Diversity is not a win-condition

IF 1.1 2区 文学 Q3 COMMUNICATION Critical Studies in Media Communication Pub Date : 2022-05-27 DOI:10.1080/15295036.2022.2080852
Tara Fickle, Christopher B. Patterson
{"title":"Diversity is not a win-condition","authors":"Tara Fickle, Christopher B. Patterson","doi":"10.1080/15295036.2022.2080852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines several genres of role-playing games in terms of their procedural logics of racial management as an attempt to understand how game logics can express varying and often contentious ways of enacting “diversity.” It argues that games themselves can help answer one of the most persistent questions about games today: “how do we make games more diverse?” We proceed by defining the racial logics—the “diversity rules”—structuring the Mass Effect series (BioWare, 2007–), Genshin Impact (miHoYo, 2020), and Divinity: Original Sin 2 (Larian Studios, 2017). These games respectively place the player in the role of multicultural manager, racial empath, and divine avatar. These games show us the many logics, strategies, and appropriations that can occur when diversity itself is treated not as a complex process toward building social justice, but as an obtainable asset, and as the sole win condition in making and selling a game. Attending to these racial logics can open paths to new disciplinary directions in game studies by pushing beyond established domestic boundaries, liberal multiculturalist definitions of diversity, and ultimately into revealing our regional attitudes and particular ways of defining and practicing “diversity.”","PeriodicalId":47123,"journal":{"name":"Critical Studies in Media Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Studies in Media Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2022.2080852","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines several genres of role-playing games in terms of their procedural logics of racial management as an attempt to understand how game logics can express varying and often contentious ways of enacting “diversity.” It argues that games themselves can help answer one of the most persistent questions about games today: “how do we make games more diverse?” We proceed by defining the racial logics—the “diversity rules”—structuring the Mass Effect series (BioWare, 2007–), Genshin Impact (miHoYo, 2020), and Divinity: Original Sin 2 (Larian Studios, 2017). These games respectively place the player in the role of multicultural manager, racial empath, and divine avatar. These games show us the many logics, strategies, and appropriations that can occur when diversity itself is treated not as a complex process toward building social justice, but as an obtainable asset, and as the sole win condition in making and selling a game. Attending to these racial logics can open paths to new disciplinary directions in game studies by pushing beyond established domestic boundaries, liberal multiculturalist definitions of diversity, and ultimately into revealing our regional attitudes and particular ways of defining and practicing “diversity.”
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多样性并不是一个双赢的条件
本文从种族管理的程序逻辑角度考察了几种类型的角色扮演游戏,试图理解游戏逻辑如何表达不同的、经常有争议的“多样性”。它认为游戏本身能够帮助我们回答关于游戏的一个最持久的问题:“我们如何让游戏变得更加多样化?”我们通过定义种族逻辑——“多样性规则”来构建《质量效应》系列(BioWare, 2007 -)、《Genshin Impact》(miHoYo, 2020)和《神界:原罪2》(Larian Studios, 2017)。这些游戏分别让玩家扮演多元文化管理者、种族同理心和神圣化身的角色。这些游戏向我们展示了许多逻辑、策略和运用,当多样性本身不被视为构建社会正义的复杂过程,而是作为一种可获得的资产,以及制作和销售游戏的唯一获胜条件时,就会出现这些逻辑、策略和运用。通过超越既定的国内边界,自由多元文化主义对多样性的定义,参与这些种族逻辑可以为游戏研究开辟新的学科方向,并最终揭示我们的区域态度以及定义和实践“多样性”的特定方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Critical Studies in Media Communication (CSMC) is a peer-reviewed publication of the National Communication Association. CSMC publishes original scholarship in mediated and mass communication from a cultural studies and/or critical perspective. It particularly welcomes submissions that enrich debates among various critical traditions, methodological and analytical approaches, and theoretical standpoints. CSMC takes an inclusive view of media and welcomes scholarship on topics such as • media audiences • representations • institutions • digital technologies • social media • gaming • professional practices and ethics • production studies • media history • political economy. CSMC publishes scholarship about media audiences, representations, institutions, technologies, and professional practices. It includes work in history, political economy, critical philosophy, race and feminist theorizing, rhetorical and media criticism, and literary theory. It takes an inclusive view of media, including newspapers, magazines and other forms of print, cable, radio, television, film, and new media technologies such as the Internet.
期刊最新文献
Black girlhood media studies: bridging multidisciplinary approaches from old to new media Black girl joy in the media: an intergenerational perspective Editors’ note for “lifting as we climb: elevating mediated epistemologies by and about black women” The content of our caricature: African American comic art and political belonging “What makes you think I’m African American?”: identity performance, code switching and the Strong Black Woman on Love Is Blind
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1