Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Lynata wrote:
For me, character customisation tends to be a fairly big/important element in games that actually feature strong RPG elements. This is not because I somehow desire to insert myself into the game (which I'd actually find a bit bland - it's far more entertaining to create a character that actually builds upon and utilises all the background details of the world the game is set in), but because I like to regard such experiences like a movie or a story of which I am the "director", so to say. Needless to say, we all have different opinions and personal preferences about how we like our movies and books, and gravitate towards different ideas for how we would picture a hero, or what kind of protagonist we'd like to see. If you had the ability to alter a movie character's visual appearance, would you truly refrain from using it? Every time?

This is not to say that predefined character appearances automatically make a game or a movie gak, but in my opinion it certainly is something which plays a role in my overall assessment of the game, added to by how much I like said game's other aspects, and how much I like/dislike whatever the developers have chosen to "force" on me in terms of the character I am supposed to play. If the designers manage to craft a protagonist who I think looks awesome by default, I won't miss customisation options. But these options being available makes it so much less likely for me to give a game a lower score because I think the hero looks boring. Plus, I like to be creative and toy around with customisation options. Creating cool characters is almost(?) a form of art unto itself.

That make any sense?

That's a much more eloquent version of my position

 Melissia wrote:
It's very sandboxy. There's a main quest, sure, if you want it. But what you do before, during, or after it, or whether you do it at all, is up to you. It doesn't force you to do it.

It's like Minecraft in that regard. When you kill the Ender Dragon, have you "beaten" Minecraft?

Skyrim is onthing like minecraft. In in minecraft pursuing elder dragon is purely your choise but in skyrim the second you exit tutorial dungeon you are marked with the quest forever in your todo list. Like in gta 4 the game allows you to dick around indefinitely but in the end of the day game tells what you should and shouldn't do.

 illuknisaa wrote:
In in minecraft pursuing elder dragon is purely your choise but in skyrim the second you exit tutorial dungeon you are marked with the quest forever in your todo list..

So?

The game's saying "well, here's our storyline quest, you can do it any time you want, or not." That's not forcing you to do anything. So what if it's in your quest list? Doesn't mean you have to do it to progress in the game.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
It's very sandboxy. There's a main quest, sure, if you want it. But what you do before, during, or after it, or whether you do it at all, is up to you. It doesn't force you to do it.

It's like Minecraft in that regard. When you kill the Ender Dragon, have you "beaten" Minecraft?

Skyrim is onthing like minecraft. In in minecraft pursuing elder dragon is purely your choise but in skyrim the second you exit tutorial dungeon you are marked with the quest forever in your todo list. Like in gta 4 the game allows you to dick around indefinitely but in the end of the day game tells what you should and shouldn't do.

It's entirely up to the player if they want to pursue said quest of just leave it there forever.

I've never actually completed the main storyline and I've done the three main archeotype characters (stealth, fighter, magic) at least once to level 40+

What I will say to this debate is that Skyrim essentially has an ending, there is an end to the sidequests and exploration of the world. In skyrim there is only a finite number of things to do and see.

Minecraft has infinite procedural generation, and sandbox capacity, so technically you could just not do the ender dragon.

 Melissia wrote:
I'll pick the one that isn't an all-white sausage festival over the one that is.

So you'd have a problem with, say, The Last of Us because the main character in that game is a white guy in his mid 50's?

I have a problem seeing how L.A. Noire would work with middle aged Hispanic woman as a main protagonist.

Exactly. Most of the time protagonists aren't interchangeable, especially when you're dealing with period/historic pieces.

Though there are, on the other hand, a lot of cases where it would be possible, but where "conventional wisdom" simply suggests it shouldn't be.

I remember how, for example, the developers of War of the Roses said they would not have female characters because that wouldn't be realistic - completely disregarding historical accounts that women did, in fact, take to the field in that time period. And why? I do not believe in malicious/sexist intent on part of the developers, but that the past couple centuries have successfully written out the role of women in public perception. You just don't get told about stuff like this in school, you have to delve into very specific research on your own time. Movies and video games all play a role in propagating this falsified and manipulated history by affecting the gamer's perception, suggesting that "this is how it was" by repeating what they heard elsewhere. It's probably a miracle that people are at least somewhat aware that there were women fighting in WW2's Red Army, giving all the games and movies that simply ignore it. Napoleonic Wars, medieval times, feudal Japan, WW1, however? 99% of the people you'd ask would tell you that the only place you'd find a woman was the kitchen.

This affects me, too. In Mount & Blade Napoleonic Wars, I have on principle only played male soldiers as it's just part of the setting, right? I did not even consider the alternative, even though the game offers it.
Only now, as I actually check up on the subject to make sure my post isn't total bollocks, do I find out that there was stuff like Wellington having a female captain in his forces.

It's certainly a tricky subject in that one should differ between "hardcoded rules" of a society, and what would merely be a perceived average. In the example of L.A. Noire, a female cop would be an anachronistic oddity - yet if the game would be focused on a criminal career, a woman should pose no problem at all, and the same goes for non-white men.
At the same time, for better or worse there is a certain appeal to established archetypes, and the classic white man with suit, hat and thompson is what springs to mind first when thinking about the setting. Ultimately, it all depends on how the player character is introduced, and where we all draw our own lines as to what we'd deem "fitting". This individual perception fuels much of the debate in this thread.

No one* would appreciate a means to edit Gorden Freeman's beard instead of a new episode of his exploits.

I'd rather have a bearded white mail protagonist in a Portal reboot.

Also, replace GLADOS with a Rastafarian tracheotomy-patient voice.

 Doctadeth wrote:
Minecraft has infinite procedural generation, and sandbox capacity, so technically you could just not do the ender dragon.

It also has no story, no voice acting, no cutscenes, and no characters; it is computer Legos for the console generation; it has no end because it doesn't really have a beginning.

Oh, I hadn't seen this thread! I've not bought games because they didn't offer female characters before. A perspective for you:

 Manchu wrote:
That doesn't strike me as a good enough reason by itself, however, to avoid critically acclaimed games where the protagonist is a straight white male. The issue is simple. The protagonist is not always the player's avatar. Kirsanth made the point that roleplaying isn't always about creating the role you assume. While true, the real issue here is that not every game that has RPG elements actually involves assuming a role.

The thing is, there are already way more games in the world than I can play. I'll play and enjoy games where you can only play a guy, but there are so many cool games where you can play a female character that I don't feel obliged to, and I'm totally comfortable buying a game because it has a cool female protagonist (Melissia mentioned Bleed earlier in the thread - that was one fitting that description) or skipping a game because I can't play a female character in it (Killing Floor, for example).

Often, the ones I care the most in are where you play a generic self-insert sort of character. I don't feel obliged to support a multiplayer game that acts like women don't play video games, like Killing Floor. I enjoyed Mount & Blade, but felt comfortable skipping that new one (Fire & Sword, or something? It escapes me right now) when I found out you couldn't play a female character. Being able to play a female character does make me more likely to play a game - Mount & Blade, for example, was one I bought because being able to play an awesome female character is great. Bladestorm was another. Tenchu Z!!! (Yes, I know I'm the only person in the world who enjoyed that game) With so many great games to play with female protagonists, I don't mind writing off ones that don't.

I wouldn't say all games are improved by character customisation, though. Often it's superfluous. I think the biggest thing is that game developers shouldn't feel obliged to fill in the blanks when it's unnecessary. For some reason I'm thinking of Quantum Conundrum and how the player character is explicitly male even though there's no real reason for it.

And yeah, being able to pick Peach in Super Mario Bros 2 "just picking a character for overpowered float"? Maybe if you're a guy.

like Killing Floor.

Killing Floor has a female character model :/

Being able to have choice in relation to a character is, generally speaking, good.

Unless the story is based around a particular character.

Such generalities ignore the actual issue - choosing a character is part of a game. Sometimes however, that choice is - and should be - in the hands of devs. Tomb Raider would be crap with user generated characters.

Journey would be less than worthless.

The choice in character assumes that a game panders to it.

 LordofHats wrote:

like Killing Floor.

Killing Floor has a female character model :/

The last time I cared was when they were talking about adding one and the discussion was about whether she'd be a paid DLC character or not. At the time, all the playable characters were male, though I understand there was a female NPC merchant with sexually suggestive lines - I don't really consider that a plus.

Looks like she's still paid DLC. Female player tax in effect!

Ah. Gotcha XD I've only played the game since long after its release so for me she was always there lol

 LordofHats wrote:
Ah. Gotcha XD I've only played the game since long after its release so for me she was always there lol

It looked like a fun game! But there are lots of fun games and I'm okay with giving some a pass based on what might appear to some to be a pretty arbitrary criterion.

I actually did not enjoy Killing Floor. I think I'd have liked it when it came out cause I was way into Unreal back then, but I got it in like, 2011. Such a dated game by then XD

kirsanth wrote:Sometimes however, that choice is - and should be - in the hands of devs. Tomb Raider would be crap with user generated characters.

I don't know. Why?

As I said, if I find a character interesting, I won't miss customisation options. And often, a good story crafted around said character, may be sufficient for me to overlook it. I named Deus Ex HR as well as ME3's default Femshep earlier as one example for this.
But why exactly would Deus Ex, or Tomb Raider, have been "crap" if you could customise the character? In the case of Tomb Raider, is this just because we are already used to Lara? Because that's a pretty lame reason. How exactly would it have influenced the story if Lara would have had red, blonde, or black hair? A different haircut? Or if it had been *gasp* a guy?

 Lynata wrote:
It's certainly a tricky subject in that one should differ between "hardcoded rules" of a society, and what would merely be a perceived average. In the example of L.A. Noire, a female cop would be an anachronistic oddity - yet if the game would be focused on a criminal career, a woman should pose no problem at all, and the same goes for non-white men.

At the same time, for better or worse there is a certain appeal to established archetypes, and the classic white man with suit, hat and thompson is what springs to mind first when thinking about the setting. Ultimately, it all depends on how the player character is introduced, and where we all draw our own lines as to what we'd deem "fitting". This individual perception fuels much of the debate in this thread.

A female copn that is also an ex-Marine who fought the Japanese in WWII? Yeah. I don't think "anachronistic" would really cover that.

But that's really my point. Characters aren’t always interchangeable, as I said, but more importantly a lot of the “why can’t it be a women?” arguments tend to ignore the very story the game is telling. You couldn’t have Bookerina Dewitt in Bioshock Infinite as it wouldn’t work. Maxine Payne? No. These characters are central to the story being told and central to the settings that you play within. Removing them from the game would be like removing Dinosaurs from Jurassic Park and replacing them with giant angry Koalas – it would destroy what the whole product is trying to get across.

It comes back to what Manchu said about whether a story’s gender serves the story or is independent of the story. I’m playing through Mass Effect for the first time right now, and I’m playing as FemShep. But it doesn’t really matter. All that changes in Mass Effect is whether people say “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”. Nothing significant changes (other than Jennifer Hale’s voice acting, which is always preferred – same reason my Jaden Korr from Jedi Academy was a woman, even if canonically Jaden Korr is a man).

Going back to L.A. Noire, Colleen Phelps over Cole Phelps simply wouldn’t make sense, and I think it’s wrong to criticise a game like that for not including a female option when said option would make no sense in context with the story being told or the universe being portrayed.

Race is even less important IMO. I played through Prototype 2 and at no point did I say “Wow! I’m playing as a black guy!”. Ditto goes for The Walking Dead which I’m playing through at the moment (when taking breaks from Mass Effect).

 Lynata wrote:
But why exactly would Deus Ex, or Tomb Raider, have been "crap" if you could customise the character? In the case of Tomb Raider, is this just because we are already used to Lara? Because that's a pretty lame reason. How exactly would it have influenced the story if Lara would have had red, blonde, or black hair? A different haircut? Or if it had been *gasp* a guy?

You're talking about two different things.

Hair colour and whatnot - that's superficial and aesthetic. It has no real impact on gameplay. Taking Lara Croft out of a Tomb Raider game though, well... would you take Indiana Jones out of an Indiana Jones movie? The games are about that character. Removing that character leaves the game without a focus and it ceases to be a Tomb Raider game.

I think that here we are touching upon the subject of what exactly defines a character, as in personality, abilities, quirks.

You say that any modification of Lara Croft's appearance would "remove the character". Can you elaborate on this? What role do factors such as hair colour/type or gender play in how a person must behave? I think this is pigeonholing, influenced by what I believe to be a subconscious belief in the validity of stereotypes.

You ask if I would take Indiana Jones out of an Indiana Jones movie, then argueing that "the games are about that character", yet at the same time you claim that "it doesn't really matter" for Mass Effect. Is Mass Effect not about Commander Shepard?
On the flipside, how would it really affect Lara Croft if she had short, black hair, or if she had been a young guy? What role do such details play for character development and central story points?

In this, you still owe this thread some more explanation on your statements. You argued with anachronisms, which I already agreed to. But the rest? What exactly would be wrong with a "Maxina Payne"? Mind you, I have not played this game, but from what I can see it plays in a modern setting, so there shouldn't be any reason why the character's visual appearance needs to be confined to such a specific shape.

Where I would agree is that certain specific appearances (and I am not talking about gender alone, but details such as muscles, hairstyle, clothing) may seem more fitting or interesting to a game's theme and thus make it sell better ... but then again, this too is very subjective, as we all have obvious differences in taste. Customisation would provide a way out and offer each of us what they'd like to see.

 Lynata wrote:
You say that any modification of Lara Croft's appearance would "remove the character". Can you elaborate on this?

I didn't say that at all.

What I said was:

"Hair colour and whatnot - that's superficial and aesthetic. It has no real impact on game play."

 Lynata wrote:
Is Mass Effect not about Commander Shepard?

Not really. Mass Effect (and keep in mind I've not played ME2 or ME3, so my experiences are based upon the first game alone) is about a guy called Saren trying to bring back the Reapers. That they chose Commander Sheppard to deal with the issue is irrelevant. It could have been any Spectre, or they could have chosen a different person to be the first human Spectre. Shepard is a reactionary participant in a story. The story drives the character, rather than the character driving the story.

This is what Manchu is getting at when he talks about the Skyrim protagonist driving the story. There are story missions that advance the plot, but don't have to be central to game play or you can even ignore them completely if you so wish. It's your character, choosing his or her own destiny. ME doesn't work that way.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But that's really my point. Characters aren’t always interchangeable, as I said, but more importantly a lot of the “why can’t it be a women?” arguments tend to ignore the very story the game is telling. You couldn’t have Bookerina Dewitt in Bioshock Infinite as it wouldn’t work. Maxine Payne? No. These characters are central to the story being told and central to the settings that you play within. Removing them from the game would be like removing Dinosaurs from Jurassic Park and replacing them with giant angry Koalas – it would destroy what the whole product is trying to get across.

Occasionally you'll run into a game where the main character couldn't be anyone else. Booker DeWitt, though? I think that's a really bad example because he could easily be a woman and tell the same story. A couple of the details might differ, but as a whole the story would work fine.

The La Noire guy? Maybe.

It comes back to what Manchu said about whether a story’s gender serves the story or is independent of the story. I’m playing through Mass Effect for the first time right now, and I’m playing as FemShep. But it doesn’t really matter. All that changes in Mass Effect is whether people say “he” or “she”, “him” or “her”. Nothing significant changes (other than Jennifer Hale’s voice acting, which is always preferred – same reason my Jaden Korr from Jedi Academy was a woman, even if canonically Jaden Korr is a man).

Going back to L.A. Noire, Colleen Phelps over Cole Phelps simply wouldn’t make sense, and I think it’s wrong to criticise a game like that for not including a female option when said option would make no sense in context with the story being told or the universe being portrayed.

Okay, but the original context of this discussion was the Xcom game. In the video, it's a bunch of dudes running around. Melissia said something about "games that aren't stupid" and a bunch of guys got offended.

Is the new Xcom game going to be a deep exploration of masculinity in 1950s America? Developer interviews have said it won't, and that there won't be any female soldiers in the game at all. At the end of the day, the game developers decided several things:

- to set their game in a time period that was much less equal than today;
- that the world being invaded by aliens and chest-high walls was more plausible than having female soldiers in the Xcom project
- that the desire of female players to be represented in the game was unimportant (note here that research shows women overwhelmingly choose to play female characters in games when presented with the option, as opposed to men, who will play either)

These are all conscious decisions that shaped the game and shaped it to the detriment of some people. If someone sees a game has been made to her detriment then she's well within her rights to call it stupid.

Because it is stupid.

(And good lord, what an off-hand comment to spawn pages of discussion and an entire thread.)

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The La Noire guy? Maybe.

No. Not maybe. Not at all.

Ex-Marine just back from WWII and joining the LAPD? Not going to be a woman.

Men and women are not (always) interchangeable, and one cannot (and should not) ignore story, setting and context for the sake of token diversity.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Okay, but the original context of this discussion was the Xcom game. In the video, it's a bunch of dudes running around. Melissia said something about "games that aren't stupid" and a bunch of guys got offended.

Is the new Xcom game going to be a deep exploration of masculinity in 1950s America?

At this point I'm not sure if we're talking about X-Com, the turn-based top-down tactical game, or X-Com: Betrayal Edition, the first person (or maybe now third person) cover-based shooter. I'm guessing the latter yes? In which case, it's set in the 50's. Female "agents" in those sorts of field positions weren't really a thing yet. Yes, they existed - they existed as far back as the 20's IIRC (correct me there if I'm wrong) - but generally speaking in the 50's was still a time where the overwhelming majority of "generic field agents" were male. Female support staff? Of course, and certainly in a post WWII world. But just because it sticks to its period doesn't make it sexist (outside of any general sexism native to the period which is neither the developers' fault nor are they perpetuating it), or even a "deep exploration of masculinity in 1950's America".

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
- to set their game in a time period that was much less equal than today;

And really that should be the end of the discussion. They've given a context - 1950's America. A lot of groups that have rights today didn't have rights then, and thus wouldn't be represented in the game. Getting annoyed that they're sticking to an actual history setting is petty.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The La Noire guy? Maybe.

No. Not maybe. Not at all.

Ex-Marine just back from WWII and joining the LAPD? Not going to be a woman.

I don't have an opinion on LA Noire's choice of characters because I haven't played it. That's why I said "maybe."

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Men and women are not (always) interchangeable, and one cannot (and should not) ignore story, setting and context for the sake of token diversity.

At the same time, stories do not get delivered to writers on basalt tablets from God. Writing is work, and writing is prejudiced by the person writing it and their culture. Including a variety of characters isn't compromising some holy and pure story.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Okay, but the original context of this discussion was the Xcom game. In the video, it's a bunch of dudes running around. Melissia said something about "games that aren't stupid" and a bunch of guys got offended.

Is the new Xcom game going to be a deep exploration of masculinity in 1950s America?

At this point I'm not sure if we're talking about X-Com, the turn-based top-down tactical game, or X-Com: Betrayal Edition, the first person (or maybe now third person) cover-based shooter. I'm guessing the latter yes? In which case, it's set in the 50's. Female "agents" in those sorts of field positions weren't really a thing yet. Yes, they existed - they existed as far back as the 20's IIRC (correct me there if I'm wrong) - but generally speaking in the 50's was still a time where the overwhelming majority of "generic field agents" were male. Female support staff? Of course, and certainly in a post WWII world. But just because it sticks to its period doesn't make it sexist (outside of any general sexism native to the period which is neither the developers' fault nor are they perpetuating it), or even a "deep exploration of masculinity in 1950's America".

What seems to have sparked this discussion was a woman calling a game stupid, offhand, because it was another in a long line of games with a generic white male protagonist designed to appeal to an assumed white male player, and part of a game series that has historically represented people who aren't white males. When you take a game series known for a certain positive attribute and then remove that positive attribute, people are sometimes upset, especially when they see it as being in service of pandering to an assumed lowest common denominator (and especially when they aren't actually included in that lowest common denominator at all). Personally, I feel it's entirely reasonable to glibly call it stupid as a result.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
- to set their game in a time period that was much less equal than today;

And really that should be the end of the discussion. They've given a context - 1950's America. A lot of groups that have rights today didn't have rights then, and thus wouldn't be represented in the game. Getting annoyed that they're sticking to an actual history setting is petty.

Failing to represent people isn't a neutral action. Taking a series that's known for its diversity and whitemalewashing it, even though it's a fantasy game, is not a neutral action. It's excluding people. And for heaven's sake, a woman in an elite covert agency is past the line when you have aliens running around? Really?

Melissia's suggestion of a character editor was actually really reasonable as the least disruptive option. It lets you have your sexismtopia fantasyland if you want to while letting people who don't want that still enjoy the game.

In its absence, she's well within her rights to, in an offhand comment, call the game stupid. Even if it offends a whole bunch of guys.

Melissia wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
In in minecraft pursuing elder dragon is purely your choise but in skyrim the second you exit tutorial dungeon you are marked with the quest forever in your todo list..

So?

The game's saying "well, here's our storyline quest, you can do it any time you want, or not." That's not forcing you to do anything. So what if it's in your quest list? Doesn't mean you have to do it to progress in the game.

No game's saying that "END IS NIGH! and only you can save us" and your character has to comply. I can't say "zog off" to guestgiver or even say that "I have things to take care of first". My character has no opinion one way or the other aka my character is the same faceless drone that everyone else has. Nothing happens unless I do something unlike in M&B where Nords wage constant war, swadia gets attacked by everybody etc.

I can be a furry stormcloak running in imperial armor in front of ulfric and nobody gives a gak.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

like Killing Floor.

Killing Floor has a female character model :/

The last time I cared was when they were talking about adding one and the discussion was about whether she'd be a paid DLC character or not. At the time, all the playable characters were male, though I understand there was a female NPC merchant with sexually suggestive lines - I don't really consider that a plus.

Looks like she's still paid DLC. Female player tax in effect!

The steampunk mrs. Foster is free although you need an achievement to unlock her.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
In its absence, she's well within her rights to, in an offhand comment, call the game stupid. Even if it offends a whole bunch of guys.

The issue is not about rights.

Calling a game stupid should be able to be backed.
Saying it is not to someone's taste or preference, not so much.

Backing an objective statement with subjective flame inducing statements is just . . . stupid.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I didn't say that at all.

It sounded like you did, given that customisation involves "hair colour and whatnot", and then going on about "removing characters out of a game".

So, to clarify, for you it is really just a gender thing? Customisation of hairstyle, clothes and other such aspects are okay, but changing a persons gender is not? Because era-based limitations aside, I'd say that how a person chooses to dress says much more about them than what gender they belong to. And given how well Ania Solo replicates Han's style and evokes the same kind of humour in Star Wars, I just don't see why a female Indiana Jones should be impossible. Or a male Lara.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Not really. Mass Effect (and keep in mind I've not played ME2 or ME3, so my experiences are based upon the first game alone) is about a guy called Saren trying to bring back the Reapers.

Yes really. The Mass Effect trilogy (and I think you should catch up on 2 and 3) is about Commander Shepard saving the galaxy. Saren trying to bring back the Reapers is an aspect of this story in the exact same way as Major Toht trying to turn the Nazi army invincible in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

"After this, Commander Shepard’s story is complete.”
- Michael Gamble on ME3

H.B.M.C. wrote:That they chose Commander Sheppard to deal with the issue is irrelevant. It could have been any Spectre, or they could have chosen a different person to be the first human Spectre. Shepard is a reactionary participant in a story. The story drives the character, rather than the character driving the story.

Here's where I can't follow your logic. I could take the exact same argument and turn it around for Lara Croft or Max Payne, yet for some reason for you it's totally different there.
If ME1-3 wouldn't have had Shepard but Spectre X, then the trilogy would not have magically shifted focus and stopped being about the protagonist's journey. It would have simply become the story of Spectre X. The game experience is defined not by Saren and his plot, but by the personal challenges, the sacrifices, and the friendships that the protagonist faces in pursuit of the plot.

Star Wars wasn't about the Emperor and his Death Star either, it was about Luke, Han and Leia.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
What seems to have sparked this discussion was a woman calling a game stupid, offhand, because it was another in a long line of games with a generic white male protagonist designed to appeal to an assumed white male player, and part of a game series that has historically represented people who aren't white males. When you take a game series known for a certain positive attribute and then remove that positive attribute, people are sometimes upset, especially when they see it as being in service of pandering to an assumed lowest common denominator (and especially when they aren't actually included in that lowest common denominator at all). Personally, I feel it's entirely reasonable to glibly call it stupid as a result.

That's not entirely true, far from it actually.
The thing that people actually responded to was not the lack of diversity in X-COM but the attitude towards games like Red Dead Redemption and L.A.Noire simply by them having a white male protagonist.
You seem to focus on the X-COM thing but that is not what fuelled this discussion.