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

I enjoyed reading this article! But because I conform to the idea of not challenging the things I agree with and only picking up things I disagree with I really have to question this statement.

"Yes, I still wish there were some people of color in the game."

It's the same strange comment i saw here after Dan and Jason got hired. "I wish they added some colour" and when Austin got hired i saw "I wish they added some estrogen". I wished they added people who I found entertaining... (I do) but I don't care what they look like, if they have tits or who they want to shag. I come to this site for entertainment so what I want out of it is entertainment. Does entertainment equal skin colour or sexuality or gender? Not to me.

Why do you wish this? This is so weird to me. This is a game set in a non real setting. Who cares what the skin colour of the inhabitants is? I don't care if they're all black, all white, all asian, all pink and yellow spots. Would one person of colour be enough? Two? 10%? 50%? 70%? Where would you not be disappointed? Does every game need a accurate reflection of race based on the earths ethnicity %?

Does there need to be a scientific explanation for the absense of ethnic diversity for it to be ok? "Well the world has three suns very far away and it spins like thus..." Would you be disappointed if the lore said that the people of colour had killed all the white people because they could. In other words is fiction enough of a reason for it to be ok there's no ethnic diversity in a location?

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

It seems that Martin Luther King didn't get his message through to some. Some who still abuse people because of the colour of their skin and some who seem to have a desperate need to highlight skin issues in bizarre situations. You shouldn't be bothered about peoples skin colour where there isn't an issue. When you have white US police officers being blatantly racist that's an issue. When a fantasy setting has a population of one skin colour that's not for me.

Austin do you consider yourself a racist? If you're bothered by too many people of one colour that isn't your own... or do you feel inferior? Do you have your own issues about race that you're projecting onto this game? I've come to realise that peoples colour doesn't matter.

Why are the Goombas brown? Why is a white guy stomping on them? Is Mario a racist? Why is there a Black yoshi in the latest smash game and no White one? I just find these sorts of things bizarre and ridiculous. It's total over analysis. It's a non real setting. Or is it a problem that is only applicable to humanoids? Or humans?

I'm white/chinese looking but thinking about it, that shouldn't matter. I've never played the Witcher 3 and don't care about defending it. I think what people mean to say when they write this is "i wish there was more diversity when it comes to making games" in terms of there being games where everyone is black or everyone is gay or a mix but they write it as "i wish there was more diversity IN THIS GAME" which isn't accurately portraying their views.

@jiggajoe14: Thanks for the shoutout. I'm glad that my challenges aren't coming across as combative. I am so exited that GB finally has the ability to host these kind of discussions without huge moderation and a topic lock.

It's pretty sad that articles carefully and long-windedly explaining the obvious in a tone designed to hopefully not offend anyone have to exist. VIDEO GAMES.

Keep your politics out of my video games, maaaaaaaan.

Man, "pretentious" is the most misused word on the internet.

98% of the content on this site doesn't really delve into topics like this much at all. I mean, did you watch The Big Live Live Show some weeks ago when Dan was punching John Drake in the face to play Punch Out? The fun is still there. You aren't forced to read articles like if you don't want to. Just pretend they don't exist and the problem is solved.

@spaceinsomniac: I always find that Giant Bomb users make my points so much better than I can in these debates. Thank you for your eloquence.

i mean- i think only the co-founders truly understand that. everything else is conjecture.

but it definitely sounds like you have a finite conception of what giant bomb "is supposed to be." and i think @jeff would be the first to tell you this thing is designed and intended to grow into new areas. @austin_walker's hire is proof-positive of that.

just because things change and people try new things doesn't mean the old thing turns to ash, ceases to exist completely, and prior work is invalidated.

Great article Austin, I am pretty sympathetic to calls for greater diversity in media. Modern games with a high degree of facial animation give me pause though. These characters are not real people with a cultural background and a set of experiences that informs their actions and reactions. They are animated models created by, in the case of the Witcher by people with a Slavic/European background and experiences. They could mean very well and try to reflect racial diversity in their characters but boy-howdy is there a high risk of creating offensive caricatures. How terrified would you be if I asked you right now to make and animate a facial model of person from a cultural/racial group that you are not intimately familiar with. What facial expression would a person from Japan or India or Morocco make in response to that dialog line? In a film, you hire an actor who will filter the script through their cultural experiences. The racial/culturally correct facial expressions, vocal intonations and body language are free. In a game you have to build all that, it is impossible to imagine getting it right unless you happen to have artists who understand that culture doing the work.

I guess what I am saying is in order to make satisfyingly diverse games you might need diverse teams. Which makes the lack of diversity in games the symptom while the lack of diversity of the industry is the cause.

@corvidus: I think instead a lot of people misinterpreted MLK's message. We do not yet live in a nation nor a world where people can be judged solely by the content of their character because centuries of prejudice and systemic oppression for underrepresented groups hasn't been dealt with.

You can't just point a his dream and say "See, you the real racist!" if we haven't done the actual legwork to fulfill his dream.

@beb: yeah, a bad game never hurt anyone, but a sexist game? A racist game? Those perpetuate oppression, those hurt people. Accusing a game of hurting people is not a call for censorship, but like Austin says there is a spectrum of forcefulness, and moral judgments are more forceful than aesthetic or mechanical ones. Games that hurt people are much more likely to be censored than bad games.

Fuck yes. If I can expect to see more stuff like this on the site, then I'm very excited that you're on the site, Austin. Thanks for writing this up, it was great.

This guy is way too smart for Giant Bomb.

OH GOD, I just realized that Austin and Dan will be in the same room for an entire week. I'm scared...

Criticism is purely an argument being put forward to stimulate debate about an issue. It is not a tool for influence. If it is used that way, then it is an indicator of corruption because there is clearly a vested interest at stake.

Target Australia's ban is one example IMO because Australia's classification laws are very clear. Target could have respected the common laws of Australia and politely declined the group's request, but instead caved in to a minority interest group and denied sales of a perfectly legitimate product.

As for the Witcher, it is slightly ironic that a game dealing directly with racism, is being put under scrutiny for being discriminatory.

@selbie: I dont understand the distinction you are making between debate and influence. If a video game creator or consumer reads a critical piece about race and decides that representation in games is important, aren't they being influenced? If so, does that indicate corruption?

I love this article and will be sure to link it to my peers, game design students.

.

"Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life"

@falconer said:

I dunno, that sounds fucking awesome to me.

@ara313: Funny how you use the word "forced" considering the main point of this piece is about how criticism trys to influence, not force.

If brain no want thinky on Giantbomb, then I would recommend not clicking on articles like this. Though,unfortunately for you, many Giantbomb readers are interested in this topic.

Bravo, Austin...it's great to have your thoughts to read here on GB. I'm impressed! Welcome aboard. I look forward to the great times to come.

I know! That's why I'm scared. I'm not sure if I can handle that much awesome.

Yeah, because white is the norm in the AAA gaming space, its not noticeable. It allows those characters action's and opinions to be interpreted solely in the context of the game, and not through the character's race. Whereas if you include non-white characters, some players may look at their viewpoints and actions as a product their racial background.

I think through increased non-white representation in games, people won't consider race as much when interpreting colored characters actions. Furthermore, they may start viewing white character's actions in the context of their whiteness. I think both those developments would be positive and interesting.

CD Project Red would probably be the first guys to admit that they are way out of their depth when it comes to putting a black person in a Witcher game in such a way that it works out perfectly with American audiences.

Besides, Witcher already shows a world full of warlords willing to use racism as a tool to dispose of everybody they do not like. The main character gets insulted pretty much all throughout the game. It is impossible to imagine that the characters in the world of Witcher would have much to offer on the topic of inclusiveness. It would be odd to find a town where they killed all elves, then all dwarves, then all magic users, then all people who come from the wrong country, but then left the black NPC alive for a reason and start preaching about inclusiveness.

@corvidus: Are you actively trying to sound like a conservative US politician? Like, seriously, the "you're the real racist for noticing that people have skin colors" line is not a new revelation, buddy - it's what people like Rush Limbaugh spout whenever they get called on their shit.

Here's the bottom line - it's great that you're not bothered by anything in the Witcher 3. Go with god. But "You shouldn't be bothered about peoples skin colour where there isn't an issue" - that's a different story. What exactly makes you the arbiter of what constitutes an "issue?" What gives you the right to tell people how they should and shouldn't think? Did you ever consider that skin color isn't that much of an issue to you here because skin color isn't an issue for you in real life, and so you can't see past your own advantages?

I have a friend who was sitting outside a bar once, and was arrested by the police for looking like a guy who broke into a house in a nearby neighborhood. He was in jail for a week before he went to trial, treated like shit, and his lawyer advised him to plead guilty to a crime he didn't commit - all of that was because of his black skin. Now, clearly, that's a bigger problem than representation in video games - but if my friend comes up and tells me he feels a little uncomfortable in the world of the Witcher 3 - do you think I should tell him he's wrong, and it's not an actual problem?

So yeah, glad you don't have issues like this, and think they're "bizarre and ridiculous." Maybe keep that to yourself next time, though.

@4thvariety: The games already make a very strong point of including stories of inclusion, they just use magical creatures as stand ins for racial or cultural differences. Geralt is already treated as an outcast based on his appearance and "race." I don't see why they wouldn't be able to write even more compelling characters of different colors.

Good one, Dr. Games! Great read.

Great read.

I have to leave one more comment saying how funny it is that several people are saying something along the lines of, "I don't care at all whether a cast in a video game is all white! For that matter, I don't care if the Giant Bomb staff is all black, white, male, female, Asian, Hispanic, etc. all I care is that they're funny! So stop whining about a video game having an all white cast, or Giant Bomb having an all male, all white staff! You are all racists/sexists for seeing color/gender in the first place and caring!"

Which all sounds mildly logical up to a point, until you actually take a step back and think, "Hm... about 50% of the population in the United States, where this website (that I love) is based, is female, but after years of staff members coming and going, Giant Bomb still has never hired a woman to join the crew. I've seen many people come and go on Giant Bomb over the years, whether full time staff members, or even interns, but Giant Bomb has still been 100% male."

It's not a matter of demanding a gender quota, it's examining something that you authentically love (Giant Bomb), and pointing out something that you see as hurting it more than helping it. I'm not going to boycott GB for still not adding a woman to the crew, I'm not going to cancel my subscription. But at a certain point, I have to conclude that either the biases inherent in the Giant Bomb staff, or in the video game industry are a factor, and that's a bummer to someone who likes the kind of critical thinking, discussion, and actual fun that comes from having a group of people that have their differences.

@conmulligan: Yup! Dan gets along with everyone. Having different personalities is rad.

My issue with TW3 lack of diversity complains is the fact that those claims for diversity seem shortsighted and hypocrite. True diversity deals with the fact there are cultures that are not like yours, beliefs and thinking may be totally different, at the point you start forcing your idea of "diversity" in every single culture outside yours, that is kind of cultural imperialism.

From us living outside the US there is this constant tenure, US judge the world based on their ideals as if they were some sort of dogma. Culture outside Anglophone societies actually build themselves around ethnicity not around color, This leads to a really weird obsession with color. As is the only way to have diversity is having people of different color, consider that in The Witcher 3 Nifgards and Temerians have substantial cultural differences, that makes for diversity... Is not color diversity but more important cultural diversity.

I do believe racism is stupid, but this idea of fast food diversity feels more like a justification for economic globalisation, cultural homogenisation, and you have to wonder who does this ideology benefits? As I said we are no talking about true diversity but homogenisation. Cultures around the world have the right to chose what to believe.

@donpixel: You might want to read the actual article, since, you know, it touches on some of your points.

Red it, it is pretty well written. But at the end I really don't understand his posture other than well... I'm trying. Said so, I do find race-gender discussion interesting, I'm not trying to silence it by any means. However, I do think TW3 is being judge with the wrong rule figuratively speaking.

Consider GTA games (Not made in America BTW) have some of the best depictions of American characters, that aren't neither pandering utopic heroes nor offensive stereotypes... Yeah I do think this discussion shall keep going.

A good judge starts at home

@donpixel: Ah. See, I got the impression that you hadn't read it because he very specifically addresses the topic of American cultural imperialism, and why he thinks it doesn't apply here, which is something that you seemed to have glossed over.

Suffice it to say that, personally, I don't think you got the point Austin was trying to make here, which was less about "THE WITCHER HAS TO HAVE BLACK PEOPLE IN IT OR IT'S BAD" and, in fact, is specifically about why he should be able to express his feelings as a person of color and a critic without people thinking that he's trying to "force" anyone to do anything. He specifically is talking about use of the word "force," so maybe you can see how you using that world in your response without referencing that AT ALL makes me think that you didn't actually read anything. But hey - you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

I have no idea what you're trying to say about Rockstar - it doesn't seem relevant to anything we're talking about, to me - but they have studios all over the world, including in the US, that contribute to the development of all their games, and Rockstar North, for instance, doesn't exclusively hire people from Scotland or even the UK. And then those characters are acted by Americans. So I'm not exactly sure the credit you're giving them for depicting "America" so "well" (not really with you on that premise either, but whatever) is deserved.

@homelessbird: Sorry but I'm going to have to poop on your insistence that people of certain races should never question certain arguments when people of certain other races make them. The fact that any rationally-thinking person with a good grasp of argumentation and a high standard for evidence should be able to judge my arguments on their own merits is exactly "what gives [me] the right to tell [anyone] how they should and shouldn't think". Read the article again and pay attention to how Austin explains that critics should have as much right to criticize as the criticized have to accept or reject criticism.

Oddly or not, I don't find this issue complicated at all. I think the difference in opinion comes from our differing understandings of freedom of expression.

I was just watching a Milton Friedman video on equality. He was discussing economic freedom, but I found this one quote particularly relevant to this discussion.

"There is an enormous difference between liking to see a result and being in favor of a particular method of achieving that result. Because if I were wrong, if freedom led to wider inequality, I would prefer that to a world in which I got artificial equality at the expense of freedom. My objective, my God if you want, is freedom."

Hopefully this will help to elucidate the opinions that Austin finds so troubling. I am in favor, in general, of ethnic diversity in games. As long as that diversity is a natural product of free artistic expression. I would never want to limit the freedom of an artist in order to appease my particular tastes and opinions, or the tastes and opinions of others. This extends to the world of criticism. I can critique bugs, mechanics, and QTEs all day long. But artistic expression is another beast entirely. I believe critiquing artistic decisions (lore, worldbuilding, skin color & genitalia of the protagonist etc.) in the hopes that developers change to better suit me acts against my desires and reduces freedom of expression in the medium. It is my responsibility, not someone elses, to produce art that appeals to my particular worldview. In fact the personal and particular nature of art is what makes it so fascinating. I would argue further that the way to increase/decrease (insert buzzword here) in games is to promote freedom of expression unilaterally. Especially if I find the result of that expression to be offensive or in any way distasteful. The reason is I want myself and other potential artists to enjoy that same freedom in the event we choose to make games.

I think maybe you should re-read the conversation that I was having before butting in next time. I pretty clearly wasn't saying that white people don't get to question what black people say. You have to be trying pretty hard to misconstrue my writing to get that out of it.

What I did say was that no one has the right to tell anyone what to be upset by, or what to consider legitimate criticism. You can tell me that YOU THINK it's silly to be upset by the lack of diversity in the Witcher. And I can tell you to go take a long walk off a short bridge for that opinion. As long as you stand by my right to have those opinions, no matter what you think of them, we don't have a problem.

But I sincerely think it's at best fucked up to tell someone that they shouldn't be bothered by something because it doesn't bother you - you're basically saying "shut up about your problems - they're stupid and unimportant because they're not my problems." It's exactly the line people get whenever they're trying to pursue a civil rights cause that the majority couldn't care less about. And the actual person I was talking to had written the line: "You shouldn't be bothered about peoples skin colour where there isn't an issue." Can't get much clearer than that - very different than saying "personally, this doesn't bother me."

I don't know why I'm even responding this cogently though - you're swinging at some weird strawman of a racist person that you've set up in your head.

I too am very concerned about stifling the artistic vision in large budget videogames made by hundreds of people and funded by billion dollar corporations that have been carefully and specifically constructed to turn a profit

@ferrhis-: Thanks for being so articulate - clearly a well thought-out opinion.

My question to you, then - do you not think criticisms of books, films, and visual art should exist? There are technical aspects to cover there, too, but they rarely are the focus of critics - most films are well made, technically speaking. Most criticism of art focuses on the "artistic expression" portion. Do you think the fact that it's out there is stifling to creativity? Or is it just in games?

Furthermore, do technical critiques not also push a particular viewpoint? If I critique Asura's Wrath on the basis of QTEs being a large portion of the game, is that a legitimate critique? Would a critique of it based on its use of Buddhist culture and symbology be more stifling to creativity?

@impossibilium: seems like a strange position to take since the vast majority of original content GB produces is still fun stuff like quicklooks, unprofessional fridays, and old games shows. maybe try skipping the rare serious articles?

I have a major issue with Austin's understanding of the argument that Americans are being culturally imperialistic when they complain of minority underrepresentation in the Witcher 3: he doesn't actually address the aspect of American culture is actually being forced on another nation here - that aspect being multiculturalism. My simple understanding of multiculturalism is that it is just a cultural reflection of the many different ethnically-derived cultures such an ethnically diverse country as America is bound to have. Promoting multicultural works in American mass media is seen as a good thing by many people including myself. I could list myriad reasons for why I believe it is good, but I'll just mention the most important of them which is that it gets us farther away from a boring mono-culture.

But Poland isn't America, and it is much less ethnically and culturally diverse (98.6 percent of the population is "European" according to Wikipedia). There are less cultures competing for air time, and so multiculturalism is a much smaller issue there. Unlike America, the vast majority of people already see their culture heavily represented in popular mass media.

This entire controversy stems from the fact that Witcher 3 happens to be such a popular, well made game, that many Americans assumed it was made for them, but it wasn't. Lets be honest, almost all of the highest-quality video games and movies are made by and for the Anglo-sphere and a few wealthy Western European countries these days (ignoring Nintendo). So Polish people saw that there was no reason to put certain minorities in their game, because Poland doesn't really have a multiculturalism problem.

The funny thing is The Witcher 3 actually deals with race and bigotry in some interesting ways. But because the characters are all white that fact gets overlooked by single minded folks who think simply having different color palettes for the characters is the only way to be progressive.

They are too busy judging the book by its cover to crack it open and read into it a bit.

@homelessbird: I think the difference, especially in film, is that most critics are clearly expressing their opinions without an expectation of change on the part of the content producers. For instance Leonard Maltin famously gave Taxi Driver a low review because he found the movie to be really depressing. He simply didn't enjoy it. But I hardly think he would suggest that Scorcese change his film making style or even worse feel sorry or guilty for making such a depressing film. In fact I bet Maltin would say "to hell with my opinion, keep doing what you do buddy." Because on the whole he has given Scorcese favorable reviews and obviously respects him as an artist. He made it very clear that it was his opinion and his opinion alone, not a sweeping statement on the state of film making as a medium or Scorcese as an artist. (If Maltin wrote for Kotaku, the headline would probably look like "Scorcese the sexist: his influence on the rise of misogyny in cinema.") On the flip side, some game critics have made it clear that they are bothered by the lack of ethnic diversity and a perceived degree of misogyny in The Witcher 3. If the argument ended there, that would simply be an individual opinion and we could all skip off into the sunset. But when it extends into "and I think there should be more (blank) in games" that opinion becomes a tool to enact change. And you can't have change unless...people change. There is a way to share your opinions without pushing an agenda of change. Book, cinema and music critics pretty much have that down at this point which is why these discussions are rare in those fields. (though they do happen, like in the case of Paul Simon's album Graceland).

And in regard to your second paragraph, I think any critique can be made to push a particular agenda. But that has little to do with the content of the argument and more to do with how it is framed and contextualized. For example, a big reason Anita Sarkeesian is so polarizing is because she tends to frame her arguments very particularly. Specifically she picks scenes from games that support her political opinions and omits scenes that do not. There are plenty of youtube videos that use her style to argue that games are sexist towards men or that they support animal cruelty, etc. None of that politicization is necessary however to discuss ones opinion of a game or medium.

Not for Americans... then how do you explain the millions of dollars CDPR spent advertising in America? Or is it like, "Thank you for your money, but you have no right to criticize our game" sort of thing?

I probably should just butt out. As you said, this game is made by whites for whites. If it just said that on the box I would have known not to buy it.

Yeah, If you think about it the main protagonist of the series is being discriminated by every single NPC he encounter because he is different (mutan, freak). Regardless of him being modeled with caucasian physiognomy he is different, hence discriminated as is part of our vile human nature to reject those different from us.

The cultural conflict between regions, nations and groups of people are also portrayed in believable fashion.

All these discussion makes me think US is far from being an inherently racist society as color (not culture) is so predominant in every discussion, either video games, cinema, politics you name it. Does make me wonder about plenty of those TW3 race articles, are you criticising the lack of multi coloured people? or are you criticising actual diversity... because the game has in fact plenty of diversity.

Remains me of why nobody makes a big deal if a kid zip some red whine after eating in Mediterranean countries, because is a no issue, there is no need to blog about it, is part of their culture. Hopefully US will get to a point were race is actually a no issue.

I suppose Americans can consume a bit of media with Polish flavour in a sea of COD clones. Do you actually want to eat hamburger everyday of your life ? What about a bit of polish cousine ? I mean is not like we have a AAA video game not made in America every single day.

Are you concerned with culture or color ? Are you aware white people are not the same everywhere ?

@donpixel: The Witcher is a taste of Polish culture. I actually find that argument somewhat persuasive. Though a lot of AAA games are made outside of America. Assassins Creed games and the new Wolfenstein games for example.

This culture vs. color argument seems like a bit of misdirection to me though. I dont think that's what @originalyellow had in mind when he talked about Poland not having a "multiculturalism problem".

"problem" lol

That was a great piece Austin.

I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on all of this and I thought you did a great job outlining all of those different topics.

@donpixel: I keep forgetting having non-whites in your game is American cultural hegemony and that the Witcher 3 is about real life Polish culture and history. So glad you're here to remind us, and to remind us that as Americans, we loooooooooooooove hamburgers. Yup.

@ferrhis-:Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

On that first point, though, I think we'll have to disagree. First, I see criticism of film that involves a call to action ALL THE TIME - maybe not from Leonard Maltin, though. I'm talking about criticism, you see, not product reviews; you know, the type of stuff that you study in college. Writing that approaches film from a deconstructionist, reader response, or a feminist perspective (etc.). Personally, that's what I want games writing to aspire to, and I think a very specific perspective is inherent to that criticism, and one that doesn't just address the technical.

But mainly, I think where we don't see eye-to-eye is that I don't believe that saying "I think there should be more (blank) in games" is a call to action. I'm with Austin on what he wrote above - there are a lot of specific ways to organize and push a political agenda, if that's what you're interested in doing. What these critics are doing (some in a more inflammatory way than others, admittedly) is saying: "here's what I think and feel, and how I think things would be improved." That opinion only becomes a tool to enact change if somebody takes it and acts on it. On its own, it only serves to inform about a unique perspective, and it is entirely the choice of the reader to listen to it, and challenge their own ideas with it, much less act on it.

From my perspective, the disconnect is probably in looking at games writing as an aggregate as opposed to seeing it as a group of (often like-minded) individuals.

@carlos707: That is a good point; the game was clearly targeted towards Eastern Europe AND the Anglosphere if you go by where ad dollars were spent. But would you rather game designers make a game for themselves or for some marketing demographic? A cohesive, creatively-driven vision is especially important to game stories and settings; for example, the believablity of the North African setting of Resident Evil 5 was diminished after fans complained that there were too many black zombies, and to address this they added, in my opinion, too many white zombies (the Arabic zombies that they also added made much more sense). Would the believablity of the Slavic-inspired fantasy land of the Witcher be harmed by the inclusion of a non-white character? No, but the cohesiveness of its intended identity would be. The designers decided to create a fantasy setting where one of the peculiarities is that there are very few to no non-white people. There are many different, plausable reasons why they might have done this, most of them are lore related (for example, the nilfgardian blockade blocking ships from more racially colorful places like Zerrikania getting through), and some are to stay true to its medieval Poland inspired setting. The only reason they would have to include more non-white characters would be to appeal to a marketing demographic that wants non-white characters in their game.

Also, you do know that it sounds awfully ignorant when you say something like the game was made "for whites, by whites" right? White people aren't all a single ethnic group, and to think so is...let me just stop myself there before I get too mad.

Aaaand, I never said that anyone didn't have the right to criticize anything. Sheesh, how does every argument I make on here somehow come down to who has the "right" to do whatever?