Female privilege in action

She is sneaking behind him and trying to f***ing cut his throat and still gets shown as the victim... and of course she remains at large.

This is one of the cases showing, how you can get away with everything if your using modern age western feminism and the corrupt elements of our society, like the press in the case of the whole #gamergate thing, is just using this for more money and suppression of truth.

But we aren't talking about a play, we are talking about a video game, there are slightly different considerations . I too would assume that a play staged in a country would have characters of races that broadly reflected that country, but for no other reason than because that is the pool of people who the actors are drawn from.

Do you assume if a Nigerian made the game, the characters would be black? I wouldn't assume that. I wouldn't assume they would be white either.

I don't understand why that is normal or who decides that is normal. I always assumed it was normal for a majority group (and a minority group) to broadly represent the world, not just their own race.

Is it also normal for a majority group to change a historical figure of a different race to their race? (Jesus, Moses, St Nick). That seems abnormal to me, personally.

Also, is it normal for the majority group to be angry or annoyed or question someone who has portrayed a fictional character as a different race (as the writer is doing here)? I don't know that it is abnormal, but it seems strange.

I didn't read the lack of diversity being interpreted as a political statement. If anything, I guess I could see that possibly the questioning of the diversity in the author's game as being akin to a political statement. I saw the focus of the article as being not so much an attack on games that have white people, but a defence of a game being made that portrayed a character that is usually considered to be white, as something other than white.

It always surprises me how important race is to people. James Bond is a perfect example. Some people were angry that a black man might portray him, because James Bond is white. But those same people didn't seem to mind when Bond was played by an Australian, or someone with other than black hair, or blue-grey eyes or without a scar, etc. I don't understand why skin colour is so important or more important than any other characteristic. Personally, I like to play games with some characters that are not white, a bit of variety or interest, maybe someone who I personally might connect with more than a standard american-ish white guy.

I completely agree that the author could simply have said that she just wanted to make the character like that, but I don't have a problem with people explaining the realities of what things were like in older times. Black people did exist. :)

I also find historical justifications quite interesting. I found Raven's Cry to be a fun example. Gamespot reviewed the game and mentioned language that contained misogyny and homophobia (amongst other complaints). People then complained about that criticism because that was apparently the way pirates spoke and behaved in the 17th century and was therefore realistic, completely ignoring the fact that the language spoken by pirates in the 17th century was nothing like modern day English at all.

Got a degree in literature and linguistics, got that covered. You clearly don't.

Feeling offended is fuel to certain gamergate currents, e.g. the submissive consumer current.

Fuel is running out. Need to find other, less fitting materials to burn.

"Normality" is a fiction of boring people.

Had Leigh Alexander called out gamergate with these words, we would have to call her clearvoyant. Adam Baldwin has only coined the term on the same day the article was published. The shitslingers are all too real (as everyone knows who was cogent by the time the TvW Kickstarter went online), and as to Alexander's assessment that consumers eat up all the crap the AAA video game industry throws at them: Seriously, who would say that isn't true to the very last letter? Thanks to the wailing hyper-consumers, we practically only have one relevant publisher dominating the entire PC market, Evolve counting as a success, EA buying studio after studio, microtransactions being all the rage, Ubisoft churning out three Assassin's Creed games a year. That was all nail on the head stuff. Insulting, certainly, but only to those who would slap a label on themselves first. Most centrally, the industry-created label "gamer", of course.

Never forget that that's what that article is, a justification of rather unique decisions in game design. Advocating the possibilities. Painting it as an overt attack on other, more standard game design decisions... that's just crazy talk.

I only watched the review of one German site, which did mention the female characters lacking, but rather as a sidenote, because the male MAIN character already wasn't credible at all. The historical research done for Raven's Cry (which has a female lead designer BTW) definitely approaches zero, but that's not the game's main narrative fault. Asking for a somewhat fleshed out "historically credible" female character outside of the powdered prostitute parade IN ADDITION to a sensible male character would be wayyyy out of the studio's league.

I agree, to me the *official* explanation seems rather thin.

Seems the herd which gave her the award was not affiliated directly with the uni. Sad all the same to have an institution with some credibility to the masses associating with the conartist. But have the same feeling every time I hear Intel gave her a huge payday thinking she'll actually do more than whine like a an angry communist about the faults and how their system would be better. $400,000 for that con artist false academic read off a paper because she can't entertain ideas for more than few minutes ''woman''? And you call yourself a company for making CPUs for games?? As if thinking there is a problem they can't solve with that money that she can. Start a school in Afghanistan for people who are actually oppressed; or give it to charity or donate it to save the children or smth. This is like giving money to PETA to improve animal health standards.

on that note I feel the need to mention that the GG side actually did some charity work, like their hilarious tuberculosis awareness hijack of the anti Totalbiscuit hashtag #unsubTB (with donation links to médecins sans frontières)

Personally the reproach I would make toward this article, the same than I have for a lot of similar articles/post/tweet, is that it approach "diversity" as a necessity, diversity for the sake of diversity, as in : "you should/must have a diverse cast and here are the excuses you could use to justify it".

It's the same than the overused "having more diverse characters will make more interesting games" fallacy, better written characters will make better games (at least for games where the characters matters) whenever said characters are black, gay, or three header monkeys is irrelevant and should be left as a decision of the creators and not some sort of politically correct "requirement".

Farcry 3 had a white main character and he was bland and boring... Farcry 4 had a non-white character (actually a mostly non white cast) and guess what... the main character was still as bland and boring and maybe even more than the one in Farcry 3.

I think you should ask for a refund. Obviously your degree wasn't deserved as you seem to lack a great deal of reading comprehension. It's pretty obvious that the blogger was taking jabs at those other developers. The fact you can't see that shows you are reading impaired. Frankly your degree seems rather undeserved...

As to the case of the Witcher and diversity, it takes place in what appears to be a Northern European like world prior to the black plague. Ship travel was perilous and limited mostly to around the coasts. I'm not so convinced of the great racial diversity of Northern Europe in that particular time period despite whatever Google seems to tell the developer...

I wonder where Sarkeesian's 400.000$ she got for not holding a speech went to...

i heard about #zerobiscuit but i was not aware they hijacked that one as well. A movement that turns acid spit at it into charity. And yet its known as a pure hate movement.

Wow. Amazing that you are so caught up in your hatred of "social justice" that not only can you not see that the article was clearly not taking jabs at other developers, but you cannot even see that Vainamoinen's reading of the article is a completely reasonable reading...

Or you are so blind! Seriously, how naive are you!

Read the damn article, even when she was called out for forgetting about an Indian woman, she attacked the promotional team of Sony. 7 paragraphs on how other developers get it wrong? You are the blind ignorant one...

What's amazing is YOU!

Fiction:
Reality: ******

You seem to be unfamiliar with art critique. I don't blame you. Maybe you just don't experience games as art. Maybe you just should not read articles written for game developers. Maybe you don't understand gamasutra as a whole. It really doesn't make any perceivable sense to hate on and insult other game developers on a video game portal for game developers.

But great that you're down to "jabs". It's a start. "Jabs" is something you may direct at friends. Still not what's happening here.

Chironis explicitly voices disappointment with the historical accuracy of modern games. If there is any way she could have done that in a more polite way, I'm not seeing it. Because I'm blind and I'm reading too many reaxxion articles, which obviously makes the worst possible insults seem like the sturdy fruits of sparkling internet civilisation in comparison.

I fixed your bold text since you are too stupid to put it in the correct place. But hey, there is nothing negative even intended by that quote...just as Leigh Alexander meant nothing negative by the words shitslingers, wailing hyper-consumers. I guess in your fucked up twisted world these are compliments?

For a literary major you seem to not have any reading comprehension whatsoever. She chose to attack those developers decisions in that blog post. Any intelligent person can see that, and since you can't, so it goes, you are not very intelligent.

What's actually odd is how she tries to justify her use of a black ex-lover for Hamlet and calling this "historically accurate" somehow because there may have been a small black population in the country at the time. Ignoring the fact that in the 13th or 16th century such a coupling might have been considered a scandal among nobility. Logically speaking, since skin colour went without mention, the more historically accurate or likely race for Hamlet's ex would be the same as the predominant skin colour of the nobility at the time.

In other words, her choice of race, is much less likely to be "historically accurate" than what she achieved. I don't have a problem with the author's re-imagining, but to claim its more historically accurate is fairly bullshit. But that seems to go for your so-called logic as well.