Let this be a lesson to you, Internet: if you want something changed, the key point is claiming to be offended (preferably on behalf of minorities or women).
When thousands of people were ranting and raving pages long about the ending of Mass Effect 3, the complaints were about the game's failings as an interactive story: "inconsistent with the rest of the trilogy", "doesn't provide closure", "makes the player's prior decisions irrelevant". In response, the gaming media came down on them with universal scorn and ridicule, calling them "entitled whiny babies" and claiming that if Bioware changed their supposed artistic decision, the credibility of the entire medium would be RUINED FOREVER. Bioware itself clammed up for months, and only after it was impossible to ignore the crowd did it announce a DLC that would paint over the most glaring problems.
With The Stanley Parable, a single person tweeted about the perceived racism of a joke, and the developer was immediately willing to listen and change the game. (To be fair, a small or one-man team is always easier to communicate with and persuade than a large company.) The gaming media seems to have no problem with this, and if commenters bring up the issue of artistic expression, they'll likely be characterized as "just a bunch of racists".
(I should probably note that I haven't played either game myself, I'm just fascinated by the way these discussions go.)