If You Are Going to Hate on a Game Company, Do It For the Right Reasons

[Fireaxe]

And while one could certainly find individual cases of misogyny in action, I think the broader explanation is that less women are game designers for the same reason that less men are fashion editors: they are less likely to consider it an option because of societal gender roles. Which are ingrained into us from birth because of instincts we have retained from our evolutionary history that we may no longer require.

People say this about a lot of things, from math and engineering to housekeeping, to the finance market, to e-sports. I've never been comfortable with it as an argument. Sure societal pressures, and even evolutionary ones, exist. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be challenged or changed though. The way you change them is to correct individual instances and hope that eventually it builds up to a critical mass. There are times when "everyone does it" and "its always been this way" are valid excuses, but they don't always work.

Expectations and roles are not challenged by misdirected outrage that vanishes overnight and holier than thou moral parading such as we see in these discussions, they are changed by people disproving them; if women want more games made by women, aimed at women, and with female protagonists, then they could perhaps try their hand at making some and see if they sell -- if talented female game designers show up and make games that sell well then the industry will change, it will not be overnight, but it will change.

 

[FFMaster]

You're really splitting hairs here. These are the exact words of their statement:

"We hope that all of our fans will see that Tomodachi Life was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary.?

What are we supposed to take away from that? I'm glad they issued a better apology and promised to include gay marriage in the next game, but come on, are you seriously denying that that is pretty offensive?

How is that offensive? No seriously you need to tell me, because all i can see is them stating that they were not making a social commentary, which they were not. People started with the "by existing you are making one" argument but by that argument they have been telling Italians to do mushrooms since 1985.

Why is it in gaming that you cannot make a game to be a game? In the movie industry you can make a movie not to make a point or have any sodding bearing on social issues (unless human centipede is trying to tell us something about life, can't really think what it would be saying) but with games all games have to tow the social line? Is this really an example of the industry maturing?

I think they should have added same sex relationships into the game. I also think that level of hate its getting for not having the feature is manufactured a bit by the press bigging up the significance of it and making it seem like the be all and end all of issues.

(In other words, and as it was present in Yahtzee's text, you're position is equivalent to "homophobia/misogyny as active hatred is a real problem, but just not considering gay people/women as equals, "passively" as it were, is not". BTW, the latter is homophobia/misogyny too.)

No its not, sexism and misogyny are not synonyms. Something can be sexist without being misogynist. But it would be hard to be misogynistic without being sexist.

So yeah, let's check our privileges, hm?

The "I'm having my cake and eating it too" ending to any debate, and is ironically very damming to equality as you are saying that unless you are part of this group you aren't allowed to comment.

 

[hermes]

Thank you, Yahtzee. Thank you.

After MovieBob and Jim's articles on the issue, I thought every writer on the escapist was going to go for the easy "emotional" approach just to generate controversy and click bait, showing no savviness in development or project management.

 

[Dragonbums]

Tomodachi Life had relationships between two men but Nintendo patched them out because they weren't "whimsical" enough.

And this right here is exactly the kind of misinformation that lead to the shitstorm in the first place.

Tomodachi life never had an option to have two men marry. The screenshots you saw seeing such was simply Japanese players making their female Mii's look and sound male and having them marry other male Miis.

The patch in question was to resolve a bug issue where there was a corruption in Mii transfers that resulted in random assignment in gender of the Miis on top of their original stated gender, prevented saving, crashed the game, and to extreme extents, damaged the 3DS itself. That was what the bug was.

 

[Zombie Badger]

B) gay marriage is illegal in japan and is considered an illegal act, on the same par with drug use in videogames in the west that jump ratings up.

Gay marriage is not illegal there it's just not recognised by the government. They'll just ignore you rather than arrest you. In fact to quote wikipedia:

Since May 15, 2012, the Tokyo Disney Resort has allowed symbolic (not government recognized) same-sex marriage ceremonies in its Cinderella's Castle hotel.[3] On March 3, 2013, its first same-sex marriage was held.[4] Koyuki Higashi married her partner, who was only identified by the name Hiroko.[5]

 

[Something Amyss]

A game like Mass Effect can get away with using the same animations for both sexes, because the character doesn't do much more than run, shoot, and crouch behind walls. It's a far bigger job in Assassin's Creed, which features much more complex interactions with the environment.

Of course, they reused Connor's animations for Aveline in IV. And you can't particularly tell me Unity would be a bigger problem, as they were willing to make Aveline-specific missions for a platform-exclusive. And they've had other animated women in the games.

But no, Ubisoft doesn't hate women specifically because of this, nor is Nintendo specifically homophobic for Tomodachi life (though, ironically, many of Nintendo's biggest apologists were the ones painting them as homophobic and conservative because IT'S JUST THEIR CUltURE!!!!!).

Are people really "hating them" for this, though?

~ In the early 21st century, it is commonly assumed (here in the US) that the people of Japan are incapable of expanding their social comfort zone because they are yellow barbarians (or whatever) and can't help themselves.

You know, I know this is part of a greater demonstration, but I do find it funny the number of people who are just like "oh, Japan is naturally homophobic/misogynistic" when the polls I see out of Japan puts them only slightly behind the US, where most of these comments originate.

And while your example is hyperbolic and I doubt anyone would actually call Japan "yellow barbarians," I can't help but wonder. If they're so bass ackwards and incapable of change, what the hell are we?

 

[Something Amyss]

B) gay marriage is illegal in japan and is considered an illegal act, on the same par with drug use in videogames in the west that jump ratings up.

Except it's not illegal. You can even get married there if you're a foreigner who could legally get married otherwise. Same sex unions are not legally recognised by the state, but that's a far cry from illegality.

 

[Sticky]

A game like Mass Effect can get away with using the same animations for both sexes, because the character doesn't do much more than run, shoot, and crouch behind walls. It's a far bigger job in Assassin's Creed, which features much more complex interactions with the environment.

Of course, they reused Connor's animations for Aveline in IV.

But no, Ubisoft doesn't hate women specifically because of this, nor is Nintendo specifically homophobic for Tomodachi life (though, ironically, many of Nintendo's biggest apologists were the ones painting them as homophobic and conservative because IT'S JUST THEIR CUltURE!!!!!).

Are people really "hating them" for this, though?

Which in itself is VERY LAZY, maybe they realize that they are unable to actually get away with doing that twice in a row without people seriously noticing that it looks terrible to just drop his animations onto a completely different character model.

And, in my opinion, in the context of 'Are people really hating them for this'? I feel the answer is: They should be, but for completely different reasons than the ones we have been discussing surrounding that game. I seriously haven't seen anyone rail on Ubisoft lately for being such animation recycling whores regarding AC outside the realms of internet forums. It genuinely makes me wonder if some of the industry people are not blind.

You know, I know this is part of a greater demonstration, but I do find it funny the number of people who are just like "oh, Japan is naturally homophobic/misogynistic" when the polls I see out of Japan puts them only slightly behind the US, where most of these comments originate.

And while your example is hyperbolic and I doubt anyone would actually call Japan "yellow barbarians," I can't help but wonder. If they're so bass ackwards and incapable of change, what the hell are we?

I take the option that the entire idea that Japan or America in themselves have something inherent to apologize for when someone finds a personal flaw in a game made in those countries is a strawman laced with confirmation bias about a problem that is muddy and when applied in some cases doesn't exist. And that the search for games and companies to dogpile on confuses the issue at hand and is a general disservice to the conversation about the industry. And really, there's no reason to apply extreme hyperbole to a problem where, in itself, is hyperbole in nature.

 

[malnin]

Games may not be released in a vacuum but in some ways they are made in one. since they take multiple years of your life you will want to tell your story without compromises as much as possible, and if you are a white-male-game designer (or should i say cis-male, god help the tumbler kids if i forget to emphasis it's a cis-male) your story if going to be one of a white male. It's human nature to right stories about characters with the same ethnicity and gender as yourself, at least at first.

 

[Something Amyss]

Which in itself is VERY LAZY, maybe they realize that they are unable to actually get away with doing that twice in a row without people seriously noticing that it looks terrible to just drop his animations onto a completely different character model.

Well, one of the issues is that they've been accused of recycling animations quite frequently, though they deny it. I keep reading former devs have confirmed this, though I'm yet to find a primary source.

I doubt that this is the one time they decided to not be lazy, though. I'm betting that some obsessive fan will look at the assets of the game and find they've done it again or some such.

And, in my opinion, in the context of 'Are people really hating them for this'? I feel the answer is: They should be, but for completely different reasons than the ones we have been discussing surrounding that game. I seriously haven't seen anyone rail on Ubisoft lately for being such animation recycling whores regarding AC outside the realms of internet forums. It genuinely makes me wonder if some of the industry people are not blind.

I meant specifically "for being homophobic/misogynistic."

Most of the comments I saw regarding sexism/homophobia were on the defensive end, either saying something to the effect of "how DARE (person X) accuse them of sexism/homophobia(even though they never said such thing)!" or in the case of Nintendo "of course they're homophobic! Japan is a homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, racist country!"

People really should be railing against Ubisoft for being lazy, though. Makes me wonder why they need 300 dev teams per game. They get a longer dev cycle than most games, to boot.

I take the option that the entire idea that Japan or America in themselves have something inherent to apologize for when someone finds a personal flaw in a game made in those countries is a strawman laced with confirmation bias about a problem that is muddy and when applied in some cases doesn't exist. And that the search for games and companies to dogpile on confuses the issue at hand and is a general disservice to the conversation about the industry. And really, there's no reason to apply extreme hyperbole to a problem where, in itself, is hyperbole in nature.

I was more wondering "if you're going to assume that (whole nation is Y), what does that say about (nation which is similar). I don't buy the cultural excuse, but it's more a thought experiment since it's been coming up and specifically from Americans.

 

[Something Amyss]

Games may not be released in a vacuum but in some ways they are made in one. since they take multiple years of your life you will want to tell your story without compromises as much as possible, and if you are a white-male-game designer (or should i say cis-male, god help the tumbler kids if i forget to emphasis it's a cis-male) your story if going to be one of a white male. It's human nature to right stories about characters with the same ethnicity and gender as yourself, at least at first.

And that's why Harry Potter is a girl: human nature.

 

[Lugbzurg]

"When you cry hatred where none exists, you do nothing but weaken your position. You will persuade no-one to a cause by associating it with unfounded hysteria."

This... I like this bit a lot. I'll be keeping this in my quotes file!

 

[XDSkyFreak]

It [feminism] is a poisonous dogma that's irrelevant and outdated in modern society and today does nothing but harm. I'm glad to note that its fading slowly and losing popularity as more and more people are alienated by its nonsense completely at odds with real life.

I don't wish to enter a debate about it anyway. I don't care about it at all, I hate that it's encroaching into sites I used to enjoy visiting regularly and would be glad to see it gone so we can get back to the real issues of games sucking and why. (snip)

Let me guess, you're a white cis-gendered heterosexual man with some reasonable (or even very good) education and no glaring financial problems, right? This is not an accusation, mind you, just a description. You're certainly not entirely responsible for most it, so no blaming here.

But notice that you're doing quite exactly what U-238 was criticizing in games and in society at large: you're dismissing serious issues as not being the "real" problem, mainly because they don't affect you directly and you can't see any relation between them and other problems which are closer to you, and/or because those issues haven't become so violent and clear-cut as to warrant immediate condemnation from you.

(In other words, and as it was present in Yahtzee's text, you're position is equivalent to "homophobia/misogyny as active hatred is a real problem, but just not considering gay people/women as equals, "passively" as it were, is not". BTW, the latter is homophobia/misogyny too.)

I get it that you may not at all be touched by sexism against women in all of its forms. Lucky you. It's still a very real problem and yes, minimizing it DOES make it worse.

"Why do feminists often fight more for women's rights than men's rights if they're about equality, then?", you may ask. That's because men *already* have lots of rights and humongous amounts of privileges. Many, many of these privileges oppress women and make our society a worse place for them than for men. So yeah, balancing things out does mean cutting some of those privileges back a bit. Tough luck.

If activism is about equality, you could also ask why there isn't a "straight pride parade", for instance. Except there is. On every other street, every day of the year.

So yeah, let's check our privileges, hm?

Can we please not let this slip into another feminism rant?

Let's be real here: if people wanted equality, there is this movement and school of thought called equalitarianism. It's all about accepting that no form of segregation or bias is needed, as we are all fundamentaly humans and are all potentially capable of doing any job no matter our race, religion, sex or anything.

Feminism gets rejected by me simply because of it's name. The name itself does not make me think "group fighting for equal rights for women" but rather "group that wants women to be the rulling power". Basically replace one form of discrimintaion with another. Just read some of the jewels of today's feminists and you will see they have long since moved beyond equal rights into "men are all inferior pigs and women should rule the world". That is the majority voice of the movement now, and even the original starters of the feminist movement have called out this bullshit and have effectivly broken off from feminism. Because my dear missguided friend balancing things out never means to take away from some, but rather to give to all the same privileges and powers. Feminism today is no longer about that, it's about vengence on men because of past privileges by taking them away and giving them to women. Equality activsm itself is a retarded concept, since activism is inherently about imposing a particular set of views over another, while equality means acceptance of all points of view (so long as they conflict with common sense. No one will accept eating babies). Common sense tells us any form of activism about equality is a hypocritical concept due to the conflciting natures of activism (imposing a particular set of views/beliefs) and equality (accepting different sets of views/beliefs). And sooner or later that shows.

Also the "let's check our priviliges" line is the most retarded straw man and discrimintating argument one can make in a situation like this. So what, just because a particular category has not been the victim of some form of opresion they can;t voice their opinion? freedom of speech? Fact of the matter is most of today's movements for social equality are bullshit. They have been started by people with the best intentions, but now the mases have devolved them into "you had privileges and we were opressed, time to switch places and for us to opress you". And the whole politically correct game that has been going on hasn't helped at all ... today we are sitting on a powder keg of social conflict and everything that isn't as bland and unoffensive as posible imediatly sets off an explosion, when equality is about acceptance, not demanding everything conform to the same set of rules or morals.

And what is the most idiotic thing here is that the backlash against gay marriage/no female character wasn't even done by gay gamers/female gamers. It was done by the same heterosexual white male gamers. So it's not even a question of a group fighting for it's rights, it's an issue of overcompensation for past discrimintaion (like we are somehow handing gay's and women a gift saying "see, we are really really sorry for all that") which all of a sudden changes this from geniune desire for equality (aka a natural tendency to be more acceptive and inclusive) into a rather unplesant "see, now you can join the privileged club too". The truth of things is most gay people or well adjusted women won't react with this sort of bile and rage over these issues. They would resort to rational discourse, as would any actual firm supporter of equality. It's heterosexual white guys brainwashed by the political correctness machine AND/OR false equalitarians (the so called "radical feminists" are a good example) that react like that out of some retarded notion that if anything is left out it automatically means discrimination and should be purged.

 

[Madmonk12345]

And while one could certainly find individual cases of misogyny in action, I think the broader explanation is that less women are game designers for the same reason that less men are fashion editors: they are less likely to consider it an option because of societal gender roles. Which are ingrained into us from birth because of instincts we have retained from our evolutionary history that we may no longer require.

People say this about a lot of things, from math and engineering to housekeeping, to the finance market, to e-sports. I've never been comfortable with it as an argument. Sure societal pressures, and even evolutionary ones, exist. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be challenged or changed though. The way you change them is to correct individual instances and hope that eventually it builds up to a critical mass. There are times when "everyone does it" and "its always been this way" are valid excuses, but they don't always work.

Expectations and roles are not challenged by misdirected outrage that vanishes overnight and holier than thou moral parading such as we see in these discussions, they are changed by people disproving them; if women want more games made by women, aimed at women, and with female protagonists, then they could perhaps try their hand at making some and see if they sell -- if talented female game designers show up and make games that sell well then the industry will change, it will not be overnight, but it will change.

This keeps being said, and it keeps being nonsense for several reasons.

1. The number of women in technology has been steadily declining since the 1980s, where the number of women into tech industries and the number of women who graduated from such positions peaked at around 37%(see http://www.cra.org/uploads/documents/resources/taulbee/CS_Degree_and_Enrollment_Trends_2010-11.pdf , http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~women/resources/aroundTheWeb/hostedPapers/Syllabus-Camp.pdf ). This decline coincides with the personal computer and the simplification of programming. These numbers were higher back when things were much harder, much more complicated. If women were somehow on average inferior to men WRT computing or desire to be in the tech industry, why, when computer sciences was much more difficult to enter, when it was several orders of magnitude more cumbersome, would there be more women in the tech industry then than now?

2. As an extension, many of the defining people within computer science in the past were women. Grace Hopper invented the compiler, for example. This lines up with a long established way for women to earn respect, by entering a new field where there was no established gender role, where literally no man had gone before. However, these people's quiet accomplishments are easily removed from disappear from cultural memory when such fields become important enough to become men's work. I and my peers never learned of the name Grace Hopper in childhood, especially at a time when when that knowledge can influence one's perspectives. If even Grace Hopper can easily be wiped from cultural memory, what hope do the "holier than thou moral paraders" you say should go and quietly make their own games have at influencing public perception via making them, over the current loud opposition that they are currently making that the current culture struggles to forget?

3. It's well known that the video game industry is a toxic atmosphere for women, with an industry that internally and externally panders to frat boys as their target audience. Their games primarily target white middle aged men externally and the perspectives of women are often not taken into account internally in ways that make the work environment uncomfortable for women. (see http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/01/27/women-remain-outsiders-video-game-industry/275JKqy3rFylT7TxgPmO3K/story.html for an overview, though some advancements have been made since then) Why, when there is such toxicity, is the onus placed on women to penetrate an industry with a culture that clearly neither wants nor cares for them stumbles over dealing with basic issues for them, where they likely won't have much influence on the design decisions anyway unless the current designers change their perspectives in a way equally influenceable via that supposed "misdirected outrage that vanishes overnight" that you so malign, which has in fact worked in the past (see Mass Effect 3 fiasco)?

This issue needs to stop being portrayed as a consequence of some biological inferiority or preference. It needs to stop being portrayed as if it's just a problem of representation in the industry, when such representation is often just used as a wedge to split up people who care about these issues, with the accomplishments of the women who've already proven themselves capable of working in the tech industry perpetually ignored. It needs to stop being portrayed as if it's somehow primarily the fault of women that there are no women in a video game industry that neither wants nor cares for them stumbles over dealing with basic issues for them, that is too unwilling or too apathetic to provide an atmosphere where they feel comfortable. It's just not as simple as it's made out to be.

 

[Simonism451]

Oh dear.... Carrying water for Ubisoft's inexplicable and discriminatory laziness are we?


To those claiming that "It would be too much wooooork. Wah wah!" (Yahtzee included) for Ubisoft to animate female models.... There are animated models.... In the competitive multiplayer.

http://youtu.be/Ht2klK2LWkc?t=1m47s

So unless they've ditched those assets and have not included new female competitive multiplayer models (which would be probably worse) - the excuse that it was too much work doen't really hold water.




If the excuse was "But we want to maintain the narrative perspective (of being the designated generic, white, mid 30s, male protagonist) - because....." I don't understand any reasoning after the "because". When my narrative from the perspective of my genergic white male protagonist is being invaded by my friend's mirror-image protagonist the idea of narrative cohesiveness has disintegrated.



Why not just let people select one of the multiplayer models - that I assume are avaliable for the other multiplayer modes - before invading another person's story experience?

There ain't no competitive multiplayer in ACU.
OT: I don't think the majority of criticism directed at Ubisoft and Nintendo was that they actively hated women or gay people in a deliberate manner (though I'm sure there were some people who actually did say that, because this is the internet, etc.) but rather that they seem unable to face any criticism with even a modicum of integrity, apologizing whenever the outrage gets too big but not actually changing their ways even a little bit.

 

[srpilha]

Can we please not let this slip into another feminism rant?

Sure, suit yourself. If all you wrote is your understanding of feminism, I'm *really* not about to have an argument with you. Especially not after this:

Common sense tells us any form of activism about equality is a hypocritical concept due to the conflciting natures of activism (imposing a particular set of views/beliefs) and equality (accepting different sets of views/beliefs).

My whole point was that the currently dominant set of views/beliefs is oppressive to many. We often don't see it as such because we (white male cis hetero etc) are not the ones being oppressed. I'll keep believing it should be substituted for a better, more inclusive one. Common sense, really.

If you can, do look closer at feminism. It's not at all, in its vast majority, as you portray it. Unfortunately, I fear you won't, ever. Oh well.

EDITED TO ADD:
Actually, I really must add a couple of things aftre re-reading your post.

1. Balancing things out DOES require cutting down privileges as soon as those privileges are oppressive to others. It's that simple.
2. "Checking our privileges" is always important because having privileges mean we often simply don't see what's wrong with or around them, what they actually cause or reinforce. It's a call to look beyond only what affects us directly. Honestly, as a man this is a necessary DAILY exercise.
3. When did any of this become about vengeance? No one (sane) actually wants to implement the SCUM manifesto, you know. You're the one with the strawman argument on this one.

 

[Thanatos2k]

What statement? This one?

http://operationrainfall.com/2014/05/07/nintendo-stance-same-sex-couples-tomodachi-life/

Nintendo never said anything about gay marriage not being fun or whimsical. If that's the conclusion you drew you need to re-read what they said a couple times.

Yes, their original statement was kind of lame and their excuse was flimsy, but people have misinterpreted it beyond belief, as you yourself have shown us.

You're really splitting hairs here. These are the exact words of their statement:

"We hope that all of our fans will see that Tomodachi Life was intended to be a whimsical and quirky game, and that we were absolutely not trying to provide social commentary.?

What are we supposed to take away from that? I'm glad they issued a better apology and promised to include gay marriage in the next game, but come on, are you seriously denying that that is pretty offensive?

You dropped the rest of the quote which gave valuable context to that statement. Why would you do that? Unless....

And make no mistake - there will not be a "next game." Nintendo will never release another Tomodachi Life game outside Japan again.

 

[Nieroshai]

While Yahtzee is usually on point with these things, there is a lot of strawmanning going on in this article.

First of all, maybe he didn't write that tagline, but no one thinks that Tomodachi Life is about homophobia, or that AC: Unity is about misogyny. Furthermore, criticising a company for doing something stupid is not the same thing as hating that company, though I can see how it's easy to lose this distinction when you're up to your neck in critical tweets, articles, forum posts, and tumblr reblogs. And he doesn't even address the thing that really set people off in both cases, the way that each company responded to the initial concerns.

But that's exactly what everyone's been saying they're about, in the typical way slacktivists blow everything out of proportion just to be... shall I say it... misguided Social Justice Warriors? FLAME WAR GO!

When judging the issues people complain about, it makes no sense to ignore the issues they're complaining about. It's like how our grandparents think all we do is play with murder simulators or all the kids these days only listen to sex and drugs (but isn't that most modern music anyways? OH NO I'VE GOTTEN OLD!!!). To these people, that which they hate is the only subject that matters. My aunt yelled at me for going to Django Unchained because there's a scene where Django says he's looking forward to killing white people. Nevermind that the institution of slavery drove him there, she was angry that an admittedly liberal black actor spoke the line " Kill white folks and they pay you for it? What's not to like?" and joked off-camera about how great it was in an ironic sense. Even I'm guilty of it, in that in the game Dante's Inferno I'm convinced at times that it's entirely about Dante's girlfriend sleeping with the Devil to get back at him. It's obvious that the plot isn't nearly its biggest issue, but that's the first thing I latch on to.

The point I'm trying to make is that so many of us on the Escapist and in the media as a whole DO latch onto one thing and fight over it until the subject's dead. To them, Tomodachi Life IS about homophobia BECAUSE it excludes homosexuality, and ACU IS sexist because of something a PR guy said. And until this style of discourse dies, they are effectively right in any meaningful way. They have hijacked purpose itself. And it saddens me.


http://www.ebony.com/black-listed/entertainment-culture/jamie-foxx-defends-i-kill-all-the-white-people-joke-981#axzz36zjMi8M3

 

[ayvee]

snip.

I'm not sure I understand your point. That it's okay to misrepresent the way that people are criticising two games because the issues that they're criticising have become such a point of focus? Regardless, I'm also not sure why you quoted me, because others have expressed the same sentiment in this thread and your response feels rather like you're talking past me rather than engaging with my concerns.

Also if what you mean by "but that's what everyone's being saying they're about" is that people have actively been saying that Tomodachi Life is a game about homophobia or that AC: Unity is a game about misogyny, then I entirely disagree, as evidenced by my original statement. Certainly there are other ways to interpret the tagline in the article (Yahtzee could be stating it to remind us that this is not what the games are about even in the midst of all of the controversy which...okay? Again that is literally not what anyone has been saying) and perhaps that wasn't the intention, but it struck me as the most direct one at the time and is merely one extremely semantic point in a list of more straightforward problems that I was addressing. Which are, broadly, that this article is confronting invented arguments rather than the actual ones and feels kind of dated and as if it was written by someone who doesn't have much perspective on the conversation that happened and just knows that there was some controversy over some games and some -isms were involved. It also feels very out of step with Yahtzee's maintained criticisms of the triple A industry and invokes some biologically dubious notions, but I digress.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I've been on the side saying Ubisoft is "doing a dumb". BUT, much like Nintendo's Tomodachi problems or ANY of Capcom's numerous accusations of racism across a couple titles, I've never assumed genuine hatred for these groups (women, gays, or Africans) because these are big titles with LOTS of hands on them in the development process and to assume a whole team is racist or sexist is silly. Believing them to be uncreative or not-observant to stupid ideas, yeah, that's more believable (that's how the name Xbox One got approved without anyone seeing the name XBone).

Now, the guys who made Call of Juarez: The Cartel... it's hard to see that and NOT believe that there are racist idiots on that team. That or the people who worked on it were so fucking oblivious to the blatant racist concepts thrown around that you'd mistake them for someone who just recently walked out of a botched-brain surgery.