.
I find this situation interesting in relation to the high/low culture concept we covered in class. The high/low culture dichotomy has kept gaming out of relevant discussion in arts and academic circles. And so too has it been used within the gaming world as a tool to exclude women and minorities from gaining influence. Thus we have evidence that industry pundits are propagating the same problematic attitude that has been working against them for decades.
Industry influencers have adopted their own brand of dogmatic exclusion, assumedly because the hetero-dominated gaming world is/may be uncomfortable with SGR in games. They are effectively aligning themselves with the regressive attitudes of those who oppose freedom of content, which makes all the sense in the world.
From where I stand, the gaming community should be welcoming such developments. As a microcosm for society in general, the gaming world would do well to embrace new, unusual, subversive elements of gameplay. Internal and external benefits would follow. On the one hand, sexual minorities [or minorities in general] would be more encouraged to participate in and celebrate their leisure gaming. On the other hand, perceptions of the gaming community would change for the better [seeing as how popular culture is moving in the same liberal direction].
Also: this may highlight my ignorance of DLC and gaming, but by definition isn't DLC subject to each gamer's choice to download? So the whole of TOR players have a choice whether to engage with this SGR element, no? Sounds like quite a bit of panic over something that is clear a choice. A willingly made choice, I might add, unlike sexual orientation.
However I also find issue with this story. The Fox News version of this report [http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/01/14/star-wars-game-segregates-gay-characters-on-gay-planet/] says SGR characters and plot lines will be confined to one planet, Makeb. Granted, Bioware and EA wouldn't want to make SGR a distracting focus of The Old Republic. But secluding SGR to just one planet sounds like virtual exile to me. So Bioware is advocating progress, just not too much just to be safe.
Last zinger: the article above suggests that, should this DLC prospect go ahead, many may leave the game. What a shame it would be if bigots left The Old Republic for players with more accepting outlooks...
Separtism doesn't work in that manner, confining LGBT players to one planet does seem to be taken the safe route. But why shouldn't gay characters interact with heterosexual characters? It just seems ridiculous, a lot of these groups who protest the game for including gay characters are as bad as people trying to exclude black characters in games.
ReplyDelete