It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Posted By: ValamirYes all of that...just not forever. I'm not dismissing any of it...just suggesting that there should be a time limit on it after which...there are no stakeholders to consult. And I tried to avoid simply being arbitrary in the time limit, I actually outlined above exactly how I arrived at that limit...when no one is left alive who was actually born into the culture while it was being practiced, and no one is left alive who knew such a person. That's pretty hard to track directly, but 180-200 years should be long enough to cover even the outlier cases.
Posted By: Eero TuovinenIn the meantime, it has been often said in this discussion that you cannot be the judge of your own action, you need to use certified minority voices to discover what is the moral course. I can see how this latter idea seems very close to "everything's OK as long as no native will complain", but I don't myself accept the equivalency: the reason for listening to a native voice, insofar as there is one, needs to be my own moral need to do right, not my own social need to avoid bad press. The latter is an empty principle.
Posted By: Bill_WhiteWho gets to decide that a culture is dead, in pursuit of the standard of objectivity you're seeking?
Posted By: JohnstoneDoes that make sense?
Posted By: Eero Tuovinento me it seems likely that the true moral duty on this issue is found in either caring about our fellow man as Liam's been arguing, or in some sort of duty towards truth and constructive progressive thinking, as has been hinted at here and there. Neither of these standards actually cares about the age and supposed moribundity of a culture: if somebody's hurt by your depiction of ancient Greek polis-dwellers, then that's an emotional fact, and if your goal was to avoid such hurt, the age of the culture in question doesn't come into it as far as I can see.
Posted By: Eero Tuovinento me it seems likely that the true moral duty on this issue is found in either caring about our fellow man as Liam's been arguing,.
Posted By: Eero TuovinenA standard that turns on the validity of a given person's self-identification as a member of a given culture (such as Ralph's), or one that gauges cultures on the basis of their political high-score (as suggested by those who think it's OK to bash on Christianity) - both of those seem to me pretty incredible, as I don't see off-hand how a moral imperative follows from either kinds of evaluation. If somebody's really rooting for either of these, I'd be interested in seeing the train of thought sketched out in simple terms.
Posted By: ValamirIn terms of respect, accurate portrayal, and not misrepresenting I think we owe exactly the same consideration to the strong as to the weak. It is just as important for the weak to not demonize the strong with misrepresentation as it is for the strong to not demonize the weak. The use of dominant vs. marginalized language blurs that truth as it has done here.
Posted By: ValamirWhy I think this is important is because I don't think a person has the right to control or exert pressure on how art should be created on a culture that isn't theirs...no matter how much they self identify that it IS. Self identifying means nothing to me. People are still going to do it...they're still going to try to exert such pressure...but that doesn't mean they have the right to do so...and IMO when they don't have the right to do so then what they are expressing is no more than their personal opinion and preference. And it can be accepted and accounted for exactly the same as accepting and accounting for any personal opinion and preference...acted on...or ignored as the artist chooses.
Posted By: David Berg1) Make your game's culturally sensitive material publicly available prior to commercial release.
Posted By: StephaniePeggI have a curiousity about this - whose opinion would matter to you? If you were writing a game about, say, the American Revolution in the 18th century, what are the criteria that you would use for yourself to know that you'd done a good job in the game? Would your criteria change if your game was about the Middle Passage instead? Are they different criteria from if you wanted to write a game about being an American in Pennsylvania in 1975?
Posted By: Simon Pettersson1: I think that Ralph's point that the culture I live in today is not the same culture that my forefathers lived in is central to his viewpoint and has been misunderstood by many in this thread. I think it has some validity if you attempt to be objective. There is a danger in going for a "whoever is most offended wins" morality. That said, not wanting to offend people is an entirely different argument and a lot of great stuff has been said about it here. You guys are awesome.
Posted By: Eero TuovinenPosted By: David Berg1) Make your game's culturally sensitive material publicly available prior to commercial release.
Posted By: David BergPosted By: Eero TuovinenPosted By: David Berg1) Make your game's culturally sensitive material publicly available prior to commercial release.
Posted By: pigeonHonestly, I think that if you just posted something like "Hey, I'm doing a game about X culture and I'd be really interested in comments from gamers who are members of or well-versed in X culture to make sure I'm doing it justice" in a bunch of forums you'd be very likely to find some people who were interested in games, well-informed about the culture, and probably excited to help somebody do a thoughtful portrayal of a culture that probably doesn't show up very well in games. If I didn't know somebody already who knew about the culture in question, that's almost certainly what I'd do.
Posted By: ValamirYes, this. Whatever culture a person is living in today, and however dedicated they are to preserving yesterday, reenacting yesterday, remembering yesterday...its not yesterday. Standing in 2012 and trying to preserve the culture of ones ancestors from 1832, is not the same as the culture those ancestors lived in 1832. Its different. The 2012 culture of remembering 1832 is its own thing...separate and distinct from the 2012 culture of not giving a shit about 1832, and valuable in and of itself. But it is not the culture of 1832. The culture of 1832 is dead and gone and lives on only in memory...which is NOT the same thing as living on. The people in 1832 weren't trying to remember or preserve 1832...they were living it...as casually and as naturally as we live 2012. There is no one alive today who lives 1832 as casually and as naturally as the people of 1832 lived it...or (I highly suspect) knows anyone who lived that way in 1832...thus the culture of 1832 is gone...dead...past...no longer here.
Posted By: JDCorley"The law, in its majesty, forbids both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges and begging for bread."
Posted By: Simon PetterssonSo when I see stuff like "I was gonna include this stuff in my game but decided not to because I don't want to appropriate culture", it makes me sad, because excluding isn't a good thing, either. As long as you try to do it right and you're honest about it, including elements of marginalized cultures in your game is a good thing.
Posted By: ValamirWhatever culture a person is living in today, and however dedicated they are to preserving yesterday, reenacting yesterday, remembering yesterday...its not yesterday. Standing in 2012 and trying to preserve the culture of ones ancestors from 1832, is not the same as the culture those ancestors lived in 1832.