AlexReynard said:
Literally nothing is ever good enough for you people, is it? No concession, no apology, is ever good enough that you won't nitpick the wording to pieces, trying to find some way to declare whoever-it-is as the problem. No matter what they do or say.
EDIT: How can some of you, with a straight face, complain about female enemies being killed in games, yet not care in the slightest that throughout the history of gaming, there have been innumerable games where you kill endless waves of all-male enemies, specifically because that is less troubling to the player than killing women?
The problem is representation.
Personally, I typically try to stay out of this debate, as I kind of agree with both sides. However, you seem to be asking for more info on the other side's stance, so maybe I can help a little bit.
As I said, the issue is representation. Think of it this way: Ubisoft doesn't want to give players the ability to play AS women, but they're willing to let players kill women. See how that might ruffle some feathers?
It's the same problem people have with the woman needing to be saved by the male characters. In isolation, it's not an issue, but when that's the default role with women in games, and being the savior/part of the team is rare enough to be noteworthy, there's a problem. The problem isn't with the game itself, it's the industry it's a part of. The game is simply the latest example of it.
Which is actually a problem I have with some complaints. I've known people who have disliked games/books/movies/etc. simply because they included a female trope. Nevermind that the rest of it was good, nor that the scene in question was both necessary for character/plot development. They think if anything contains a trope like that, it's bad. It's not. The whole problem with a trope is it's prevalence. Increasing the cases of subverting the trope is a better solution that blacklisting anything that uses it.
