[Interview] The Story of Digital Game Diversity & Accessibility and Making Books About it – Kyung-jin Lee, Diversity & Inclusion Director at Smilegate

** You can see the Korean version of this article at this URL:

https://www.gamegeneration.or.kr/article/181117cd-bed7-427a-bc3c-ecba6413a629

In August 2024, Smilegate – one of the best-known South Korean game developers & publishers, published two books aimed at game developers, focusing on game accessibility and diversity. The first book, “게임 접근성 개념과 사례 (Concepts and Cases of Game Accessibility)”, explores the concept and current state of accessibility and diversity in South Korean games and case studies. It also delves deep into design approaches to ensure all players can fully enjoy games without restrictions. Smilegate’s second book, “콘텐츠 다양성 개념과 사례(Concepts and Cases of Content Diversity)”, introduces the idea of "cultural diversity" and examines how it has been implemented in South Korean media and games. For this special issue of GG, we spoke with Kyung-Jin Lee, Director of Smilegate’s Diversity & Inclusion (D&I) department, to discuss why the company emphasizes D&I and what this means for socially and commercially in game productions.

Editor: Thank you for coming. One of the reasons we wanted to interview you was to highlight what Korean game companies are taking action regarding game accessibility and diversity. Smilegate has taken a proactive approach to this topic by publishing these guidebooks. We all agree that taking the first step is never easy, especially when there are only a few known cases to reference here in Korea – yet. So, thank you for taking the initiative. So, our first question is, were there any challenges you faced when initiating this accessibility and diversity project at Smilegate? What’s your thought on this?

Lee: About six months after I joined Smilegate, I attended the GDC (Game Developers Conference) in the US for the first time. Seeing tens of thousands of developers gather to discuss a wide range of topics—many of which weren’t directly tied to the profitability of the games—was eye-opening for me. What caught my eye was that those topics were not isolated within specialized teams within each company. Instead, they were discussing these topics with various stakeholders between the team and companies. It was astonishing to see that game developers were organically sharing various insights and know-how on making games better for the future. The issue of game accessibility, in particular, stood out to me the most. Considering that video games continue to grow as a mainstream entertainment medium, I wondered, ‘Are we truly considering players from diverse backgrounds when designing our games? Are we listening to their needs?’ And the reality was that we had a long way to go. One of the biggest hurdles pointed out at the GDC that year was accessibility for players with disabilities, presented by actual people with physical challenges. It was also insightful to see that some game companies actively hire people with physical challenges while developing a game or establish community channels to gather feedback directly from those people to achieve better game accessibility. So, that visit to the US was a pivotal experience for me. Upon coming back to Korea, we realized that this was something that we needed to do here at Smilegate. So, after a series of discussions, we decided to hire game developers with disabilities – as we thought that would be the most effective way to tackle the issue of our game accessibility.

Editor: Right. So, if I understood correctly, your team hired several game testers to work on accessibility together? Can you tell us more about how it went? Was it easy to find candidates?

Lee: Hiring was not the biggest issue. For example, one of our current game accessibility testers is an active game player born with a hearing impairment. They told us that until the age of six, they were unable to speak. Thankfully, after getting a hearing aid, their language skills developed rapidly. For this person, video games were both a friend and a way of life.

Opportunities for people with disabilities were relatively sparse. If we do a rough estimation, say roughly 5% of the population has some form of disability, then it would make sense to have that amount of job opportunities in game-related fields for those individuals. The reality is, apparently not. So, we thought there would be enough people to join our initiative and start posting job listings looking specifically for game accessibility testers.

We also worked closely with the Korea Employment Agency for the Disabled (KEAD) to explain our intentions and goals. KEAD also saw great potential in this because most jobs often offered to people with disabilities in Korea are primarily concentrated in the service sector, like nail polish art or car washing jobs, but have little to do with the creative industry. So KEAD was like, ‘This is a new thing for us,’ and provided significant support in the recruitment, which resulted in a surge in applicants. During interviews, I realized something profound: many people love games and want to turn that passion into a career, yet they have never been given the opportunity to do so.

One of our testers, who I mentioned earlier, the one with hearing impairment, later told me, ‘If not for this job, I would never have imagined myself being able to engage deeply and think about games that I love in this professional manner’.

Editor: When implementing game accessibility and diversity initiatives, companies often view business objectives as their natural pursuit of profitability while perceiving ethical responsibilities as something they ‘have to’ do because of rules. This could be a bit of a sensitive question, but if we were to categorize Smilegate’s motivations into game accessibility and diversity, which one would hold greater weight? Business or ethical considerations?

Lee: That’s a great question. Initially, I approached this initiative purely from social and ethical responsibility, believing it aligned well with Smilegate’s corporate values. However, as more testers came in, we received incredibly detailed feedback about the games we were developing. Since they were passionate gamers, they analyzed the games meticulously and reported their experiences to the developers. I can confidently say that their input significantly improved our games’ quality. We also acknowledge that people play games in many different ways—some use one hand, some use their feet, and others rely entirely on their eyes. Meeting and talking with these players who use ‘diverse’ ways to play games helped us pinpoint the issue more in-depth and iterate our game designs. While game accessibility may be seen as an initiative to improve the game for the ‘few,’ what it does is that it benefits the ‘many.’ That’s why we now consider improving accessibility means improving our overall game quality, which in turn attracts more players.

Editor: Would you say Smilegates’ accessibility-related tasks primarily focus on testing but not so much on the actual game development process?

Lee: That is correct. Our current primary focus is identifying issues within games. We try constantly testing our various game titles, pinpoint problematic areas from an accessibility standpoint, and report them to the development team. Since our testers play many games across genres, they provide us with how different each game is, good or bad, in terms of accessibility. For instance, one game might include colorblind-friendly features, while another in the same genre might completely lack such a thing. Such insights allow us to provide constructive feedback to developers, with actual references for them to benchmark on. For players with hearing impairments, visualizing audio cues in games is quite crucial. If all in-game sounds can be represented as visual indicators, the barriers to their playing games will be significantly improved. So we try to provide as many references to our game developers, on how to iterate UX/UI design solutions that can effectively translate audio into visual elements. Which serves as a good guide for our developers to iterate their designs.

Editor: Solutions like that seem like not just an isolated issue for players with disabilities. For instance, such visualized audio cues would also be helpful for those playing games in the metro or other public spaces without audio devices. I also often say, “Low-floor buses are not just for those with wheelchairs; in fact, they also help my mom and her knees.” In the same way, accessibility doesn’t just help usability for minorities; it enhances usability for everyone. So, in your case, having testers with firsthand experience with game accessibility challenges has been crucial in identifying where and what to improve Smilegate’s games. Then, have you noticed any changes within the development teams due to their feedback?

Lee: Frankly speaking, that was one of my biggest concerns at the beginning of this initiative. Game development teams are often under tight deadlines and limited resources, so game accessibility issues might not always be a priority compared to, let’s say, fixing critical bugs in the game. So, it wasn't easy to bring up the topic at first. But thankfully, over time, I sense that our game development teams’ overall awareness of game accessibility has significantly improved. For example, one of our Smilegate teams working on new game projects has proactively approached us, saying, ‘Since we’re targeting a global audience, we want to make sure our game meets accessibility standards. Could you test our game?’ I think there’s certainly a market demand here. I was in discussion with some game projects at Smilegate that aim for a global launch. And we hear things like, ‘We had to make several revisions because our game lacked game accessibility issues’. This shift in mindset shows that the industry is starting to recognize the need for accessibility.

Editor: How long did it take for your development teams to recognize these needs for accessibility efforts?

Lee: We hired accessibility testers in January and then held our first game accessibility review open session in June. Many game developers attended, and one lead developer told me that despite working in games for over a decade, they had never considered accessibility in this way. They also said that they have felt deeply about the need for game accessibility and will consider it when making games. I’d say it took us about a year and a half until we started receiving proactive requests from teams to review game accessibility in their projects. That was also the amount of time we needed to raise awareness of the issue to take root; if we do not consider game accessibility now, the game will end up in trouble. One and a half years was the time that we needed to reach the point where, in development team meetings, it became natural to have someone asking, ‘Is this okay from an accessibility standpoint?’ or where a project lead would say, ‘let’s make sure to consider accessibility as well’ to their team.

Editor: Okay, so one and a half years, until you noticed changes. Was it shorter or longer than you anticipated? I’m asking because I also hope to interview other game companies in Korea and their relevant departments on what we can learn from this experience. So, it would be nice to provide some hope to teams out there who are working on similar issues that you’ve faced.

Lee: I think things improved quicker than I thought. Perhaps it’s because quite a few people at Smilegate were already interested in game accessibility, which helped us spread the idea faster.

Editor: We’re also interested in hearing about the game accessibility in gameplay devices, aka, hardware. You’ve recently showcased a gameplay device accessibility exhibition as well. But Smilegate isn’t particularly a hardware company; it’s a company that develops and publishes games. So, are there any challenges you face regarding game accessibility due to limitations coming from gameplay hardware rather than software? From your game accessibility department’s perspective, are there any unsolvable challenges you might have that come from the physical limitations of the gameplay devices? Something that is beyond game software developers’ control?

Lee: So far, we have only tackled areas that we can control and haven’t caught up with such hardware issues. There are vendors that provide various assistive devices for living and gaming. We worked closely with the Gyeonggi Assistive Technology and Rehabilitation Assistant Center (GGATRAC), which allowed us to showcase various assistive equipment at the exhibition. However, we still need to talk with players using those types of equipment in daily life to pinpoint what we can do to iterate our games. That’s why we expect a one-day panel session with these individuals to hear their needs and discuss what we could do. Unfortunately, we are having difficulty finding enough participants for this session.

Editor: Even if a game company is committed to improving their games’ accessibility, there are still limits to the limited hardware infrastructure. So, in that sense, perhaps your work goes beyond just enhancing Smilegate’s internal game development process. It seems more about fostering a dialogue and external collaboration.

Lee: Absolutely. Expanding accessibility requires a broader foundational work. That’s why we’ve been discussing a project with GGATRAC to install some gameplay devices for people with disabilities. The center has around 1,000 members and is equipped with about 165 square meters of available space. So perhaps we could use profits from our two books to set up some computers and assistive devices there, transforming the space into a place where people with disability could play games freely at any time. And call it a ‘Game Play Lab’ or ‘Game Living Room’—something like that.

Editor: Funny that you mentioned the profit from the books. Making profits by selling books is not always easy these days. I guess the books have sold decently well?

Lee: True. It’s not easy. But honestly, we never aimed to profit from these book projects, so we didn’t have high expectations. We mainly released these books because, when pioneering something new, we have to develop a cohesive language (vocabulary) for it, too. Without a clear terminological framework, it’s challenging to articulate ideas and concepts or define them in a way that would resonate with many people. By putting these ideas into words, we hoped to spread awareness and help people understand the value of accessibility. In many ways, this book is our first step. It is about establishing language and providing a foundation for future works before it’s too late. Our next goal is to refine these concepts further to continue evolving our work. Perhaps we can publish more books in the future.

Editor: Oh, so would there be follow-ups? If so, what are the plans for the next publications?

Lee: Yes. If you take a look closely at our books “Concepts and Cases of Game Accessibility” and “Concepts and Cases of Content Diversity,” you’ll notice that they are labeled as books number 1 and 2. We don’t have concrete plans for a third or fourth book just yet, as we’re still in work progress. Our current aim is to document more of our internal case studies and investigate more case examples in future volumes. In fact, the third chapter of “Concepts and Cases of Game Accessibility,” already includes some of our real-case examples. We want to continue recording and sharing our journey onwards. In addition to book publishing, we also have some educational videos titled "An Alternative Perspective on Diverse Players: Inclusive Game Design (다양한 플레이어를 바라보는 또 하나의 방식, 포용적 게임 디자인)", which is specifically designed as an educational video for game developers. Right now, we are in the process of distributing the video internally within our company—to game developers here in Smilegate. But of course, our long-term goal is to expand its reach to universities and industry organizations, exposing them to future game developers. We plan to collaborate with institutions that recognize the importance of this topic, providing the content for free and integrating it into their pedagogical coursework.

 Editor: This might be a bit sensitive question, but do you feel that our industry and education have the necessary expertise to effectively educate people on diversity and inclusion?

Lee: Surely diversity and inclusion haven’t been part of the mainstream agenda of our conventional paradigm in Korean society. That’s why we are exploring potential partnerships with universities and academic organizations in Korea that align with our vision to incorporate the topic of diversity and inclusion. The aim here is to tackle the issue in a more structured way, such as curricula and practical pedagogical implications for future game devs. For example, we could organize an academic conference with both domestic and international speakers while also discussing with these experts the “Concepts and Cases of Game Accessibility” book. When we first started this work, we collaborated with experts from the AbleGamers Foundation, a US-based nonprofit organization focused on game accessibility, and professionals specializing in inclusive game design worldwide. We envision one day inviting these experts here and hosting a forum where we could foster industry and education-wide conversations. We look forward to joint collaboration with academia and industry experts in the future.

Editor: The issue of game accessibility is not the one-game-company problem, and Smilegate cannot tackle this alone. We were particularly struck by, during the recent accessibility exhibition, how many representatives from different companies were present, indicating a growing industry-wide interest in this topic. What’s your thought on this?

Lee: There are outside cases like the Fair Play Alliance. It’s the place where game companies and players meet and collaborate to make gaming more inclusive. I think these kinds of cross-industry conversations help not only improve accessibility but also grow the game market itself. I believe Korea would greatly benefit from similar open discussions and exchanges of ideas among game developers.

Editor: IT sectors tend to establish industry standards through international dialog, where companies and academia work together to discuss certain new terminologies and technologies. And eventually, establish universal standardized protocols across the industry. I see that we perhaps also need such cross-regional cross-sectional collaboration for games. Some countries already do have some game accessibility guidelines, but they aren’t always shared or discussed outside their comfort zone. What’s your thought on this? Why does game accessibility still struggle to achieve broad dialog?

Lee: I’ve been contemplating this issue, too. For instance, North America has proactively driven game accessibility initiatives, but those initiatives’ connection to Asia remains weak. This is a bit surprising for me, given how rapidly the Asian gaming industry has grown in the past years. However, I also sense that we’re living in a moment of change. I see that things are different now. Within our company, I’ve noticed a shift in the atmosphere. More game developers are expressing interest in game accessibility. For instance, I’ve met a front-end developer who has reached out to us, saying they resonate with these values and want to learn more. Seeing this kind of naturally emerging engagement motivates us to keep pushing forward. Even if it starts with just a handful of individuals, sustaining this momentum is key to long-term progress.

Editor: It’s remarkable to see how your company has made significant strides in promoting game accessibility. And we’re starting to see some tangible results. But what about the public sector? You seem to be actively collaborating with public organizations—do you think greater government involvement and support could accelerate progress?

Lee: Last month, there was a conference discussing tax benefits for game companies investing in game accessibility. Unlike other media, games rely heavily on complex technology, making accessibility solutions particularly challenging to implement without the private sector’s effort.

There’s certainly a growing discourse about the need for game accessibility, and that is also true even in the public sector. So, I believe things will move faster from now on, as both public and private sectors are on board. What stood out to me was their shift in focus—not just recognizing the importance of accessibility but actively considering how to encourage companies to take action rather than the government trying to approach this top-down.

Editor: Perhaps we will see more game companies that have dedicated accessibility and diversity teams in the future. Some may take individual initiatives, but do you think there’s value in forming an industry-wide coalition in Korea for game accessibility initiatives? Like an overarching organization to drive progress beyond each company and its teams working individually that could perhaps help foster further external collaboration.

Lee: Surely, it would be nice to have a diverse group of people contributing to this effort in their ways. But then, I firmly believe that game developers must be at the center of these efforts. They are the creators. They are the ones developing games that directly reach their consumers (players), so their engagement will be crucial to making meaningful changes. In Silicon Valley, developers take the initiative to identify challenges, collaborate with experts from various backgrounds, and drive innovation. If developers who are passionate about accessibility come together, discuss these issues, and work toward solutions, we can avoid stagnation and create real impact. That’s why we’ve been building an internal accessibility community—bringing game developers together, at least within our company, to nurture knowledge-sharing and problem-solving and gradually expand our efforts.

Editor: The ideal situation would be to have people with actual experience, with needs for game accessibility and inclusive design, to work on game development. But the reality is that you would need education and training to develop games, and accessible game education barely exists in Korea. One could be willing to learn about game development, but with a physical disability, entering a game career itself can be challenging.

Lee: Absolutely. We also want to see more and more game developers with various backgrounds, including those with disabilities, join the industry. That’s why I think, despite the fact that we are currently hiring accessibility testers, their career journey shouldn’t stop there. Instead, we need to create pathways for them to become game designers, programmers, etc. And supporting them if necessary. In the end, establishing a culture where everyone, regardless of disability, has the opportunity to develop their game development skills will benefit the entire industry. When people from different backgrounds collaborate, they bring new perspectives that spark innovation. Our role is to help create those intersections—where diversity leads to fresh ideas and meaningful progress.

Editor: I fully agree. That’s also the reason why I keep coming back to the idea that we need something beyond individual companies tackling accessibility on their own. Because game development education—especially in areas like accessible game design—shouldn’t fall solely on one company’s shoulders. It makes me wonder if there would be any external organization that could take the lead on this. For example, game education institutions could introduce designated intake quotas for people with disabilities or create development environments designed with game accessibility and hire people who are fit for such workspace. But as far as I know, we’re not quite there yet. That’s why I feel that we need to scale up these efforts, such as a designated organization or consortium. What’s your thought on that?

Lee: That could certainly play a role in laying the groundwork. Our current goal is to open up a conversation. If someone says, ‘Accessibility is not my major focus in game development’ but later says, ‘Thanks to your effort, now I know why and how it is needed’ – then we did our job. That’s what we’re aiming for. What we’re striving for now is to create more moments where people realize, ‘Yeah, game accessibility is something I can contribute to.’ That way, I believe more and more people would be actively discussing game accessibility as one of the main agenda items in the design meetings. Also, I think that Korea, in particular, could adopt accessibility measures at a much faster pace. Because the game industry here tends to be quick to catch up with global trends, and Korean game companies’ technical capabilities are in a strong position – they can implement solutions effectively. So, I believe that once we gain momentum, we can excel in this area.

Editor: Watching you and your team’s efforts as it unfolds has been inspiring. But I can’t help but think about how challenging this must be for you. One of the toughest aspects, I imagine, is addressing not just game accessibility but also the issue of diversity. The two issues overlap but are not quite precisely the same. How would you describe the current attitude toward diversity in Korea’s game industry? (Translator’s note: The issue of “diversity,” more specifically the topic of gender diversity and equality, is a highly debated topic in the South Korean game scene since post-#gamergate.)

Lee: Yes, accessibility and diversity are not identical concepts. One key distinction is that diversity is interpreted in a much broader range of ways, often shaped by personal experiences, and thus, how someone perceives diversity is largely influenced by their experiences. It’s a delicate subject, but we’ve seen cases where some games received negative reception because they pushed certain ideological messages too forcefully without a strong foundation in gameplay. At the core, I believe a game must be fun to play. We’ve seen games that fail because their fundamental foundation for fun gameplay is weak but instead leans too heavily on a social message that does not correspond to its core design. Although diversity and a game’s success can be linked, they are not directly causal with each other. Because if you cannot separate “fun” from game design, it would break the fundamental equation of games. Of course, another aspect here is that we must not isolate the “fun”-ness of the game targeting one specific target audience, the so-called ‘core gamers.’ Instead, we need to acknowledge the wide variety of gamer profiles and their broad range of games out there in the world. When addressing diversity, regardless of global collaboration or direct engagement with stakeholders, the crucial thing here is to bring in people with disabilities and experts who know about accessibilities to join. Having those direct stakeholders to get involved. Without that, efforts can backfire.

Editor: We GG sometimes receive articles from Canadian researchers. And I asked them what comes to mind when they think of Smilegate. Many have answered “K-games,” which makes me wonder…beyond accessibility, how much of your work on diversity intersects with localization? Have you encountered practical challenges in this area?

Lee: Well, of course, developing a game with a single build for global distribution has its advantages in terms of business efficiency. However, we have to acknowledge that certain elements may be universally accepted, while some cannot. Awareness of cultural nuances that specific regions may find problematic is vital in global game service. We also tried to emphasize such cultural aspects of it in our book. I consider localization shouldn’t be treated as an afterthought. Recognizing and addressing elements that could be sensitive or provocative to people in different parts of the earth is essential to game service. However, localization isn’t just about avoiding pitfalls; it is something that can also be used as a powerful marketing tool. For example, we’ve seen success in Indonesia when games incorporate elements that resonate with local audiences. Companies that have access to diverse groups of people and a channel to discuss such cultural aspects have the advantage of it. Game companies with a global presence, like subsidiary offices around the earth, have an advantage here. If a game features a Japanese character, their Japanese office can provide insights on attracting their game to the local audience. And the same applies to Korean players. Therefore, companies that primarily operate with homogenous groups of talents and domestically isolated pipelines would face more challenges in maintaining a global approach to diversity and localization. Without direct access to diverse perspectives, there’s a higher risk of missing core elements that could either alienate or engage different audiences.

Editor: This might be a more challenging topic. Regional cultural diversity is a relatively less sensitive topic to discuss in games compared to, let’s say, gender diversity in games. We still consider gender issues, and gender representation in games is something that we should pay attention to. So, in terms of gender diversity, what is Smilegate’s approach?

Lee: No one (in Smilegate) has brought up that issue (about gender diversity) with us face-to-face until this moment. But few people brought it up online, and we have seen fearsome debates and conflicts emerge on social media and web forums. (Translator’s note: The issue of gender diversity and equality has been a highly debated topic in the South Korean game scene since post-# #gamergate.) Over time, I’ve come to realize that whenever we talk about diversity, whether in discourse or terminology, there are always supporters but also people who strongly reject it. Witnessing this wide range of spectrum of reactions coming from both in and out of our company has been a valuable learning experience for me, particularly in understanding how to navigate and balance this discourse.

Editor: So, it sounds like you’re saying that reactions tend to exist on both ends of the spectrum? And you’ve witnessed reactions from both sides?

Lee: Exactly. But I’ve realized that even people with vastly different perspectives, even those with extreme points of view, can all engage in conversations to learn more about each other. The problem is that, in many cases, people dislike something without fully articulating why they don’t like each other’s thoughts. So, I’ve taken the approach of simply asking: What exactly don’t you like? What would be acceptable to you? And surprisingly, it worked. It’s certainly not easy, but I’ve come to see that the effort to balance the dialog is incredibly difficult but also absolutely necessary.

Editor: It is certainly not easy. Communication is arguably one of the most complicated aspects of mankind. And even when you put in the effort, you don’t always see immediate results. What do you think of that?

Lee: That’s true. To be honest, I was intimidated to talk with gamers whose views were very different from mine. But instead of avoiding those conversations, I tried to meet with them and talk to them if possible. And some of the discussions turned out to be incredibly insightful. I realized that these conversations and efforts to find a common ground are essential for conflict management. From there, I also try to navigate the discussions with tangible example cases or topics. Like, rather than debating abstract concepts, I prefer to create something – whether it’s a book, a game, or another concrete project. And use that as a basis of conversation. I came from a non-game development background and worked in different sectors before joining the game industry. I’ve also learned to be extra careful and always ask more questions before assuming anything.

Editor: I feel even more strongly that more game companies should be engaging in these conversations. As someone who personally identifies as a gamer, I’ve always been frustrated by the way gamers are often stereotyped in one particular profile. Ironically, even gamers themselves are trapped in this idea that they are supposed to resist diversity to secure their ground. But when it comes to the topic of diversity in games, it also extends to the issue of diversity of gamers. 

Lee: You just pointed out one of the essential things that I think about when it comes to diversity in games; the diversity of gamers. Anyone can be a gamer. This person can be a gamer, that person can also be a gamer, and even people who haven’t yet played a game can become gamers. We need to broaden our view and definition of gamers. I believe that is the way to elevate the societal view towards gaming in Korean society in a more positive direction and recognize a mainstream cultural activity – instead of being neglected as a nerdy activity for a deserted few. We are getting there. Everland (Translator’s note: one of Korea’s largest amusement parks) recently hosted a Game Culture Festival featuring popular game IPs, targeting family visitors. That tells us that gaming has become a widespread, accessible form of entertainment. If that’s the case, then we need to move beyond outdated stereotypes about games and gamers about who qualifies as a real gamer. Shifting that mindset isn’t just about inclusivity. It’s also an important mindset for game production and business standpoints as well.

Editor: Games have the potential to achieve the aspect of diversity that no other conventional media can do. For example, games could do something that films cannot do. But the key part of game design is making players see diversity as inherently fun – and align with the core gameplay. Making the topic of diversity attractive and fun to play is a matter of game design. It’s a game design challenge, which is why I don’t see diversity as a sole issue of game ethics.

Lee: I agree. If we frame diversity purely as a moral obligation, it can feel forced. What I’d really love to see is gamers engaged in thoughtful discussions about why diversity matters instead of blunt negative reactions like ‘Oh! I hate this political correctness…’ blah blah blah. (Laugh). Look at “Baldur’s Gate 3”. The level of freedom in gameplay there is extraordinary. The game allows players to freely customize their experience, adjusting everything from the visibility of sensitive content to detailed character appearance options. The game offered gameplay for diverse people to enjoy the game in the most diverse way possible, and in turn, received an overwhelmingly positive response. Perhaps that’s the direction we should be leaning toward when it comes to diversity in games. Just like players have different game preferences, they also have unique aesthetic and narrative tastes. By embracing that diversity in game design, companies can turn diversity into a strategic asset, not just a social responsibility.