I just want to point out the hypocrisy here again. This is the same Patrick Klepek that included Shadows of the Damned on his top ten games of the year in 2011. That game featured a woman in lingerie on the cover in some regions. It was marketed with trailers that said the main character had to save his "hot girlfriend." The publisher created a parody of an adult magazine featuring the female lead. The game is loaded with sexual humor, scenes of nudity, and the repeated torture of the female lead. Patrick thought this was an awesome game last year (and rightfully so). Now he's decrying the the release of a headless female statue in promotion of a violent zombie game set on a tropical island as "sexist."
You may now resume Patrick Klepek's White Knight Chronicles..
Literally the most recent image on his Twitter account is giving his 3DS the finger which is just about the most offensive, sexist, inherently phallic gesture someone can possibly make.
I hope Patrick realises he's perpetuating the sexism he appears to abhor by writing this very article. Are women the only ones affected by sexism then Pat? Should men have no say on the matter? And why did you even feel the need to highlight the gender of your interviewees in the first place? Hypocritical fool.
This is a great point. Why can't they just be a variety of "people in the industry" rather than "women in the industry"?
Oh. Because it's just a bunch of buzzwords and we're all fools for even wasting our time with this.
Really I can only speak for myself but this is what rubs me the wrong way about this ongoing series and I think others will agree. These stories feel more and more marginalized and insincere every time I see that buzzword phrase "VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY" related to sexism, as if the author needs to reassure everyone that this somehow or another is indeed a video game story. Emma Stone could start talking about sexism in Hollywood and we'd have an article tomorrow desperately relating the comments to her five minute appearance in Sleeping Dogs. That means it's about video games, right? No, honestly it's just rude and especially so when you start talking about people who were murdered in real life.
If you want to have meaningful discussion about marketing, capitalism, biology, psychology, and sociology and the parts of each of those that are pretty crazy and messed up - that's totally fine. But Ken Levine was right a few weeks ago when he talked about how the same people responsible for this article are so ingrained in seeing things through the lens of video games that they begin to lose broader perspective.
Not referring to the OP but I love when people who claim to hate the show for "lack of answers" fail to understand incredibly simple plot points like the fact that no, dude, they didn't all die in the first episode. If you're going to ask for more complexity at least learn the basics first.