Editorial: Why We Write: On Game Critique, Influence, and Reach

@goldanas: You're entitled to your opinion, but it's seriously like you read some funhouse mirror version of this article.

Wow. If I wasn't completely sold on you joining GB before, I definitely would be now. I can't wait to see what else you do. I'm going to read those blog posts right now.

Thanks for the great article, Austin.

(Hey, if you're wanting for an article idea, I think this site could talk about preservation and the poor state of the public domain more. Not just games, but print ads; TV commercials; magazines; etc. Far be it from me to tell you what to write, but it's a topic that I'd appreciate your view on if you're interested.)

I like this piece, Austin. You seem an intelligent, thoughtful person.

I keep trying to sum up my feelings on this video game culture war but I keep coming back to "hand-wringing." I'm just so tired of it. Sometimes I just want news about games. I am saying this now because I suspect it could be the motivation behind the push-back against topics like these sometimes. There is a place for them, but its absolutely dominating the conversation right now. Some of us have a healthy outlook on cultural sensitivity and just want to know when No Man's Sky is coming out without having to wade threw almost ENDLESS editorial headlines. This is a viewpoint that I think gets glossed over in the "two-sides" world that the video game sphere has become.

Great article Austin!

It's not one word that he's referring to it's a concept that he got numerous questions about from numerous different places. It's reductive to think that this is some how part of a one word hypothesis and consequently about Austin's ego when in reality he's just giving points. Maybe it is lengthy but it's also his writing style and probably has a lot to do with nearing completion a dissertation for his PhD. Additionally while it may not be obvious about the origin of the article to you, Austin clearly states in the beginning the reasoning for how and where he got the numerous questions. Also what argument is he avoiding? The reply i'm quoting reads ad hominem to me which is a little disappointing for the discourse of the article.

I am not sure why Austin is considered the news editor, or why GB even has a news editor.

I can tell that I won't always agree with Austin but he's clearly educated, thoughtful, and articulate. I come to Giant Bomb for deep cut discussions (in the past, usually on the Bombcast) about all kinds of gaming topics. While I didn't always care for Patrick's style in diving deep into issues, he kept trying.

The point is, there are sites that just throw the news out there - I can go there if I just need news. Let's not saddle Austin with re-posting trailers and game announcements and wasting his time trying to type a few paragraphs about it. I think GB would be better served letting him be a feature content producer, writing articles about very niche gaming cultures (Patrick's EVE series?), social issues reflected in games, and other interesting topics that require well-researched and thoughtful articles.

Just my two cents, but seriously, GB didn't need a news editor and a dude with a near-doctorate is pointless in that role.

I like this guy. He's a cool duder.

I agree. Criticism about something technical, length, mechanics, etc. no matter how scathing, will at worst come across as saying the game is bad, as in poorly made. I'm sure no Dev likes to hear that their game is bad, but as Jeff has said before, Devs often know when a game comes out, that certain parts might not have turned out the way they had hoped. Devs can listen to that criticism or not and make up either own mind.

On the other hand, claiming a game has "a problem with race" for example, even if intended as simple suggestion for improvement, comes along with the implication that the game is bad-bad, as in racist. It can also make an implication about the Devs themselves, that a gameplay complaint does not. It can feel more like an accusation than criticism, even if that isn't the intent of the critic.

Social criticisms also have a sort of built-in chance to trigger far reaching boycott-like reactions if they 'catch on.' (This has happened to Grand Theft Auto over the years, for both violence in general, and attitudes towards women.) The most scathing criticism of Destiny's flaws could never have that kind of reach.

All that said, this is a great article. I don't think any of the above is reason to hold back criticism of games. I just think that critics need to think really hard about what they say, and how they say it, when criticism starts to tread on political grounds.

@homelessbird: The game is not set in Poland but it is happening in a certain geographical location of the world where ethnic diversity isnt that great. But there are places in the world of the witcher where white people are not the most common type among the population. For example according to wikipedia the land of zerrikania is a country which resembles india:

http://witcher.wikia.com/wiki/Zerrikania

As to your comment:

I'm not even going to touch your comment about black characters "probably be(ing) held as slaves in witchers world since this isnt a sanitized version of a medieval world like Dragons Age and Elder Scrolls mostly are" because... come on, man. Seriously?

In our world black people were still held as slaves in USA until the civil war. It took decades of civil rights movement for black people to get equal rights to use the same water fountains or to go to the same schools as white people. South Africa had a fully functioning system of apartheid until 1994. So it is not a far reaching presumption to think that people of color ( for example blacks) would probably not be treated very well in the world of witcher (at least in the region of the world where the game takes place).

The problem with most fantasy literature before George R Martin was that although villains were evil they were evil often in the classical sense (think Tolkien/ think high fantasy). The population usually suffered under this classical type of evil but they never seemed to commit the type of atrocities that plaqued our own historical past (for example sexual violence against women, killing of children etc.). Dragon Age and Skyrim are both series of open world rpg games which to me fall into that classical type of fantasy where decisions are binary (good vs evil) and where some parts of the human behaviour (the negative ones) are usually hidden away from the players.

And one more thing:

And the fact that so many people with your set of opinions feel the need to tell someone they're incorrect speaks volumes to me.

As you yourself said these are opinions. We are both offering our opinions about this matter. Some people may agree with you and some people may agree with me. That is the way that discussions usually go.

@nardak: Actually, no - to me it does seem to be presumptuous to think that skin color would be a big factor in racism in a world with actual elves and dwarves. Not only are there other subjects around in-fiction to be racist to, but it's a FANTASY WORLD. Yes, it's nice that games like the Witcher touch on real dark stuff like slavery, but there isn't really a great reason to tie it to the racial issues or history of the real world. I mean, unless you want to say some real shit about the real world, why not just let everybody feel welcome in your fictional world? The game has a cross-dressing character you encounter in a main story quest - do you think it's realistic that people would be cool with THAT?

Maybe it's faithful to the fiction - I haven't read the Witcher books - but do you really think it would be a strain on credulity for the game if there were a powerful Zerrikanian character that makes a cameo amongst the thousands you meet in the game? Like maybe not a slave? Do you not see how one could read the sentiment you expressed as... exclusive?

Honestly, it's not like I even want the game changed, personally, in any way. But critique of it along the lines of the above article are something I can totally understand and get behind. And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, or imply anything about your character, but your original critique of Austin's premise read to me a lot like the people who didn't think Thor should have a black actor in it because "Norse gods are white." If a Polish fantasy world necessarily implies no non-whites, then maybe that's a pretty fucked up fantasy world.

Brilliant article. I'm too scared to read the comments, so I won't. But great stuff, Austin!

Patrick once wrote a somewhat similar article spurred on by similar comments but, unless I grossly misinterpreted, he essentially denied that criticism was trying to exert any influence on creators - which is ridiculous. If the end goal of criticism isn't to affect change in the medium, then what's the point of it?

Thankfully Austin fully acknowledges that criticism is the critic trying to exert their influence on creators. That said, a good chunk of this article is dedicated to what seems to be just arguing semantics. Yes, you are not "forcing" a developer to do anything - and I don't think commenters who use the world truly believe that either. They are obviously just trying to embolden their argument using a stronger word than "influence" - but you understand their intent regardless of their diction. If their wording was changed to "stop trying to influence creators", would it markedly affect your reaction to or interpretation of that comment?

Regardless, a tough thing about criticism is this: it's kind of inherently arrogant and selfish. You are basically saying that people should listen to your opinion and enact changes in their creative works based on that opinion so that future works better aligns with what you believe makes a good game. Convincing others that your opinion is the one that deserves the stage and mic provided by a major website is obviously going to be tough.

The "it's just criticism" line is kinda missing the point. "Influence" is definitely a more appropriate word than "force" and the like, but the heart of the disagreement ultimately remains the same. Criticisms themselves are not beyond reproach, and that's mostly what these discussions have looked like.

When a game is criticised for essentially not being a perfect analogue for the desired state of the entire medium, that's a poor criticism. And I shouldn't need to stipulate that I'm not stating an absolute fact there. If you can't recognize an opinion, well, learn how. I'm not gonna add "IMO" after everything I write.

So, some say they don't think every single game needs to be made diverse, but then follow it up with "but come on guys, if they did add other skin tones would it really undermine any part of the game?" They're sort of side-stepping their previous statement. It all reads like "I don't think diversity should be shoehorned it, but it wouldn't really be a problem if diversity was shoehorned in."

If every game doesn't need to be diverse, then what's the point of criticising the ones that aren't for precisely that? It doesn't serve as a reminder of the bigger picture. It doesn't necessarily reinforce the belief that not every single game has to be diverse. If the intent is to start a separate conversation, it's detracted by its jumping off point. At the least it's a particular criticism for a particular game, and at the most it's a boundless sentiment that might be applied to every game in the medium.

These are criticisms of a criticism. It's a discussion. Criticisms convey ideas, judgements, suggestions. Presumably they're written with the belief that they should be adopted. Written with the hope that they canchange things, and even if that isn't the intention, they certainly still could.

It's important that these ideas be disputed and refined, ideally before they're actually adopted. Not just before they're adopted by someone in the position to facilitate change, but by anyone at all.

Falling back on "it's just criticism" only sells short criticism itself.

@homelessbird:

Actually, no - to me it does seem to be presumptuous to think that skin color would be a big factor in racism in a world with actual elves and dwarves. Not only are there other subjects around in-fiction to be racist to, but it's a FANTASY WORLD. Yes, it's nice that games like the Witcher touch on real dark stuff like slavery, but there isn't really a great reason to tie it to the racial issues or history of the real world. I mean, unless you want to say some real shit about the real world, why not just let everybody feel welcome in your fictional world? The game has a cross-dressing character you encounter in a main story quest - do you think it's realistic that people would be cool with THAT?

Best fantasy worlds are often associated with problems related to our own world. These worlds might have dragons and dwarves and elves but they are still about issues somehow related to our own world (honor, morality, racism, sexism, prejudice etc.). In witchers world elves are treated very badly. Witchers themselves are hated because they are different from the rest of the population. Geralt actually dies in the books because a farmer stabs him with a pitchfork during a riot between humans and nonhumans.

Witcher is a adult rpg game which has dark themes in it. You cant really have a adult rpg game if you dont tie your fantasy rpg with the actual racial issues which plaqued and still plaque our own world. Having a zerrikanian just to appear in the game because you want a cameo seems a bit unnecessary. Should the game also have an eskimo or an aboriginal because those ethnical groups can be found in our own world?

There is a chance that people who arent white could appear in one of the upcoming expansions to witcher 3 since there will be a new area to explore at least in one of the expansions. Also CD Project Red´s next game Cyberpunk 2077 is probably going to have a lot more diversive group of people since it takes places in the future where populations have mixed up a lot more than what was common in medieval europe.

@nardak: I'm pretty sure you're not even reading what I write. You responded to about a fourth of what I wrote and ignored the fact that I specifically said I don't think the game should be changed. So I think I'm done with my side of this conversation.

Wonderful essay Austin! Please continue to write and surface this sort of analysis on the main page of the site as I for one greatly appreciate it.

@theht: No, he's not saying "it's just criticism", that part of the essay is just an answer to the "devs shouldn't be forced to change their game" because that's not a point most criticism makes. No one disagrees with you when you say that criticism can itself be criticised, that's the entire point of it.

Top stuff duder, your thoughts regarding American cultural cross-pollination are some of the most succinct stuff I've read on the topic. As an Australian, it's an issue which is pretty dear to my heart and it's nice to see American writers being aware of it. It's one of those things which i feel is going to become more and more prevalent as we start seeing our countries go through generational change. Call it internet culture or global culture or whatever, but we've got newer generations getting their ideas and influences from a global narrative. Fascinating times ahead.

Canada! I'm always there!

Video game culture (And "nerd" culture in general) seems very insecure compared to, say, film culture or music culture. It's a weird situation where people seem desperate for games to be taken seriously as an art form, but also have negative knee-jerk reactions to anything that's seen as a threat to the status quo, which I'd argue is the real underlying reason for why you see commenters so frequently accusing game critics of "censorship" whenever they choose to talk about social/cultural issues.

I mean, critics talk about racism/sexism in Michael Bay movies all the damn time and nobody really bats an eye or sees it as an "attack" on the creative freedom of action movie directors (Well, I mean, that's not entirely true. but the blowback isn't really comparable to what you see in games and comics.)

“No, I don’t think CD Projekt Red is racist; Yes, I still wish there were some people of color in the game. Yes, I still like The Witcher 3 a lot. No, those three statements do not contradict each other.”

This part of the article makes me wonder about what do you actually mean by this. I was thinking that it's quite normal to throw it out there on the internet, like you said, it doesn't seem like a forceful statement.

But if you're sitting with the developer(s) in person and said something like "I still wish there were some people of color in the game", what is the situation then? Would the spectrum of influence might have tipped a bit to the right?

From all my years of reading, listening and watching "behind the scene"-type contents, creative people behind every works out there always(or mostly) take it personally when it comes to critiquing comments.

Thats not a bad point. For anyone that doesn't know "Shadowrun", it's a mix of cyberpunk and fantasy themes, the setting is the "real" world in the future but magic, elves, dwarfs and so on are real.

I remember there was a bit about racism in one of the rulebooks that said something along the lines of "why would you be racists towards someone that has a dark skin when that guy next to him has hands big enough to crush your skull (Trolls)".

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with this comment. If you word it the same way there's no reason why the scale should tip more to the right if you say it in person, and I don't really see how it's relevant whether or not a deveoper takes criticism personally or not. Austin's point is that just because you critique a part of a game doesn't mean that you dislike the game, which is a strawman you always see thrown around during these kinds of discussions.

That argument really bothers me. What about the hundreds of artist and programmer man hours that would be needed to make the models, implement menu options to choose gender, and test that they work? Unfortunately games are a business, and businesses revolve around profit. Every feature that gets added has to be weighed up - how much profit is this change going to make? Will it lose the company money? What is the target audience? Will adding this bring in that many new users?

When you look at something like that, you can see why Valve would rather spend their time implementing a better hat system than adding female mercenaries. In the perfect world of course it would be fantastic to have gender and race options for all characters, but Ubisoft's argument that they couldn't add female Assassins into Unity wasn't actually a bad excuse - which you'd hardly be able to tell given the response of critics everywhere.

It's funny to look back on that in light of this article on how much the press influences developers (or more likely the publishers behind the games). Assassin's Creed: Syndicate allows you to play as a woman. I think one of the things omitted from this article was considering the effect the internet hive mind. Sure a few journalists reporting on the disappointing lack of female characters in Unity isn't forcing a developer to add them, but what about the collective internet picking up on it and creating hashtag campaigns (#womenaretoohardtoanimate)? At that point, at least from Ubisoft's marketing perspective, you have very little choice but to add women next time or face similar/increased negative press. And after all, when profits are your end goal, the last thing you need is press that might negatively affect your sales!

(Note: I am merely using AC as an example, and not implying that I think adding female playable characters to that or any game is a bad thing - it's of course the right decision and great they are doing so.)

You say that you really in the end don't have that much influence on whether or not a game developer does something - that's completely true, but unfortunately when racism or sexism is brought up it generally causes a passionate discussion and with certain communities built up around a "us or them" bipolar view on the World they tend to group together and say/do horrible things because they perceive themselves as the victims.

Now I'm going to bring my feelings into here and I think most of you will disagree with what I have to say and that's fine, we all have opinions. I don't understand why in an industry that is made of 79% white developers people cannot understand why there might not be a lot of diversity going on. I would find it extremely hard to write about a female Asian teen or an older black man without putting some type of stereotype into them as I am not one of those people. This is something you REALLY don't want to do these days, as the negative press could be worse than not having much diversity in the game at all - plus it comes from a lot of the same people who really want more diversity, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Anyway, in order to not offend anyone the logical step would be to go read about different cultures or peoples or hire people do some consulting - this adds cost to the development of the game which again, makes it unattractive. You also need to think that maybe the game developers would rather just make a game instead of having to dodge a minefield of potential racism or sexism.

I also hate that the fact that a game doesn't have many PoC means that it automatically doesn't have diversity, white people aren't just located in North America. We're all over the globe, some grow up with black kids, asian kids in poverty, wealth or in the middle class.

To me whenever I read an article complaining that a game lacks diversity because it has a white protagonist or the squad is made up of all males it says to me, a white male who loves video games, that I am not good enough and that I came from a cookie cutter mold just like the other white males. We're spoken about like we are essentially clones of Scumbag Steve. We automatically need a PoC or a female to make our representation acceptable. I know that's not what you are trying to argue for but I bet this is what a lot of people get angry about.

Where I sit on this issue is that I feel like the gaming media is overstepping its boundaries. If the players are demanding something, that is one thing. Game devs should absolutely take into account what players want. But the issue is that a minority of critics are dictating the conversation, there's often a massive disparity between professional reviews and user reviews. You'll see games with a 67 metacritic score and then a "Mostly Positive" label on Steam reviews and a high user score. Likewise with TW3, I don't think 99% of the playerbase gives two shits about skin colour or race representation, but because 1% of the media does it has become something of a discussion.

I think as long as the gaming media continues to not represent the popular views of gamers, devs should largely ignore any critical content in the media. It's a vocal minority, predominately of an ever-growing clique of like-minded folks who live in their own bubble. But they're also becoming increasingly irrelevant. I can't remember the last time I read a game review on Giantbomb or elsewhere and it remotely impacted my purchasing decision. Usually, a mediocre review from a site like Polygon, Kotaku or Rockpaper shotgun means "Hey, I'll probably really enjoy this game.".

Personally, I feel like the media is absolutely useless to me these days.

Oh no, Polygon writer X thinks the tits in this game are outrageous. Well, I have no problem with tits. Kotaku writer Y thinks Japan is behind the times. Well, I vastly prefer Japanese unique game design to the modern western "everything is the same as everything else" design. So I don't really care what they think of Dragon's Crown or Akiba Strip. Giantbomb does another quick look where they're rearing to shit on a game before they've even pressed play. Oh my, time to close the tab in chrome because this is going to be a waste of 20 minutes of my time. (haha, how many years since a quick look was under 40 minutes?)

I stick around here because you guys do still make some fun content. But as the years go by, I feel like my tastes and opinions diverge more and more. (Except for Vinny, he always gives everything a fair shake with a smile on his face. Only one that doesn't constantly bitch and moan half the time through the whole quicklook if something doesn't have that AAA spit and shine.)

@itssexytime: So you don't like the current state of a particular slice of the games media? I guarantee you there are other outlets out there that will cater to the way you want to be given news.

As for those sites you've mentioned; as someone for whom these issues are important, I am so glad they exist. You say 99% of gamers don't care about social issues in gaming - there is no way you can prove that. The group of people I play games with online is mainly people who do care, and a few who are ambivalent; to say 99% of people don't care is not reflective of my experience. I won't say my anecdotal experience proves anything explicitly, but it does make a dent in your idea that 99% of gamers think as you do.

These sites that talk about social issues - there's a reason they are big, there's a reason they get read, there's a reason they are profitable businesses. There is absolutely an audience out there for this content.

@austin_walker Interesting read. I guess the problem is that Polish culture is not as heterogenic as other cultures since Poland did not participate in splitting Africa or Asia like some other countries did. Poland culture is much more homogenize since it was a big effort to keep it alive. My grandparent were not allowed to learn Polish language and had to do it in hiding and it was considered a crime. In the last 250 years Poland existed as a country for like 60 years (1918-1939 (and Polish government on emigration during the Second World War) and the 1989-). This is why our identity is so important to us. I understand your point of view and that you would like to see some changes in the Witcher 3 but pointing this game as the one to go why there are no people of color in it is wrong. Poland had nothing to do with colonialism and as a result our country is not like US, UK or France. The lack of people of color in the game may be unnatural from your point of view but it presents something that is reality to Polish people. It's possible that developers from CD Projekt didn't think about putting people of other colors in the game just because they are not part of our daily reality. When I came back home with my Korean girlfriend this was the first time that half of my family has seen Asian person not on TV.

The problem with the whole case was putting Witcher 3 next to terms like white washing and other tones implying racism and thats not the case here (I'm not talking about you but the Polygon article that started it all). I think the discussion would be totally different without the connotations that sparked the debate.

I think this piece just confirmed that GB has scooped one of the best commentators out there. To address such a delicate issue without once attacking the other side, and all the while keeping the argument grounded in terms general gaming fans can appreciate? Kudos, @austin_walker.

So excited for what else you have up your sleeve. I can see why Patrick (who did a lot of worthy paving-the-way work here) was so pleased with your appointment.

@amyggen: My point is that criticism can have an impact, and discussing that potential impact is fair game. This part isn't directed at Austin, but I've seen people throw out "it's just criticism" or "it's just an opinion" when someone follows their ideas to a logical conclusion, and it almost seems like an evasion or a instinctive defence.

As for Austin's article, "force" was definitely the wrong word. "Influence" is more appropriate, since that's all a critique can really do. Despite that change, the point remains that criticisms can result in developers changing their games. Every part of Austin's influence spectrum, besides the superfluous left-side I suppose, can result in change. Explaining the various ways people can influence developers, ranging from actual force to mere suggestion or rhetoric is all that section accomplishes.

Which is all good to know! For sure. But the piece never really addresses the idea that developers shouldn't be influenced at all, or that some areas of the creative process should be left open and "free." It just explains and categorizes the literal ways developers could be influenced. It also presents his interpretation of what people really mean when they say developers shouldn't be influenced (an interpretation that happens to transform the position into one that falls within the influence spectrum, rather than outside of it).

About that influence spectrum though, I would've appreciated it if he explored the central area in greater detail. There seems to be quite a range in that area alone, and I'd be interested in his take on those that present their appeals as unconditional moral imperatives, rather than lump it in with less commanding pieces. The critiques that perhaps veer towards the right from within the centre. As he says, most games writing sits around the centre of the spectrum, so a deeper analysis of the varieties within the center itself would be interesting to see, but I suppose that would be outside of Austin's stated intention with this piece.

The "Right Time" section doesn't really say much, unfortunately. It starts in a place that seems like might try to tackle the problem of critiquing individual games with topics that might pertain on a higher level, but instead it present some excuses people have made when it came to some specific games and leaves it at that. Then it just sort of tapers off into a extended rendition of that Feminist Frequency disclaimer about liking games while criticising them, all before ending on his own particular reasons for writing.

My only substantial take-away from that whole section was the bit where he says a part of the reason he writes is because he hopes to "influence" game makers with his critiques. Which is fine! If you're criticising a game for something, why wouldn't you want that criticism to be taken to heart and have tangible results? Considering the merit of that result, and using that in an appraisal of the position presented in a criticism, is also totally reasonable.

In that regard, we can talk about ends when we're discussing the matter of diversity in games for instance. If someone's line of thinking leads to every game having some degree of diversity, it's fair to call that out and speak to any potential problems associated with such an end. Again, that notion isn't directed at Austin, but I think it's relevant to the discussion.

@bollard: It may be moot now considering how few updates Team Fortress 2 gets nowadays, but adding in female equivalents to the mercenaries would only require a few voice acting sessions and the in game models. You would have to keep most of the animations the same because the classes in that game are designed by their body shape. If they didn't want to do the work, there are at least five mods that have added female mercs to the game in fully playable form.

I do agree that I think Austin fails to give the Internet credit for putting pressure on studios, and in certain situations I think it becomes unwarranted. It's really a case by case basis, but in most cases I'd usually prefer that a studio stick to their guns rather than submit to an Internet lynch mob from either side of the debate.

Your writing is incredibly easy to read, Austin. You have a very engaging style that compels me to keep reading. This is a fantastic article that brings up a point I think a lot of people often forget. Developers and content creators have a choice to listen to criticism and take it however they want (or ignore it, should they so choose).

You even had me stop halfway through to read that entire ACNL article - I just wanted to get the gist of it, but couldn't put it down. Thanks for sharing your views, it's actually an interesting thing to think about as we head into E3 - perhaps the yearly pinnacle for lengthy discussions on the potential merits and flaws of new games.

It definitely feels as though a real conflict at the moment with regards to how opinions come across, especially in the online space. I feel almost an obligation to note that any opinion I have is precisely that, and that it's open to debate and interpretation. I'm not going to be upset if someone else's opinion differs from mine, and my discussions and arguments are usually intended in a light-hearted, good natured fashion - even if the topic at hand is one with serious undertones.

Thanks again for sharing this piece - I'll be sure to share it around myself with others! Keep doing what you do (apparently super well, from what little evidence I've seen so far). Looking forward to seeing you in action more during E3 next week, I'm sure you'll be kept pretty busy!

I'm happy that my kind of view (which is similar to what was mentioned in the post as "Why should any culture be forced to homogenize their media in order to appease all other cultures? More tangibly, why should one of the most impoverished races in history (the Polish) pander to American cultural norms?") has been felt by others and has been heard by the other side of the debaters.

At least that makes me feel a bit more at peace and not so annoyed.

Agreed. I mean, (by the critics' logic) does this mean that if there were one or two characters from say, Zerrikania, all the races in the world would feel represented? So is it whites and "the rest"?

This is easily one my favorite pieces on GB so far. As a dude from Denmark who spent 8 years studying English/American language and culture with a focus on cultural history, this article speaks to the academic in as well as to my personal interests. The article also does a good job of addressing some very important points, while at the same time quite efficiently describing the views that a lot of Europeans have on the influence of American culture in foreign areas.
Race in any media is an important topic that needs to be discussed, and discussed well, not just done by shouting arguments at each other from rooftops. Too often "That's racist" or similar phrases are forced to appear in a style akin to Godwin's Law, but the frank and honest talk we need to have on such issues must not be held at bay by people who are to scared/ignorant/angry to engage in meaningful discourse. What we need is thoughtful conversation not hateful screaming. And this place and this piece of editorial is an excellent place to start.

____

Tl:dr - Thumbs up! More articles like this please!

You make a valiant point, however nobody is preventing Hatred from existing either, to your Segal analogy. At the end of the day NeoGAF is but one site. If you walked into a bar, and the bar owner told you you can't discuss "topic A here" there is nothing you can legally do about it. It's a private business, and it's theirs. However nobody is telling you you can't discuss it. Discuss it at home, in your car, in a million other places. In the same way Segal movies can exist, so do can "X private business" tell people not to discuss or advertise Segal movies. The same works for Hatred.

We on the internet act like specific sub forums should have some sense of "free" public domain. They don't. If I paid money to open my own forum website and it had discussions on it I didn't like, I could delete them, ban the people discussing them, set policies against discussing them all I wanted. It's MY site. I own it.

As the internet continues to remain as unregulated as it is, this is one thing people I think fail to understand. There is a grave difference between censoring an opinion, and telling someone to express/discuss said opinion elsewhere.

I'll also note that this was a fantastic article. Great job Austin!

Realistically speaking once you get through the bullcrap of people saying critics are trying to force something you wind up at as close to the truth as you are going to get. Games are getting bigger, and by extension more diverse. The interests of the people playing games, what they want to see and what they desire also gets diverse.

By writing critic pieces on mediums people are trying to SHOW developers the varying degress of interest people have. Whether that is seeing less stereotypical white hero characters, less sexism, less quick time events, the list goes on.

Generally speaking you will never alienate or "push out" the games that do a lot of the things people complain about. Because it has an established audience. That audience likes what is being made for them, and as long as their are developers who enjoy making that it will continue. Considering the wide diversity of people, thus the wide diversity of developers that will continue to exist.

What these critics are doing, is rallying to people who play games to show support for other things. Because at the end of the day most developers make games that sell. If nobody rallies behind diverse main characters, or less steoreotypes and racial slurs, then developers need to factor in what is popular, and what sells...as a decision to what they make. It is why you see so much more diversity in indie games, because there is less of a focus on making what appeals to mass audiences.

Yet I highly doubt many who consume big AAA titles would be against seeing some of these things. Ergo, it would sell. But we need to show the big money people, the publishers, that it will sell. Thus more of it will get made. Then instead of "fighting" with each other, all of us can be happy that we have as many examples as possible of games that try to represent all of us. Just seems like a classic case of the medium not being as diverse as those consuming it.

This is what was missing from Giant Bomb, without some of us even noticing it. Glad to have you on board, Austin.

@devise22: The difference, at least in my eyes, is that Hatred wasn't given an opportunity in this culture. Sure, GAF and other sites have a right to bar discussion of any topic they chose, but Hatred was given more power than it ever deserved by its censorship. It's a game, and a gaming outlet should foster discussion of any and all games. Instead, they added fuel to the tire fire and made it a top seller for at least a few days. It's idiotic and does nothing but hold the critical voices back if we have moral police sanctioning what is and isn't OK.

There is always the option to comment elsewhere yes, but if the top forums for discussion deny a topic, all that does it get the wrong people riled up and fuel indignation. It's a clear sign that gaming culture in all areas needs to grow up, not just the AAA developers.

Great read Austin, gave me a lot to think about as previously i couldnt understand all the views about Witcher not having any non white characters but i realised that its bigger than just me and is a real issue of representation. I seriously doubt that the devs had any intention of being racist or that it even occured to them that they could be viewed as such, i do think they will think about that with their next game though and if they act on it in an interesting way then it can only enrich the world they are representing.

Like many people i played through the first season of The Walking Dead and the lead characters race had no effect on me, i had no prejudce against him for not being white, i enjoyed how he was written and i was even embarassed when folk asked him if he could pick locks due to him being black. Now where as this had a minimal effect on me and made me remember that even casual racism is at its base completely ridiculous, somewhere out there is a guy or girl who picked this game up and felt a little bit of representation.

When Miles Morales became Spider-man in the Ulimate series of comics the vitrial that it spawned shocked me, this half spanish, half african american kid that hadnt even been in the comic book yet (at the time it had just been announced) was being called all sorts of horrific things, people showed how truely vile they could be and as someone used to accepting new ideas and stories (i always that that was part of being a fan of comics/games etc) i was really taken aback.

It is why i am a little embarassed that i read your original article but felt you where wrong without actually considering it "outside the box", i was too focused on how good the game is, how amazingly well detailed the world was and how much of a great job the team had done on it. There could have been characters you meet along the road on side missions, we could have had soldiers, shop keepers, any of these characters could have been any colour with no effect to the main narritive and any great need to change any key character's race or creed. It is a little trickier with the majority of key characters being already outlined so well in the books and this being a direct continuation, but would it have hurt for the girl in the tower who died due to a sleep potion gone wrong to be darker skinned? Could the family who helped the bloody barons daughter not have been of an asian descent?

I guess its just a learning experiance for developers, they didnt necessarily do anything wrong but if a little bit of push back from fans allows them to create more culturely diverse settings and or characters then we can all stand to benefit from it. We only need to look at how much Bioware have changed over the years, some would call their integration of black, gay and trans characters as heavy handed, but at least they are trying and the more they do it the better they will become. I do think you need to keep pushing, i guess we all do even if its only for the friends we have that are not feeling represented in the medium they love and invest so much money in. We dont have to force them, we just have to keep reminding them until it becomes natural to consider all options in every aspect of the creation of these fantastic new worlds.

@impossibilium: Yes, the rare if ever article on Giant Bomb means the entire site is going down in flames of so called "pretension."

Good riddance, man. Those of us sticking around will still be happy. Scratch that, we'll be happier.

Can =/= should. If people controlling conversation treat one side of a debate unfairly, they should be called out on it, ideally by both sides of the discussion. I don't think I've ever seen that happen on Giant Bomb--unfair treatment due to holding an opposing opinion--but it happens all the time on NeoGAF. You can be as hateful and dismissive as you like to some groups and individuals, and you need to walk on eggshells when daring to criticize others.

Suggest that Anita Sarkeesian is manipulative and only cares about money--two accusations that I don't believe to be true, btw--and you're immediately banned. Suggest the same thing about someone like Christina Hoff Sommers, even quite venomously, and you're not given so much as a warning. Both are worthless bad-faith arguments that make inflammatory and unverifiable accusations, but only one of them will cause your account to be deleted.

It's a double-standard, and it only makes things worse for promoting the important concepts of fairness and social responsibility. It just causes everyone to further dig their heels into their already held opinions, and helps foster the "us vs them" mentality that's so destructive with issues like these. Due to the importance of NeoGAF, and the large amount of industry voices that post there, it's especially sorry to see.

Arguing that NeoGAF has the right to punish those who think the "wrong" way is a bit like arguing that Rockstar Games has the right to portray transgender characters in a traditionally hurtful and insulting fashion. It's kind of missing the point. The question isn't can they, the question is should they.

Thanks for the read.

Remember Reach.

Hi Austin, I loved the article and I really hope that you continue writing similarly critical pieces that focus on aspects of games that are often either ignored or screamed down by the expected crowd (mrm activists, children/teenagers, culturally insulated middle/upper class Americans, etc.). As in most cultural and media outlets, I still find the general rule of overt and covert sexism and gender bias in video games to be widespread to the point where it's usually overlooked or dismissed, and when it is addressed the public backlash is such that positive change is either silence or kicked down the road. Clearly you have a unique perspective on the complex issues of race and culture in video games which I personally always find fascinating, but I would also really enjoy either your (or if GB hired a female staff writer at some point) critical perspective on sexism and gender portrayal in video games and video game culture.

When I was still an undergraduate I found critical analysis of sexism and gender bias in various forms of media and culture super interesting, which flies in the face of what people usually say on internet forums, but I think a general audience could come to realize just how enjoyable critical, analytical readings of games and gaming culture (and other forms of media) can be if presented in the right form. From this article you seem like just the kind of writer who can successfully straddle that line between addressing traditionally sensitive issues of race and gender, and keeping a calm and casual tone that doesn't raise the ire of community prone to knee-jerk reaction. Anyways, longer post that I had planned, but keep up the good work!

Edit: One last point, obviously articles addressing/discussing/analyzing issues of gender bias, sexism, etc. in video games and media will always immediate infuriate certain people, but there's also a portion of the audience like me that really wants writing like this to become more available for our consumption. In other words, Giant Bomb doesn't need to have articles splashed permanently all over the front page with the words SEXISM ARTICLES! in all caps, BUT it would be really cool if there were at least more critical articles similar to this one by Austin available on the site somewhere, for people like me who would really enjoy them. Again, Austin and the whole GB crew is awesome, keep up the awesomeness.