(Sorry for the wall of text, but since I was asked directly ... ;) )

I'm not sure I understood the question (so please bear with me if I'm missing the point ;) ), but I'll try to answer regardless. ;)

I'm generally not fond of evasive answers, regardless of the speaker's profession. I do believe that when it's your job to talk about a given topic, and you're doing your job well, then there shouldn't be a need of evasive answers. Giving an evasive answer always means that you failed giving a meaningful reply. Regarding politicians, I do hold them to the same standards as game producers, or (for that matter) myself. I find it easier to respect a politician who clearly explains his beliefs and goals, even if I disagree with them, than to respect one whose main concern is to evade direct questions.

Could you provide an example? It is difficult for me to envision an "affirmation that I'm not willing to give". As an example: I have a physical condition that might make it harder for me to get a job, but that would be easy to conceal during an application. The general recommendation is to not mention it and block respective questions with "This is none of your concern" or "These questions have no place in an application talk." I always mention it because it's a part of me, and I want to be honest with the people around me. I rather give a potentially disadvantageous answer than a false or evasive one.

I find the question fair, but the answer comes across (to me) as marketspeak. It does not address the issue, instead it tries to deflect any possible criticism with the all-purpose "We are not sending a message" argument, which (imho) is just rubbish. Of course they are sending a message, they can't help it. I completely believe them that they don't have a particular _agenda_ when designing their characters, but they can't help sending many messages with the choices that they make. Browder then tries to sugarcoat this insufficient/evasive answer by (seemingly) partly agreeing, and by labeling the criticism "fair".

Personally, I would simply have asked what parts in particular the interviewer found problematic, then address those. That's basically rule one in interviews - if a critical interviewer makes a vague statement, ask for the details. If one asks "It has been said that ...", ask for the source. If one says "I think there's something wrong with ...", ask what exactly. But Browder doesn't even seem interested in what exactly the perceived problem is, his main interest is to politely evade the question while retaining the (so far) cordial atmosphere.

Since the first answer was (imho) clearly insufficient, the interviewer opts for a follow-up. It's not the one I would have chosen, but it's a valid question. Basically, at this point, the interviewer had asked "How will you address sexism", Browder had answered "We're basing our work on comic art and don't send a message", so now the interviewer is questioning whether basing the game's imagery on a medium that may have issues with sexism as well, is really a good way to address sexism. Fair question.

The answer is ... somewhere between evasive, crude, and helpless. Browder again wasted his chance to ask for the details, he's still not interested in them. He seems surprised by the fact that his first answer wasn't sufficient. He had several viable strategies at that point (asking for details, asking for the relevance of the question, explaining that comics aren't sexist per se, pointing out that women might like playing these characters as well, etc.), but he just states that "no one should look at his game this way". That's a very poor answer. He can't control how people look at his game, and if they see a matter of concern there, then he should at least address it.

I agree that there are poor aspects about this question, but at the core, I believe, it was meant to illustrate why Browder's "We aren't sending a message" is not a sufficient answer. The interviewer tries to explain that even if the devs aren't consciously sending out a message of "Women need to be sexed up", a part of the audience might still feel excluded if they can only choose characters they feel uncomfortable with. But it's not presented in any way that would allow Browder to address it. Browder's answer sounds like "Whatever. Bye.", which would be another blunder, but I'm reluctant to criticize him for that since a) he was probably indeed pressed for time, the first indication for that happened when the tone was still cordial, and b) the question would have been difficult to work with even with more time.

It seems we're seeing things differently. ;)

I think I answered your questions in the stuff I wrote above, but feel free to ask for clarification. ;)