Great stuff Austin, fully agree with your last paragraph.

Thank you so much for writing this.

I feel like CDP should absolutely be criticised for this, how severe said criticism should be is another thing. But just telling them "Why didn't you do this?" should not be any point of contention. If people were like "This game is RACIST because of this" (I haven't seen anybody say this!) then it would feel overblown to me. Just telling them "Hey, maybe next time you could be a bit more inclusive" shouldn't be a problem for anybody.

Well said. Thanks for taking the time to write this, Austin.

I will definitely be sharing this with some folks that are so close to understanding why it's an important question but still can't get past the apologia that has inundated their social media feeds.

Just finished the first Witcher, and am now playing through Witcher 2. This is something that has constantly bothered me, but I haven't been able to articulate it well. Thank you, Austin.

It wouldnt break the immersion but it wouldnt add anything, as you say they already deal with racism but that doesnt mean they should include every color availible. There also are some black people in the witcher games and in the lore even though they are super rare. I cant speak for Witcher 3 becouse i havnt encountered one yet and i havnt finished it but there are in the first 2 games.

Really good stuff, Austin. The Zerrikanian thing is especially frustrating because the game is littered with references to it. You can acquire and read book and scrolls about Zerrikania, craft Zerrikanian bombs and oils, find Zerrikanian swords, even buy Zerrikanian saddlebags — but there are no actual Zerrikanians. It makes the world feel much so much smaller than it actually as.

And whether its intentional or not, when those fans say “Why should they include a person of color?” it ends up sounding a lot like “I’m glad they didn’t include people of color. It was right of them not to. The game would be ruined otherwise.”

That is a logical leap you are making not one put forward by those making the argument and therefore seems ridiculous.

Much like the inclusion of a some "people of color" walking in and out of a tavern would take away nothing from the game I would argue to the exact same point that it would add nothing either.

Nicely said, Austin.

Great article. One quick note is that Poland is actually substantially whiter than even you estimate here. It's 98.6% white with 1.4% mixed or unspecified. I mean.. my redneck hometown is substantially more diverse than Poland, which is rather shocking.

Of course, that's not necessarily a defense. Witcher 3 is the third game in the series. CD Projekt has been on the world stage for at least a few years now. It's not just playing for local support. But the difference in racial diversity is actually startling.

Overall, I think I like Mike Williams' take over at USGamer: http://www.usgamer.net/articles/on-the-witcher-iii-race-and-fantasy-homages

Basically, I think individual games can get away with a lack of diversity. Not all games should be rainbows. But the problem is when every fantasy game is basically a bunch of white Europeans. And it wouldn't take much to justify a 'bit' more diversity in some of the larger cities.

As you say, the apologia surrounding the lack of race in The Witcher 3 is disingenuous. However, I don't know that all of those same fans would be put off by the inclusion of PoC (yeah some people are just racist but blanketing all of the dissent as such is also disingenuous). Rather, wide swaths of fandom are subject to feelings of victimization and any criticism of the subjects of that fandom are seen as personal attacks.

When Tauriq Moosa conflates the discomfort of Rust's less-than-open-minded player base with fans of The Witcher 3... well maybe that's just fanning the flames instead of trying to start a dialogue. That's not an indictment of Mr. Moosa; I think he makes some great points in that article. But I much prefer your writing style Austin; you're always looking at an issue from multiple perspectives and not just your own.

I mean it's relatively simple, the representation of minorities is done through other races of humanoids/Witchers and so on. If there were non white people in the game they would act literally the same as all the other humans (aside from maybe having an accent) because that's how those things are done in most video games so it doesn't really make a difference aside from color palette. There is a clear cultural difference between the Nilfgaardians, Novigrad inhabitants, Velen Peasants, and Skellige people; so you can be rest safely assured that there would be a cultural difference if we ever go to Zerrikania in the future.

Was Poland 96% white in the middle ages? Or like 99.9%? Up until the Golden Horde showed up and kicked everyone's ass that is. If you want to make an argument that there should be Mongolian Steppe Warriors then I think that makes at least some small amount of sense.

Holding aside all the nit-picky historical arguments. I don't know the internal demographics of CD projekt but if they're anything like Poland itself I would presume it to be pretty homogeneous. Do we then demand that a homogeneous society produce diversity? Would they even be capable of producing a genuine well-written PoC given their lack of context? In my mind these are not insignificant hurdles but obstacles that would make it even harder for a dev like CD projekt to write PoCs then it is for Americans. I believe that forcing white people to write mediocre or stereotypical portrayals of minorities is worse than not including them at all. Although I'm open to being wrong on this point.

@mashzapotato said:

One of the main antagonists in the first game was a Zerrikanian mage, so CD Projekt are certainly not disinclined to write a non-white character.

My response to the 'it wouldn't add anything either' comment you and others have made would me that maybe it wouldn't add anything for you. But for those people of color who clearly want to be represented in this medium they love and who are clearly underrepresented at the moment... the fact that they're writing op-eds about this issue tells me that it DOES matter to them. It would absolutely add something for them.

So if it doesn't matter to you... and it clearly does matter to some others.... seems the clear choice would be to add some more representation into our video games. Everyone wins.

I wonder if the television show Vikings has faced this sort of criticism. A show that takes place in Scandinavia and England through 796 AD to 800 AD or so. As you can imagine, the only ethnicities portrayed on the show are Anglo Saxon Christians and Norman Vikings. It's historical fantasy, so it should be subject to the same criticisms being levied at the Witcher, right? I mean, it doesn't matter if the criticisms actually make sense within the context of the narrative as presented.

Or does Vikings get a pass because it shows two very diverse, distinct cultures with their own myths and religions? I can never keep up with these goal posts.

"And whether its intentional or not, when those fans say “Why should they include a person of color?” it ends up sounding a lot like “I’m glad they didn’t include people of color. It was right of them not to. The game would be ruined otherwise.”

With respect, it only ends up sounding like that if a) you're an idiot, or b) you have an agenda and want it to sound like that.

How about arguing against what people have actually said, instead of setting up a straw man for yourself to easily knock down?

Also, you 'absolutely' pulled that 1.5m figure out of your ass.

Great post, Austin.

And for my taste, a more frustrating point than the historicity argument is the invocation of the fantasy racism narrative. The substitution of actual minorities with white-skinned literal non-humans in fantasy narratives about race tends to make my skin crawl, frankly.

Ehhh, Azar Javed's graphic design and character is excessively lustful, animalistic, and exotic. It toes a line for me.

great piece austin + also really hope the community will not be really shitty about this and future pieces from you

really, really hope for that

@akins286: I would argue that including or not including stuff like that goes under artistic freedom. Making games from an political correct template never turns out great.

edit: Just look at Bioware and how they are trying. Their games still endure as much critic as any other game but everyone agrees the writing in The Witcher is superior.

this isn't a full piece?

So I ask why does it matter to them?

The answer I get is that they want somebody to relate to, fair point (though skin colour being the factor for this is in itself bizarre to me) but again I would ask what would some background tavern people of colour do for the game or for that audience? Are you really telling me that solely because of the colour of their skin someone would be able to relate to an NPC that doesnt really do anything, craziness.

Ive said it on other threads but Ill say it here again, is a call for a more diverse cast (in far more ways then just skin colour, gender ect... but including these facets) of characters across the gaming landscape something I get behind? Absolutely. But to look at individual games and criticize them for not meeting your own expectation of a ethnic quota is absurd.

I really don't get it who the fuck gives a shit if someone adds a person of color in their game, book or film if they don't feel it fits into the setting.Should writes be forced into adding black faces (is that what it comes down to) into their fication? I'm sorry this just smacks of white man to the rescue (I know Austin and the other guy are 'colored').

I just think Witcher 3 is the wrong game to take offence at this for. Sure, it hits all the common fantasy tropes of almost all white characters, and white elves, and white dwarves and so on, but looking at the world of the Witcher Zerrikania is analogous to India. Considering it is also a time of war with the Nilfgaardians attempting to conquer the Northen Kingdoms, I think it would be likely that, even if there are trade relations with the Zerrikanians, they might not even want to be there in fear of being enveloped in a war, or the Nilfgaardians have put up a blockade prohibiting them from getting close. A lot of "but if"s there, but taking into account the distance and comparing it to (Northern) Europe back in, let's say, 1100-1300, I hardly think it would be common to see people of other skin colors walking around freely. The areas of Velen and Skellige that are represented in Witcher 3 are more like Northern Europe (Scandinavia and northern Germany) in feel to me. (Maybe not completely culturally as it has many similarities to Slavic culture, of course). But, without knowing much about how the law in Novigrad for example is, I wouldn't be surprised if they had something similar to what Denmark/Norway had from 1687 prohibiting Jews from entering the kingdom without written consent from the King, or as it was even more strongly enforced in the Norwegian constitution of 1814, that no Jesuitt, monk order or Jew may enter the kingdom at all.

In the books there have been mention of 2, that's two, Zerrikanians appearing, and one in the first game. It doesn't sound like they are really common to just stumble across in the Northern Kingdoms at all. So, why would they appear out in the countryside in Velen, or, more plausibly, as some merchant in Novigrad? Again, with the presence of war between Nilfgaard and the Northern Kingdoms I would imagine they would all stay far away from there unless they were part of some mercenary corps.

I've seen some bring up Game of Thrones as a comparison too, and how they are showing people of at least some diversity in skin color, but to me the Witcher 3 takes place in areas more reminiscent of something like the North in Westeros. I can't really say that I have noticed many people of color in Winterfell for example. However they do exist in the southern part of the world, like in Essos and so on (not heavy into the GoT lore so don't remember many place names off the top of my head :P).

Point being, sure, be all angry and everything because there aren't more people of color in video games, but to complain about them not existing in Witcher 3 when it takes place in an area that would be like medieval northern Europe just sounds like taking the popular game of the moment and attempting to make an example of it because of an issue that should rather be taken up in relation to game worlds that make more sense for it :P

@oldirtybearon: The Witcher isn't historical fiction. It is pure fantasy series that took inspiration from folklore and fairy tales. It also already contains people of color and it is based in a giant world with a huge cast of hundreds. So the comparison you're making really has no bearing on the conversation at hand.

@mashzapotato said:

Yeah, I don't think he was perfect by any means, but he suggests that CD Projekt don't have some weird hangup about featuring non-white characters in their games.

I wouldn't take that as a given in all cases. Race is the issue of the month because American police can't seem to stop murdering black people, therefore incredibly tenuous articles like this will be written about popular games for the forseeable future until everyone gets bored and moves on to whatever the next thing is.

12 months ago it would have been "Why isn't Geralt a woman? Saying he shouldn't have to be a woman is like saying that Geralt being a woman would ruin the game!!" and 12 months from now it'll be something else. There will always, always be an angle from which to write garbage like this if someone is so inclined. Wringing your hands about what people from another country are creating is certainly a hell of a lot easier than solving the very-actually-real race problems in one's own country.

@justkamtoo: Austin isn't white and neither was the author of the Polygon article and they clearly give a shit.

I don't think there's an argument for different races to be there, they should be there. At the very least its a disservice to the fiction that no one from Zerrikania shows up. You really expect me to believe that even with that war going on, none of them would be there? No traders trying to profit off the war? No mercenaries? There's no conflict there that might drive people to seek shelter elsewhere?

However, as I said on Tauriq's piece, I think the "this culture belongs to people with white skin, and therefore it's okay to change it in ways that aren't okay for other cultures" argument is super weak. That's just being disrespectful to other people, which has certainly gone the other way in an even less justified manner, and leads to Tokenism. It's on the same level as the "everyone in the country it's based on is white" argument. Everyone should feel trepidation at the thought of defacing someone esle's culture, regardless of how the other person racially identifies. If you don't then there's a problem to be worked out, in my opinion.

I don't think this conversation would be gone if they were included though, just different, because skin color would still likely be ignored in the face of the the already present racial conflicts. Then we'd have people arguing about how the races in the game aren't representative of that actual race's experience - as we have for many different instances of media that tries to be more diverse - despite the fact that the politics of race in that universe are, though it lacks in variety of colors, completely separate from the color of one's skin. I'd rather have that situation than this one, but something tells me that issue would not be so uniformly dismissed with the same argument of The Witcher's world being fantasy and therefore not bound by the trappings of our own world.

(I'll make a little aside here, it does make sense in Easter Europe for race politics to be mostly skin color independent, as much of the region's racial violence has occurred based on cultural groups that less informed people probably couldn't tell apart.)

And to top it off, all games seem to need to qualify for larger racial diversity these days is black people. Rarely does anyone discuss the meaningful absence of the broader Asian and Latin groups out side of the broader "people of color" generalization. I don't think I've seen a single discussion mentioning the lack of those other races in The Witcher 3, but I've seen plenty that mention black people and just default to the "people of color" moniker for the larger discussion - like the rest of it doesn't need to be addressed if you just drape this tarp over everything.

I just don't see what it would add. Its a portrayal of an eastern European medieval fantasy. And no, its not trying to be a completely historically accurate portrayal of that, but that isn't a valid argument against it either. What The Witcher world tries to be is extremely clear, dragons be damned. I am not personally sure if it would take away anything to add more diversity to the character. But maybe the creators felt that for the vision they created, why would that be wrong?

Generally I don't see the validity of this complaint. OK, it would make the game more diverse, but to what end? Would minorities be more inclined to play the game then? Really? I personally love to experience different cultural portrayals in media. I absolutely adore the Yakuza games. For the exact reason that they portray a Japanese culture in such a deeply intrinsic way that isn't something I personally experience in my day to day life. I don't see anyone complaining about those games not having enough white/black characters. And in that case I think it would make the authenticity of the world lessen if they changed it. Not everything has to be inclusive and diverse, its great to experience things outside your natural habitat and settings not familiar to your own perspective.

And whether its intentional or not, when those fans say “Why should they include a person of color?” it ends up sounding a lot like “I’m glad they didn’t include people of color. It was right of them not to. The game would be ruined otherwise.”

I think this is extreme projection and honestly quite an unsettling way to try and silence any legitimate discussion on the subject. Its a fair point to bring up and one that certainly has value in being discussed. Saying that simply tries to shut down anyone that doesn't share the opinion though.

Man, Austin, you do those words darn good. I think is my favourite response thus far.

I had read excerpts from the Polygon review, but I hadn't noticed that there wasn't any person of color until I read that book on Zerrikania. I personally found it more "immersion-breaking" that there wasn't any person of color in the game, especially in Novigrad, which is supposed to be a multi-cultural hub (evidenced by the fact that there are more non-humans there than any other place in the game). Anyway, that was a great write-up. I found everything you've written on the site to be fascinating, including the Fallout 4 news piece. Keep up the good work and good luck at E3.

Based on my past experiences, I'm really surprised people didn't roll around calling the game racist en mass. I was at the dead center of the uproar over Far Cry 4's box art, and I got railed on by a bunch of people for suggesting to the guy who started it that he didn't have enough information to be making those claims on. Bunches of people calling me a racist just for suggesting that someone not make such heavy accusations based solely on an image.

Like a week later we get Ubisoft out there saying he's not white. Then he's very clearly Asian in the first trailer. That stuff gets under my skin. Criticize Ubisoft for letting that out there without context? Sure. Call them racist? Come on. Sadly, that's how most of these things tend to go, especially when they get as much attention as The Witcher 3 has. Glad people are actually having a discussion for once instead of just being absurdly shitty. There are some people who have been kind of shitty, via ignorance, but I don't think I've seen people on either side being as aggressively shitty as they usually are. Hopefully everyone is getting tired of it.

@kadaju86: It's supposed to be Poland and Poland had a strong Jewish presence and had laws protecting them since the late 900s or so. 200 years before this game takes place.

Edit: Late 1000s or so

@thatpinguino: Except it does, since both Vikings and The Witcher take place primarily in northern lands populated almost exclusively by white people. The wider world still exists, and while the tale told in Vikings is taking place, other shit is happening all across the world. Same goes for The Witcher; the story of Geralt is concentrated on the Northern Kingdoms, which is so far away from other lands and other cultures that it practically exists within its own bubble. It's not a story that takes place all over the world like Game of Thrones, it takes place almost exclusively in Temeria with occasional excursions into nations like Aedirn and Skellige.

The point I'm making, the point anyone is really making, is why can't a story steeped in the culture and folklore of its creators remain authentic to the culture and the folklore. Why must it bend and conform itself to this Americentric view of diversity when that's not the sandbox the narrative plays in?

I've yet to hear a good explanation for all of this or at least one that does not solely depend on "feelings".

We just had a thorough discussion on @imsh_pl blog about this very thing. And in a very civil, thoughtful manner (including many comments). The key point being that it's a game representing Polish culture. Really, read it to see the perspective of someone from over there. I was born there and spent many years there before moving to America, as well.

And whether its intentional or not, when those fans say “Why should they include a person of color?” it ends up sounding a lot like “I’m glad they didn’t include people of color. It was right of them not to. The game would be ruined otherwise.”

I'm sorry, but that is quite a leap to make. It makes me feel like any counterargument will be nullified immediately. You preface it with "intentional or not," but it also makes anyone with a different perspective not want to engage in a discussion.

@oldirtybearon: Vikings is about an actual historical period in time. Witcher is about a world with demons, elves and monsters. Not that hard to figure out why they're held to different standards.

@oldirtybearon: I propose a compromise: get Idris Elba to voice act everyone.

@defaultprophet: I just brought that up as an example of some law that could make it "reasonable" that there aren't any people with other skin colors in Velen or Novigrad. Would maybe be weird that it isn't mentioned if that is the case, but in a world like that that has so much prejudice against non-humans I wouldn't be surprised if they had a law stating that "no Zerrikanian or [insert other region/nation name] are allowed to enter the kingdom" or something along those lines.

@csl316: So are you saying we're arguing with born-again Christians? That's pretty accurate actually.

Aside: How many games represent non anime versions of Asian people outside of Sleeping Dogs and Jade Empire and how often do we have discussions regarding their inclusion?

Best solution I've come across.

@milkman said:

Except Vikings slaps the viewer in the face with mysticism and divine intervention at practically every major plot point in the narrative. Just because there are no dragons does not mean it's not fantasy. There are Seers, Prophecies, and other unexplained phenomena rampant throughout the show. Just because it's written well and uses historical context to derive an appealing narrative doesn't suddenly immunize it from the criticisms so many are quick to throw upon the Witcher.

Hell, the Priest Athelstan is assaulted by a dark creature made up of darkness and many gnashing teeth in one scene during a crisis of faith, torn between the Northmen and the Christians. The show handles its fantasy elements very gingerly, but that doesn't mean it's not a part of the story.

Thanks Austin! looking forward to reading more pieces like this in the future!

First of all, let me say that I greatly appreciate that this discussion is taking place here on GB. Also, welcome to GB Austin!

That being said, I do have some objections to this piece.

First of all: the 96% figure seems absolutely unjustified. According to the offical 2011 census made by GUS (loose translation - 'Main Statistical Agency'), the demographics regarding ethnicity are as follows (in thousands, refers to the members of first ethnicity):

1.Poles - 37310,3
2.Silezians - 435,7
3.Kashubians - 17,7
4.Germans - 74,4
5.Ukrainians - 38,3
6.Belarusians - 36,3
7.Romani - 12,5
8.Russians - 8,2
9.Americans - 1,2
10.Lemkos - 7

In the same year there were 38 538 447 people living in Poland. Further analysis of the census numbers gives us the figure

99,91% white

And I was generous towards the 'non-white' percentage in my rounding.

Of course I don't do demographic analysis, nor can I tell you that these estimates are 100% correct.

But this is not 1,5 million. This is not 94%.

You see, the point I want to make is that ethnicity does not refer merely to skin color. You can have a country that is ethnically diverse, yet has citizens exclusively of a single color.

My personal view of the explanation for this mistake is that people in the US try to too strongly correlate skin color with ethnicity, and overlooking the idea that ethnical diversity does not mean having different skin colors. Because within a certain 'skin color' there is a plethora of cultures and ethnicities that are varied, distinct and cannot be looked at as being a member of 'just white people'.

Furthermore, I would also like to adress your argument

'And whether its intentional or not, when those fans say “Why should they include a person of color?” it ends up sounding a lot like “I’m glad they didn’t include people of color. It was right of them not to. The game would be ruined otherwise.”'

I'm sorry Austin but this is just a lazy strawman. If you want to criticize someone's argument then don't twist it around to make it easy to refute. I am one of the people who asks the question 'Why should they include a person of color'. Not because I don't want them to, but because I only want them to if they feel like that is a story, and arc they want to tell. Because that is an issue they want to tackle or address; something they are willing to get into, something that won't just be shoehorned in to appease US game reviewers. I want them to tell stories that they will do justice to.

I'm really glad this discussion exists here on Giant Bomb, but let's do all of the sides justice and choose not to misrepresent the other arguments.

This is why I directed people to that blog from yesterday. We had extensive discussion about this and I just want to direct people there again. I'm not saying Austin's opinion is wrong, but I don't want him to immediately shut down people coming from another perspective. I'll just quote @imsh_pl again because he said it best:

"Would I like to see more socially, racially and ethnically diverse games? Absolutely. We share that desire. But I think that has to come naturally, from people who want to tell those stories."

@oldirtybearon: How about that it's not authentic to have medieval Poland be 100% white? Like that's just factually inaccurate. Nothing to do with feels

Pointing out a game lacks diversity is not "forcing devs to include blue/black/red/yellow/white/etc people", neither is it calling the developer racist...

@jimbo said:

I assume this means that everything is 100% awesome, no issues at all, in your neck of the woods. Because you seem to be doing your share of hand wringing right now instead of dealing with the 'very-actually-real' horribleness happening wherever you may be.

Also, Austin has been writing about race in games for years. His piece on Animal Crossing: New Leaf was written in June, 2013, and he's had other articles about race since. Not exactly an 'issue of the month' for him.

That piece, for those who want to read it (it's really, really good):

http://clockworkworlds.com/post/53240010750/me-on-the-screen-race-in-animal-crossing-new