Mike Morhaime replies to open letter over diversity in Blizzard games.

[Daez]

You couldn't be more wrong about your 99%

Quick google research :

http://www.senseofcommunityresearch....ender-in-mmogs

Your search is meaningless. I think a study that is most likely conducted with researcher bias and I would even argue misquoted. If you look at the actual study... it says that Nielsen estimates 400,000 female players in WoW (in the same article you quoted). Wow has around 9 million players right now.... so, using you very study.... that you quoted... if you read the actual study title in the exact same article that you quoted and doing basic math... it comes out to .4%. Thanks for the link though.

- - - Updated - - -

Well firstly let's be honest here - Blizzard changes the story to comply with customer requests at the drop of a hat. They make and discard storylines all the time based on player response. It's why they made Garrosh into a villain, why Vol'jin is Warchief instead of Thrall, why War Crimes reverses Jaina's crazy anti-Horde stance etc. Blizzard introducing a gay character to please customers would be nothing new.

And secondly, it's something that doesn't actually have a negative impact on the story. Why are people acting like it's some choice between diversity and a good story? I'd argue the two are often linked. Diversity can help make a story better.

I think Blizzard going against Blizzard to introduce something just because some players want it is a very bad idea. Blizzard is a homophobic company... period. They have practiced anti-gay policies in the past and have never apologized for them. Being gay myself, I can handle that because I play a game to be entertained, not to make a personal agenda statement. However, that doesn't make it any less true...

http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/02/6129-2/
http://acidforblood.net/2006/01/blizzard-bans/

http://beta.slashdot.org/story/06/03/10/1810219/blizzard-ceo-lays-gay-guild-issue-to-rest
Total non-apology.

http://games-beta.slashdot.org/story/06/01/31/1548241/blizzard-responds-to-gay-guild-debate
Because players can't handle being harassed, and Blizzard can not handle the issue in the game community apparently.

~Now the question being... if they went on the warpath to attack gay players openly 8 years ago... how incredibly disingenuous are they if they suddenly add a gay character just for the sake of diversity... hmmm!?!

[Jessicka]

So are you not concerned with quality of writing? Are only concerned with quantity of characters?

I'm trying to figure out what your stance is since there's so many people defending diversity with so many different reasons.

I was specifically replying to Kaleredar's examples. It's entirely possible and believable to have a story about 5 middle aged white heterosexual men going on an adventure. I don't think diversity is essential in that respect to "tick boxes", at that point it's just a story about those few guys. It stretches credulity though if that adventure takes them across three worlds and they only ever encounter middle aged white heterosexual men.

Yeah, I am concerned with quality of writing. Characters drive story, and they shape the story's world. A lack of diversity in characters, makes for a very flat world. So I guess if you want my stance, it's not that I think it's necessary for the sake of it or to specifically be inclusive, as there are many examples where that can feel forced and ultimately counter-productive. It's because I think the story needs it.

[Varabently]

In a very general sense: "I got HotS Beta, but I won't play it. I have deleted all of my
Blizzard games and let my sub lapse as well. They will stay this way until women and
minorities get better representation in video games, particularly those made by Blizzard.
On that day I will rejoin the fanbase."

It's interesting that people think that in a fantasy world, there needs to be diversity that's similar to the real world. I mean who is to say (for example) that black people even exist in Azeroth? Darker skinned people only exist in our world because of their proximity to the equator. Does Azeroth have the same-shaped world and the same physics that would make for differently-skinned people?

My assumption would be no, since it's a different world altogether. There does seem to be varying climates in Azeroth (Winterspring vs. Silithus vs. Stranglethorn), but none suggest that there's a band of area that would create darker-skinned people. I'm no lore expert by any stretch of the imagination, so feel free to prove me wrong.

All I'm saying is, diversity only exists on Earth because of environmental and genetic issues, which may or may not exist in Azeroth, which is in fact fictional.

[Graeham]

Diversity for the sake of diversity is questionable. Diversity when and where it makes sense isn't. The thing is, Blizzard are perfectly content to include jokes that rely heavily upon the negative stereotypes surrounding gay men. It becomes very jarring when they're prepared to do that yet they can't be bothered to include a gay character that is presented in a non-invasive and tasteful manner. In other words, a character that just happens to be gay.

[Deleted]

yeah the Zealot character archetype is not sexist.
bad writing yes.
Not sexist.
Also give me one damsel character of any importance?.
http://wowpedia.org/Lyalia
Neither a Zealot or a damsel, your point seems rather hollow.

Yes it is sexist. Because the point of that character is to avoid the Damsel in Distress archetype, by creating a supposedly "strong, independent, badass" female character. Which is an admirable motive however it ends up resulting in a poorly written and unlikeable character - despite their good intentions Blizzard are demonstrating that they struggle with writing a strong female in a likeable manner.

It is true that there are relatively few major meek and quiet major female characters - mainly because Blizzard is getting so into the zealot archetype. Jaina pre-MoP fits the archetype very well however.

I am optimistic for the future however. Yrel seems to be shaping up pretty good and you're right Lyalia is neither a damsel nor a zealot. However in this thread I have only been speaking of major characters. Minor characters tend to have little characterisation and as such ironically end up more realistic in this world of cartoon characters. Hopefully things are changing, but as things stand there is still a long way to go.

- - - Updated - - -

It's interesting that people think that in a fantasy world, there needs to be diversity that's similar to the real world. I mean who is to say (for example) that black people even exist in Azeroth? Darker skinned people only exist in our world because of their proximity to the equator. Does Azeroth have the same-shaped world and the same physics that would make for differently-skinned people?

My assumption would be no, since it's a different world altogether. There does seem to be varying climates in Azeroth (Winterspring vs. Silithus vs. Stranglethorn), but none suggest that there's a band of area that would create darker-skinned people. I'm no lore expert by any stretch of the imagination, so feel free to prove me wrong.

All I'm saying is, diversity only exists on Earth because of environmental and genetic issues, which may or may not exist in Azeroth, which is in fact fictional.

Black people exist in WoW. You can create them in the character creation screen, and Black Dragons often disguise themselves as black people (which presumably they wouldn't do if they didn't exist - they want to blend in after all). And yet there are no major (and barely any minor) black, actually human lore characters.

[Deleted]

Yes it is sexist. Because the point of that character is to avoid the Damsel in Distress archetype,

you do realise this is an inherently stupid statement?. im speeding because im purposefully driving the speed limit.

by creating a supposedly "strong, independent, badass" female character. Which is an admirable motive however it ends up resulting in a poorly written and unlikeable character - despite their good intentions Blizzard are demonstrating that they struggle with writing a strong female in a likeable manner.

Why must the female be strong?, wouldn't a likeable female character be interesting on its own? using your prior "logic" having a strong female character is just sexist because they are trying not to be sexist.

It is true that there are relatively few major meek and quiet major female characters - mainly because Blizzard is getting so into the zealot archetype. Jaina pre-MoP fits the archetype very well however.

yeah still haven't established that the zealot archetype is in any way a sexist one though.

resulting in a poorly written and unlikeable character

THAT'S NOT SEXISM

Black people exist in WoW. You can create them in the character creation screen, and Black Dragons often disguise themselves as black people (which presumably they wouldn't do if they didn't exist - they want to blend in after all). And yet there are no major (and barely any minor) black, actually human lore characters.

what we can do as player avatars aren't necessarily canon however, there are female druids for instance.

[Deleted]

you do realise this is an inherently stupid statement?. im speeding because im purposefully driving the speed limit.

It's more like, I'm speeding by trying to stick to the speed limit.

Why must the female be strong?, wouldn't a likeable female character be interesting on its own? using your prior "logic" having a strong female character is just sexist because they are trying not to be sexist.

That's not what I was arguing.

yeah still haven't established that the zealot archetype is in any way a sexist one though.

I have established it quite clearly. You just can't seem to comprehend my posts. It's sexist because almost every time Blizzard attempts to write a badass, independent woman it results in a unlikeable character.

THAT'S NOT SEXISM

Not inherently. But if it stems from a sexist mind set it is.

what we can do as player avatars aren't necessarily canon however, there are female druids for instance.

[QUOTE=goblinpaladin;28273827]

Female druids exist in lore. Everything our avatars can be is canon, even if the individual player characters aren't canon. There are also black NPCs as well however they are almost always incredibly minor.

[Tharkkun]

An opinion will never be a fact no matter how many times you repeat it in this thread.

[Deleted]

An opinion will never be a fact no matter how many times you repeat it in this thread.

When have I ever stated any of my opinions as fact? I'm sorry if I didn't clarify every sentence with "in my opinion".

[Thimagryn]

It's entirely possible and believable to have a story about 5 middle aged white heterosexual men going on an adventure. I don't think diversity is essential in that respect to "tick boxes", at that point it's just a story about those few guys. It stretches credulity though if that adventure takes them across three worlds and they only ever encounter middle aged white heterosexual men.

Understandable. But what I'm concerned with is the narrow perspective that most who argue this seem to have. I mean sure Varian and Anduin are going to be present in the story, because they are arguably the face of the Alliance; the main characters. Does this mean that every other character that has been encountered who does not follow into the next expansion's story can be ignored? I mean we aren't only ever encountering middle aged white heterosexual men. That's not what Wrathion is, that's not who Lorewalker Cho is, that isn't who Yrel is. We encounter entirely new races like Hozen and Jinyu, with their own cultures and ideals. Do they not count towards the diversity argument simply because they did not become main characters of the overall Warcraft storyline?

Yeah, I am concerned with quality of writing. Characters drive story, and they shape the story's world. A lack of diversity in characters, makes for a very flat world. So I guess if you want my stance, it's not that I think it's necessary for the sake of it or to specifically be inclusive, as there are many examples where that can feel forced and ultimately counter-productive. It's because I think the story needs it.

I see the Warcraft storyline as a whole, rather than with tunnel vision on the 'current focus' of the story as shown to us through cinematics or raid content. I don't see where the argument for lack of diversity comes from when again, we're interacting with new races and NPCs with every expansion. In my previous arguments, I've said that the story focuses only on a select few main characters at a time, so I don't think making a diverse cast is going to help because there isn't enough room to make everyone a main character.

TBH I don't think we lack diversity at all. We've had characters like Lorewalker Cho and Wrathion be just as prominent in the story as Anduin. If you're specifically talking about sexual diversity, I really don't know how Blizzard could tackle this. They're in a lose-lose position no matter where they turn. Do you remember Ji Firepaw in MoP Alpha? He says to your character "Wow you are some kind of gorgeous aren't you? I can tell we are going to be good friends!", no matter if you're male or female. There was a lot of controversy around this one bit of arguably placeholder text. There was more controversy when they removed/changed it.

I really don't know how they could tackle homosexual characters in Warcraft. Even if it was just a side character that nobody gives a shit about, the fact that they are homosexual will be used to prop them up as a pillar of representing every homosexual in Warcraft. This means they would have to start out by making a main character openly gay and fit them into the story in a way that makes sense. Sure they could do this, but when you think of the overall plot and how disconnected the main characters in the story are from our own characters, you will begin to question why even bother mentioning this character's sexuality when it has nothing to do with fighting the Burning Legion or stopping the Old Gods from turning us into mindless slaves. And yes, it did bother me that Jaina and Kalec were put into a relationship together, because I just don't see the point of telling that in the middle of an ongoing faction war. And I guess that pushes my point - if Blizzard is already this bad at writing relationship stories, why woudl you want them to write about homosexuals?

[Deleted]

As has been said about a million times, character's sexualities are mentioned many many many times. I would wager every single zone has at least one romance in it, even if it is just two NPC's who are married. That's how you introduce a gay character - the same way you introduce a straight character. I don't think Blizzard handles relationships any more poorly than anything else, so I'd like to see diversity in them.

[Doombringer]

I'm sorry, but Blizzard should not feel that they need to cater to ANY group -- be they of a sexual, political, or religious viewpoint. Dustin and Rob had it right -- they're not here to make social commentary or crusade for anything. They're making GAMES. I don't look to GAMES to push any agenda, even a good one.

I fear the day someone writes an open letter to Mike Morhaime, decrying that Blizzard has not included the Flying Spaghetti Monster in their pantheon of deities, or some such nonsense.

[Thimagryn]

As has been said about a million times, character's sexualities are mentioned many many many times. I would wager every single zone has at least one romance in it, even if it is just two NPC's who are married. That's how you introduce a gay character - the same way you introduce a straight character. I don't think Blizzard handles relationships any more poorly than anything else, so I'd like to see diversity in them.

But didn't you also say most females are reverted to being arm candy? That's associated with having them in relationships in the first place. If those female characters were not in relationships, they wouldn't come under scrutiny. Jaina was fine, until they paired her up with Kalec.

I think it's a double edged sword argument. The relationships aren't poor, yet female characters are always seen as arm candy? And knowing they can't write romance very well, we still want to see homosexual characters who are openly gay and proud of it? I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying what's being asked here and what's being wanted are two different things. I think it should be left to companies like Bioware who openly embrace character relationships with different sexual preferences for stories where it matters. In Warcraft's case, I think romance is better left out of the story altogether unless it has a strong tie in to the main plot. They are incapable of writing romance in a way where we actually care about it.

[Deleted]

But didn't you also say most females are reverted to being arm candy? That's associated with having them in relationships in the first place. If those female characters were not in relationships, they wouldn't come under scrutiny. Jaina was fine, until they paired her up with Kalec.

I think it's a double edged sword argument. The relationships aren't poor, yet female characters are always seen as arm candy? And knowing they can't write romance very well, we still want to see homosexual characters who are openly gay and proud of it? I'm not saying it can't be done, or that it shouldn't be done. I'm just saying what's being asked here and what's being wanted are two different things. I think it should be left to companies like Bioware who openly embrace character relationships with different sexual preferences for stories where it matters. In Warcraft's case, I think romance is better left out of the story altogether unless it has a strong tie in to the main plot. They are incapable of writing romance in a way where we actually care about it.

All I want is equality. If that means badly written homosexuals then fine, so long as they're not badly written due to homophobia. Pretty much all of WoW is bad writing. If we're to exclude stuff we want from WoW because it might be written badly, WoW wouldn't have a story at all. Hopefully, Blizzard is becoming more aware of this. In the past it wasn't as noticeable because WoW delivered the story very poorly. You could mostly fill the gaps in with your own imagination. It's only been recently (since Cata and Especially Mists) that Blizzard has gotten really in depth with the story. Hopefully they get the hang of it soon.

[Deleted]

It's more like, I'm speeding by trying to stick to the speed limit.

Still stupid.

It's sexist because almost every time Blizzard attempts to write a badass, independent woman it results in a unlikeable character.

Thats not sexist.
If i make a badas independent woman (hitting all feminist PC criteria) and said character is hated, it may or may not be bad writing (the audience might just think the author is preachy) But in NO SENSE OF THE WORD IS IT SEXISTS.

Not inherently. But if it stems from a sexist mind set it is.

No.
a racist and sexist dick, can still write an engaging and thoughtful minority character its not likely but there is nothing that inherently makes what that person does those things.

Female druids exist in lore. Everything our avatars can be is canon, even if the individual player characters aren't canon. There are also black NPCs as well however they are almost always incredibly minor.

I May be mistaken but canonically i don't think there are any female druids, or were at least.

[Deleted]

Still stupid.

Why? If you break the law by speeding, you can't defend yourself by saying you thought you were within the limit. Sexism is still sexism. Obviously misguided attempts at being progressive are better than straight up misogyny but it's still not good enough.

Thats not sexist.
If i make a badas independent woman (hitting all feminist PC criteria) and said character is hated, it may or may not be bad writing (the audience might just think the author is preachy) But in NO SENSE OF THE WORD IS IT SEXISTS.

When virtually every single such character ends up in the same place, there is a problem. You are free to disagree but for me that problem is sexism.

No.
a racist and sexist dick, can still write an engaging and thoughtful minority character its not likely but there is nothing that inherently makes what that person does those things.

I disagree. A bigot is not going to write a minority character well.

I May be mistaken but canonically i don't think there are any druids, or were at least.

It used to be the case that only males could be Druids, however the rules were changed to allow female Nelfs to also become Druids. This was done with player characters in mind but is also applied to Lore characters. There are multiple female Druid NPCs e.g Elerethe Renferal.

[Thimagryn]

All I want is equality. If that means badly written homosexuals then fine, so long as they're not badly written due to homophobia. Pretty much all of WoW is bad writing. If we're to exclude stuff we want from WoW because it might be written badly, WoW wouldn't have a story at all. Hopefully, Blizzard is becoming more aware of this. In the past it wasn't as noticeable because WoW delivered the story very poorly. You could mostly fill the gaps in with your own imagination. It's only been recently (since Cata and Especially Mists) that Blizzard has gotten really in depth with the story. Hopefully they get the hang of it soon.

You say that now, but earlier in the thread you heavily criticized the integrity of the writing as being the source of the problems here, and having no problems with the quantity of characters. Yet now you're establishing the problem to be quantity over quality? You say it's fine, but prior to this, badly written females was not acceptable, and I believe 'equality' was used as a part of that argument.

I don't see how badly written homosexuals will actually do anything to rectify the situation. If they add in homosexual romance in any way, they would have to focus on it. If they don't, it would be brought to the front by someone else, and then picked apart with a completely different argument like not making them prominent in the story. TBH because it's still a controversial subject today, Blizzard does well to not comply to any social standards.

They should write the stories as they see fit. If that doesn't involve homosexual characters, then so be it. If it does, then so be it! They shouldn't be populating the world with homosexual characters just to fill some status quo however. That does not create equality.

TBH, I haven't seen many arguments from people who do want to see more homosexuals to fill a status quo. I did read one article that pointed out that there are NPCs who refer to opposite sex relationships (Ji hints that you must be popular with the opposite sex), and I would agree that NPCs should not be making those kind of distinctions. Other than that though, I really don't see why NPCs need to be 'outed' when NPC sexual preference is not important to world setting or the story.

[Lincoln Lawyer]

If you want to fight for people's rights grab a stick and a cardboard and stand post, otherwise stop trying to be armchair activists, no one gives a fuck that World of Warcraft has two guys giving tongue to each other. Hell, we barely even have typical romance. We just learn "hey, Agra's knocked up". Yeah? Where was my scenario for that?

[Deleted]

Why? If you break the law by speeding, you can't defend yourself by saying you thought you were within the limit. Sexism is still sexism. Obviously misguided attempts at being progressive are better than straight up misogyny but it's still not good enough.

Yeah No, if you weren't speeding you weren't speeding.
They were not speeding.
In this context they were driving 10 miles slower than the speed limit to not be speeding, So in no sense of the word were they Speeding.

When virtually every single such character ends up in the same place, there is a problem. You are free to disagree but for me that problem is sexism.

Yeah its bad writing but that's not the same as sexism.
the damsel archetype is sexist, but even then you can have one without being sexist.
The Zealot character is not based on the characters sex, ergo its not sexist, sticking lots of characters here can be argued to be bad writing, but that's not sexism.
Garry is also a zealot, is that sexist?
You might have a point if women were routinely badly written relative to the men, then the work, not the characters, could be argued to be sexist, but as Everything is badly written that's a moot point.

I disagree. A bigot is not going to write a minority character well.

balance off probabilities yes, not guarantee.
(think of all 1800-1900 literature, don't you think i cant find one misogynist that wrote a good female character?).

It used to be the case that only males could be Druids, however the rules were changed to allow female Nelfs to also become Druids. This was done with player characters in mind but is also applied to Lore characters. There are multiple female Druid NPCs e.g Elerethe Renferal.

well that settles that then.

[Deleted]

You say that now, but earlier in the thread you heavily criticized the integrity of the writing as being the source of the problems here, and having no problems with the quantity of characters. Yet now you're establishing the problem to be quantity over quality? You say it's fine, but prior to this, badly written females was not acceptable, and I believe 'equality' was used as a part of that argument.

I don't see how badly written homosexuals will actually do anything to rectify the situation. If they add in homosexual romance in any way, they would have to focus on it. If they don't, it would be brought to the front by someone else, and then picked apart with a completely different argument like not making them prominent in the story. TBH because it's still a controversial subject today, Blizzard does well to not comply to any social standards.

They should write the stories as they see fit. If that doesn't involve homosexual characters, then so be it. If it does, then so be it! They shouldn't be populating the world with homosexual characters just to fill some status quo however. That does not create equality.

TBH, I haven't seen many arguments from people who do want to see more homosexuals to fill a status quo. I did read one article that pointed out that there are NPCs who refer to opposite sex relationships (Ji hints that you must be popular with the opposite sex), and I would agree that NPCs should not be making those kind of distinctions. Other than that though, I really don't see why NPCs need to be 'outed' when NPC sexual preference is not important to world setting or the story.

But it is an important part of the world and setting. Heterosexual relationships permeate every single zone in World of Warcraft. It's just hard to notice because even if you're not straight heterosexuality is the norm.

In any case: yes, the bad writing in WoW is a problem. I'd like it to get better. But if it doesn't get better I don't see why that should preclude stuff I'd like being written into the story. I'll say again - if we're going to ignore certain plot points in WoW because they might not be written well, WoW may as well not have a story.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah No, if you weren't speeding you weren't speeding.
They were not speeding.
In this context they were driving 10 miles slower than the speed limit to not be speeding, So in no sense of the word were they Speeding.

I feel this analogy has gone on a bit too long. I disagree with you on it.

Yeah its bad writing but that's not the same as sexism.
the damsel archetype is sexist, but even then you can have one without being sexist.
The Zealot character is not based on the characters sex, ergo its not sexist, sticking lots of characters here can be argued to be bad writing, but that's not sexism.
Garry is also a zealot, is that sexist?
You might have a point if women were routinely badly written relative to the men, then the work, not the characters, could be argued to be sexist, but as Everything is badly written that's a moot point.

Yes you can have a damsel without being sexist. Afterall, some women are actually like that. It's sexist when it becomes a pattern and thankfully it isn't much of a pattern in WoW. But mainly because of the zealot archetype which I must insist is sexist. I really feel as though you're missing my point. It doesn't matter if Garrosh is a zealot. Garrosh wasn't written to prove that men can be strong and badass. That's what I'm finding sexist about this archetype: Writers think they can just give a woman some ass-kicking abilities and give her a tough, no nonsense attitude and that is what makes a strong woman. But it isn't. Or at least it's not the only way of making a strong woman. If there were just one or two of these zealots that would be fine, but it is practically every single major female character.

balance off probabilities yes, not guarantee.
(think of all 1800-1900 literature, don't you think i cant find one misogynist that wrote a good female character?).

Some flukes may be possible, but that doesn't change the underlying issues in the work.