Really, if Seth McFarlane can get a Humanist of the Year award, then anyone can. It seems to me more like that award is just atheist circle-jerking about who can make more controversy.

Here is the site of the project:
http://harvardhumanist.org
They are not even part of Harvard, it's just an organisation that leeches off Harvard's money and prestige.

Right, because that author would have totally loved it if The Witcher universe dealt with human races the same way it does with elves and dwarves... XD It's much safer to explore issues of racism with imaginary races. That way nobody's going to be offended that their race is portrayed as a combination of slaves and terrorists, or what have you. Granted it could be done well with real races if it was a story's main focus, but The Witcher has so much other stuff going on that it couldn't be the main focus.

...seven hours earlier:

Maybe read the article AND the comments in this thread, thank you?

The shitslingers de facto exist, the wailing hyper-consumers de facto exist and drive the industry without a single doubt in the whole wide world. In addition to not reading the last page, your change of topic is a poor reaction to the simple fact I brought up, i.e. the target group of the website.

I said it makes no sense for game developers to insult game developers on a website for game developers full stop. Your answer fails to render thematic progression to that claim. Whether consumers in general are insulted in a totally different article on the site by a totally different author who is not a game developer is a second claim that doesn't even begin to play into yesterday's narrative of game developers hatefully picking at other game developers.

You are under the extremely mistaken impression that I would agree to the fullest with the theories brought up in the article. But during your constant stream of insults and the upheld completely false presupposition that the article is an "attack" on anything or anyone, I lack even the slightest interest of discussing theoretical content with you, no siree. Because I'd never get the impression we even spoke about the same article.

And maybe if EA is becoming one of the biggest publishers it is because... peoples actually like their games... maybe peoples eat that "crap" simply because they happens to enjoy playing it.

It's extremely arrogant, some could say bigoted, for Leigh, you, or anybody else for that matter, to tell them they are wrong, immature, and to insult them simply for liking games that are not "progressive" enough for your linking. Not to mention that just because peoples enjoy CoD or AC it doesn't means that they don't enjoy more "obscure" games too.

Also when it comes to "crap", the gem to crap ratio is not exactly better when it comes to Indies titles, if anything I would say it's probably a lot worse with the nearly endless low quality mobile-to-pc ports that currently flood the market.

Hi Vaina, just glimpsing at what you addressed to me directly.

I don't critique their inclusion of a black Ophelia. I do find their justification for it is somewhat ridiculous... What do you think of this attempt to base artistic (activist?) choices on historic facts? What prevents these creators to take the same action based purely on ethical motives? Do you think they sincere about subordinating their politico-moral choice in a scientific-historical foundation? Oh right... they are preempting attacks that they are anticipating based on an assumption there will be opposition to their artistic choice. Have you seen significant opposition to their artistic choice? Care to show me?

There's nothing unique about a black Shakespeare character... Othello comes to mind. This is like losing sight of the forest to look at a tree's leaf. Well... like some above I could say it's effective marketing of a specific media product. Elsinore right?

Now I asked you several things higher up, but really what I left of your quote is the real aspect I'm curious about.

This is the key quote setting up the articles's thesis: "Well, that kind of diversity just isn't historically accurate for the time period we're dealing with!" The article is trying to argue this is a myth. To argue this is a myth the article basically relies on an implicit assumption which you at least made explicit. That being that the use of "not historically accurate", which is a parapharase mind you, is equal to saying "impossible". Well Vaina, it only means impossible if you conveniently ignore normality, which in 16th century Denmark is a "fiction" of white blond people. Well... actually Denmark is not really so blond, but I'm trying to not be boring, because I care about your entertainment ;)

Look I could rant a bit about the fetishism of blackness in the US, remind you of US racism against Irish or Italians or Poles, and insist on a more European and nuanced look at ethnic hatred where you basically have many white people killing each other with glee. But whatever... slavery is a deep US trauma, I understand that, let's get to the bottom of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normality

Which of these are fictions of boring people mate? Feel free to focus on the first and the seventh, because we both know they are the two that matter in this argument. I'm all hears.

It's a bit of an unfair comparison, though, considering any "baby's first Unity project" by some highschooler is technically an indie game.

SJW asks, why people don't like them,
gets excellent response that sums up quite a bit:

https://i.imgur.com/cJukUnQ.png

All those social justice bullies shoud read it and rethink their whole state of mind.

Mate, I want to use you as springboard here... my final wall of text for the day. Taking the opportunity, I don't think she said anywhere her approach was more accurate, she just offered it as possibly accurate, or accurate enough so to speak.

Now my point being, I agree with you this plausible historical accuracy is factually low, and to me it's interesting how this is probably a great example of hidden racial bias in itself.

You see, there were a couple countries that actually were pioneers in exploration in the 16th century - for those less historically inclined, remember this means 15xx, not 16xx - anyone knows when Jamestown was founded by heart? :) Anyway, in these countries black people were much more normal than Denmark, if usually servants or menial workers... I already also mentioned Othello. I would bet if one looks at Portuguese or Spanish literature of the period you'll find a lot more diverse representation of dark skinned people.

Why then use Shakespeare and Hamlet as context? :) The mediterranean, the catholic countries, or Venice, or the Ottoman empire (which did have a lot of white slavs in it) even would be much more accurate settings for something like this, and it's not like Spanish art for example is lacking in material. I believe there is something called the Siglo de Oro just around the corner for you literature graduates that still show some intelectual curiosity, it's not just Don Quixote folks... a lot of nice theater...

Oh right... I forgot, England and Netherlands were almost constantly at war with Spain, and the religions were different... wasn't there even something in the 17th century which devastated half of Europe? Well, but those north europe vs south europe prejudices are history, not news at all, those PIGS or PIIGS are just like the other europeans... we're all in the white VIP club right? At least with France the 20th century kind of brought alignment... there is no longer any kind of anti French bias in modern anglo countries...

Americans can be so myopic, and we're all acculturated Americans aren't we? But short term thinking is actually normal of all humans... or would be if normalcy wasn't a fiction of boring people. No such thing as human nature, no siree... ;)

hahahaha. I remember now your ability to write so much and say so little. I think what I find most amusing is your references to my specific questions and then your failure to even respond to them. Anyway, obviously you have no obligation to answer them, its just strange to me that you would refer to them and not answer them.

Regarding normalcy, who is measuring what is normal? Who is interpreting the results? Simply saying that it is measured doesn't mean that the results are not being interpreted and decided by someone else. Because the majority of products might look a particular way does not mean that is normal in society, all it means is that is normal amongst the people making that product given the conditions that the product is made in and the constraints that made be artificially imposed on the product makers.

p.s. have you ever been to Africa? You'll find there are a number of countries with reasonabl rates of computer ownership - similar to the level of computer ownership in Brazil, where they also make video games. Its easy to assume that everyone there is poor and backwards, but thats not really the case universally.
I don't know what has upset this kid but he is clearly very angry and quite irrational, even moreso than most of us Internet people's :)

Who are you calling kid? Irrational? You. And once again you fail to actually address anything Brasas has said (like always) by changing the focus. All you do is attack and if that fails, change the topic or focus on a minuscule detail and pretend you haven't lost face.

As to that article, I made my point. Reasonable people can see the author had an ax to grind. Else why even mention so many failures of other developers or end your article telling other developers they can do better rather than really talking about your own work. I can comprehend an article's intent and "moral of the story" yet somehow you two "literary geniuses" can't see the forest through the trees. Read the article and you will see her talk of Ophilia is just a set-up for her real point, her disdain for other developers...

I was calling you a kid. I also called you angry and irrational because of what you have written. I didn't mean that to imply that you were under 18, I'm just super old so most people are kids compared to me. I get a kick out of calling parents in their 30s kids, its one of the few benefits of age.

I remembered after reading his last post that I can't really have a conversation with Brasas. I find his posts so verbose and wordy and so full of obfuscation. Its hard enough having a discussion with anyone on the internet but when hit with a wall of words which really don't say all that much and don't focus on specifics, it is basically impossible, we just end up talking at each other. I think Brasas is very intelligent but he completely lacks the ability to make a clear succinct point. Its disappointing really because I find his comments interesting.

I completely understand that your interpretation of the article is open to you. The problem I have is that you suggest that the reason Vainamoinen doesn't interpret the article in the same way is not because the article is open to several interpretations which are dependant on a myriad of things, but because of a lack of reading comprehension. I don't think that is defensible.

:) I know what my focus is, and use rhetoric enough to get my points across in an entertaining fashion. If you specify (keyword here... a question mark does wonders imo) a question(s) you'd like answered ill ignore them only if they are loaded or I find them non sequiturs. Ask me why I ignored them and ill tell you... who knows... could be I just missed it. The thing with you mate, is that your advocacy background shows, at least I notice it; the way you frame questions is probably second nature to you.

Ill be concise for you now. On measuring normalcy we have an example of your skilled framing, the frame on who is (your question) is imo irrelevant as we both know the answer (governments, elites, commons), the interesting point being who can do it and how methods differ (see PS). Also your use of the word artificial begs the question. So I'm ignoring it for now.

Morocco only, two times, one of the most advanced in Africa... And you? (Not that it matters really) By the way, care to quantify reasonable please? 50%? 25%? And did you notice how you started inserting moral connotations? Why would you use the word backward, and kind of put it in my mouth (assuming I assume it), when poor is more than sufficient and much more objective? :)

PS mass media, mass consumption, capitalism = democratic "measuring" of normalcy = tension with prescriptive approaches usually preferred by elites. Whoa, doesn't that ring a bell when one contrasts pro consumer ethics with political oriented activism... ;) this is far from the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, yet anti GG inability or refusal to consider it as valid frame is hugely ivory tower... Frisco, London, etc... the silicon valleys of worldwide digital elites trying to define universal morals of justice... would be amusing if the human cost was not evident.

Edit: I don't consider myself verbose per se... I'm a circular thinker, not linear, so in these interesting type of discussions I revert to my normal and circle around a topic closing in rather than go straight to the point. If I recall cultural trainings most Aussies are rather linear... could be that's playing a part here... I'm sorry you find it hard to understand me, I'm glad you find my posts interesting regardless... believe me it would take considerable effort for me to synthesize further... I do so at work frequently of course... it's actual work for me.

Just as much as feminist critics – Sarkeesian included – play and enjoy a whole lot of games that disproportionally draw on sexist stereotypes, so EA fans have accepted a whole fucking lot of crap that comes with their "good" games. You're correct to say that EA fans can not vote with their wallets in that respect, just as much as feminist critics can't change the portrayal of women in games by not buying the games that have aspects they dislike. Same thing to a degree, yes of course.

However, my examples went worlds beyond that. What EA pulled off in the last four years alone would have smashed consumer trust in just about any non video game related company, letting their sales plummet. But, nope, EA is up and running. They haven't even felt a real backlash switching to Origin (and describing it as spyware, but that did create a backlash in Germany), insolent DLC troubles, microtransactions, forced multiplayer in single player games, diverse DRM lies etc. Hence they will continue that wildly successful path. That's what 'hyper consumers' enable. And let's not forget that present video game culture also includes grossly submissive stances towards all those strangly anti consumer proceedings (look up e.g. the "trap of gamer gratitude" Jimquisition video).

I myself am done with EA – until they actually publish their newer games on GOG (or other places sans DRM).

Why, in just about 10 years, hyper consumers have narrowed down millions of possible PC game distribution channels on the internet to just one is completely beyond me. But it happened. Today's PC gamers are on the forefront of desperate consumerism. Imagine Sony pulling off "Early Access" on PSN: they'd be cut to pieces by the consoleros. Imagine Microsoft pulling off "Curator": oh no, the conflation of publisher and press! In what way wide spread hoarder statements like "I want all my games in one place" and "I need Steam to organize my game library" play into hyper consumerism — I hope I don't need to elaborate on that. Judging from 25 years of experience with the medium, today's gamers know comparatively shit about their hobby and the art form it constitutes.

I do question why Assassin's Creed continues to be so successful, but I don't look down on players that happen to like the series. I myself would have been content with e.g. the Tomb Raider concept seeing its 20th iteration had it not all went downhill with the 'innovations' of the reboot and, well, Steam. But the more successful the series continues to be, the less risks Ubisoft will take. Spreading out with small gems like Child of Light or Valiant Hearts might prove unlucrative in the long run. Here of course, voting with wallets would be possible.

It is of course interesting for me to note how even still today, indie game conventions are twitter-destroyed in connection with gamergate while the AAA industry and the monopolist PC publisher has nothing to fear at all, welcomes, profits from and in some cases pours fuel in the fire to keep the controversy going. I do relate that to underlying hyper consumerist attitudes — under no circumstances are the big dealers to be attacked. Hence the discussion of "ethics in game journalism" instead of the ethics of the AAA video game industry, i.e. where the money hence the corruption actually is.

We do have a huge problem with hyper consumerist attitudes in the games industry, I agree with Alexander at least in that respect. I may not necessarily agree with all her examples of that consumerism.

No, not "activist". Not the Social Justice Warrior narrative, no thank you. Writers are using diversity as salt and pepper (while the Witcher doesn't reflect diversity in skin color, the game definitely tries to be diverse outside of a RL historical/racial context). Not as political statements. There's no "must" here. I'll refrain from quoting the article's conclusion yet again, but this is "Yes we can", not "damn it you must".

And Chironis hardly always sticks with the idea of historical accuracy to advocate the possibilities in game design. Take the paragraph on The Order — read as straight out hating by RWarehall. Chironis' main argument here is that The Order draws on the Knights of the Round Table (fiction, not history!), so it could well reflect the diversity of that fiction. Which is the stronger claim for me personally, and in fact far more reason to offset a factual lilly white 'historically accurate' protagonist cast with the exaggerated 'exotic' diversity of the Arthurian myth.

But, what is 'historically accurate'? This is where your forest and leaf comparison comes into play. We would have to agree that the leaf is there of course; and I would say that a black leaf in a lily white forest would visibly stick out. In other words: While Katie Chironis could call her game 'historically accurate' in the sense that a black person could have been there somewhere, her idea that this character would be representative of the time and age, hence "historically accurate", I fail to follow.

No, a black person in there would not necessarily be a gross historical inaccuracy, I agree with Chironis here.

Still pretty unusual, of course (unusual in Denmark at the time — not at all in London).

As to the boredom, yes, I happen to find historical accuracy quite boring. I don't play games for their historical accuracy, thank you very much. Thankfully, I've never played one. Uhm, is there even one out there? Every time a game designer justifies a bad design choice with 'historical accuracy', I have to laugh. Chironis justifies a good design choice with historical accuracy, and I STILL have to laugh.

And in a Shakespeare game? Shakespeare? The guy who infamously let a clock strike three in 44 BC (Julius Caesar, Act II)? No need for it. No need to "justify" a black character in game based on Shakespeare's work, as the author was obsessed with diversity, faraway places, exotic characters, cultures he never came into contact with (like Jews, banned from England during Shakespeare's lifetime).

Chironis takes great pains to justify historical accuracy in a game based on the work of an author who was never, ever concerned with historical accuracy. And that's that.