Why yes Heather we do keep having these arguments. Maybe you and others could trying listening and comprehending the answers this time?

So Heather Alexandra of Kotaku put out a piece on about recurring arguments in the video game industry which you can read in archive form here because I fully believe it was outrage bait of one kind of another.

However on the unlikely chance this is actually a good faith attempt to have said arguments and not merely preach at people I thought I'd write a response.

Ms Alexandra's piece decides to start by taking a number of shots bringing up previous controversies in video games such as the Battlefield V's knock off Furisoa

Furiosa leaked concept art

Which BTW the game was selling itself on historical authenticity and telling untold stories of WWII then rather than tell the stories of real women who did fight in WWII actually just chose to re-write history to say a girl and her mother single-handedly stopped the Nazi's production of heavy water. You know rather than a commando squadron that did it in reality. Strange how Kotaku nor any other media outlet who keeps bringing up the thing about women representation doesn't hold DICE more accountable for ignoring the tales of actual women and seem to care more about being able to play make believe as a Furiosa knock off in a series that has tried for historical authenticity in the past.

Another controversy brought up to argue for female characters to be in all games was the Dexit controversy around Pokemon Sword and Shield not letting players transfer all previous games Pokemon to the new title. What Ms Alexandra doesn't mention is the fact that hardcore Pokemon players were paying $5 a year subscription to Pokemon Bank to allow them to do just that previously so players were paying extra already. I bet if a game charged $5 for a playable women in this day and age you and others would flip your lids and already be writing pieces about how outrageous it was to charge for that. But hey what else was I expecting anything for Kotaku to bash "Dem Ebil Gamers" right, why try and understand or actually present the relevant facts because clearly gamers must be the bad guy, they're gamers right?

The article continues

It is a reminder to ask why so many games are planned without women in the first place.

Interestingly there are also games planned without male playable characters too because gaming is a story telling medium and sometimes companies want to tell the story of a specific character. It's shocking to me how many people were upset at The Witcher 3 because Geralt  was who you played as and you couldn't make some custom character. Custom characters can increase the costs dramatically on larger scale games with different dialogue and all the romance options plotted out etc to account for different characters. If games are truly art then maybe Ms Alexandra you should stop asking why they're not your Burger King meal letting you "Have it your way". Unless you're reading this in 2099 or something then movies don't let your have a different character replace the main one if you don't like them nor do most other forms of art so why demand every game do it?

The article goes on to talk about previous outrages from Jack Thompson to the Fox News Mass Effect Sex Scenes controversy to them pivot back round to say this

But as “traditional” gamers find themselves increasingly outnumbered—by people of color, women—there’s a cultural clash between those who want to reclaim a highly specific idea of gaming and those who want to redefine what gaming is and how it should be discussed.

I can only assume this was done by including the data on mobile gamers as part of all gamers but it's more people are fed up of either seeing people call for gaming to be a vector for delivering political messages or demanding games be changed to accommodate overly sensitive people because I dunno boobs upset them or something and they can't possibly just play one of the multitude of other games instead.

Centering the conversation around artistic merit makes it easier for people to use “historical accuracy” and “realism” as a cudgel to dismiss the continued criticism around representation in video games.

After this Ms Alexandra goes on to bring up Kingdom Come Deliverance and claim historical accuracy is a flimsy excuse for lack of POC because the Witcher 3 is set in a fantasy world........... again if Kingdom Come Deliverance upset you then you could have played something else instead. Hell Both Kingdom Come Deliverance and Witcher 3 are on PC and so could have seen modders add POC in if the demand was high enough. A few years back I played the game Unrest which was based on an fantasy version of India, It would have been very stupid if I'd objected to the lack of white people in the game because it was designed to reflect ancient India just also having snake people too alongside humans.

The piece goes on with

If games are art, we must treat them that way. An essential part of that is breaking cyclical discourse, discarding the debates of yesterday and contextualizing games within the new reality the media exists in. The broadening of an audience means accounting for shifting tastes and sensibilities. 

Just, NO. Since when has art meant trying to make sure peoples sensibilities aren't offended? Since when has art meant pandering to a supposed audience just because people yell on twitter to that "Netflix should make Zelda a girl" (yes I know, but this is what some of the fools on twitter actually were yelling at one point.)

This means acknowledging the growing concerns of queer players, disabled persons, people of color and other voices that were not traditionally heard within the culture’s earlier days.

What was it many of you and your social justice warrior friends said? "If you don't like it go make your own". Well clearly part of making sure your voices are heard should be creating right? Or do you just want a load of white guys to tell the story while you tell them what to make and do instead?

Dredging up old conversations, either in the press or on forums, simply reinforces the idea that these are the only conversations to have. The mission is over, Rambo.

So why did you bring them up again Ms Alexandra? Why did you bring them up again and only state the one side of them again? It seems you're saying they should be done and dusted and people accept only the side you support on them.

The current idea of a civil debate leaves a lot of room for bad-faith actors—people who ask for data, get it, and then shift the goalposts.

Or in the case of game of games journalists bring up the same points again and again only pointing out their side and never acknowledging anything of the other side. You know why people ask for data? Because it's harder to argue against it. Oh and that is actual data as if you're going to argue consumer numbers and demographics trying to argue the AAA industry should reflect the mobile industry is almost comical.

Ms Alexandra then goes on to talk about Sekiro and the controversy over game difficulty in her article only once again chooses to ignore the fact Sekiro did have accessibility options in the form of remappable controls (something not all games have). But this is deemed to be not enough for her.

The changing demographic and material realities of gaming demand a corresponding shift in how we talk about video games themselves. Games are everywhere, and our language needs to be similarly egalitarian. That means killing off certain pieces of jargon or at the very least accepting alternatives that reach a wider audience.

The argument here being everyone will eat grey nutrient paste, just because everyone can does that mean all food should be that? Or are we going to support peoples freedom to order what they want and not demand all items on the great menu of gaming cater to everyone and actually accept that?

Games have grown up. The way we play them, and the way we talk about them, needs to as well.

That I can agree with, so Heather Alexandra when are you planning to grow up and stop with the demands that every game cater to everyone?

I can understand an argument being presented for greater diversity in the industry in terms of available products but so often you and others laser focus upon individual titles asking why that specific title (often a well advertised AAA entry) doesn't give you specifically the options you want. However part of the issue is with covering different titles and not merely the most well advertised AAA titles. I understand the nature of modern publishing means you're beholden to the algorithms that control and curate the internet but often it's so laser focused that plenty of other properties just slip by. I mean I heard very little from many of the bigger pop culture sites about Killjoys which ended in 2019 after a 5 season run and considering it's content it's strange to me that new titles giving people seeming what you're calling for aren't getting attention. I enjoyed it so I wrote about the show rather than demanding the top names change to appease you if you look even slightly below those top names you'll find plenty of franchises and titles that may well be delivering the kind of experiences you are after, but then those don't bring in the clicks on websites.

Thank you those who have taken the time to read this.

Header Image = from the game Aerannis
Alien girl image = from the game RedShirt

Update April 19th 2020:
 I got a reply of sorts from Heather

Guess I was right and this was about preaching and trying to almost demand your side be accepted in this arguments and not about actually a good faith attempt to engage in said arguments