Weird video. Also weirder is that there's some decent discussion in the youtube comments. There's some shit too but hey.

This is a very complex issue that was not handled well in this video. I think his goal was to bring up the argument that diversity is its own reward--which is a good one--and then a lot of the stuff he's been bottling up came pouring out as he was making the video. It's trying to be accessible and to convince a broader audience of a problem in games, but simply by using the term "cis" you have already alienated a substantial group of people who may have otherwise listened to you. It's not fair but it's simply the truth.

It's also not fair to say that the video is bad because he didn't provide any solutions to this complicated issue--at least it would be if he didn't state that something WOULDN'T work (giving it time and letting it happen on its own), and make some strange contradictions. Historically, issues like this have only ever been solved by time or some sort of violent revolution. There could be a third option we've been missing all along but I doubt that it's going to be discovered on youtube after eluding so many other great minds over the centuries. You could argue that time is what's improved the problem in other forms of media.

But then he mentions 18th century literature as something that's "in his wheel house". And whether he's specifically referring to either the romantic or Victorian period that came before modernism, or applying a blanket description over it all that covers anything before post-modernism, it's an awkward comparison to make when criticizing a culture for a lack of diversity.

The root of the problem in gaming is that very little of it is taken seriously, especially by those who are making the games--and to say that development teams lack diversity is a pretty bold statement if you haven't taken a census of every major game studio to back it up. They take making a marketable product seriously, and attempts to create something that's digestive and fun to play seriously, but everything else is thoughtless gravy added onto that meat to make it look good. It all comes down to story and writing, because that's always the umbrella that characters are going to sit under. Diversity is a problem but having good characters of any representation won't happen until games get some good characters, period. And some good stories worthy of them. Most video games have stories that are in the same realm as action movies--whether that's because most games have combat systems or if it's because people who are making them revere those movies, I can't say. But both have the same disposal supporting characters that orbit around the main character who has very simple but sympathetic motivations: dead parents, or endured some great trial, or constantly in trouble because of a hotly burning sense of moral obligation. Making good characters requires a more complicated story, and most likely a changed game than the normal that's out there to match it. That's harder to do and harder to sell.

But then there are examples brought up in the video. Witcher 3 won so many game of the year awards that I can't even remember them all. Bloodborne did as well. Which stand in stark opposition to the video's core argument since these games are so highly celebrated. Metal Gear Solid is brought up as an example of a game that is "more of the same" yet it's almost the exact same thing that FROMSoftware did with western fantasy, only with western spy movies instead. Which ties back with Witcher 3 since that's both praised and criticized for being diverse and a lack of diversity in the space of a minute in the video. I think the other problem is that a lot of people complaining about this issue don't know what they even want.