Games aren’t boring, people are ( I am bad at witty titles)

​Countering the “why”
Its probably obvious to even children why people that enjoy things tend to create them and those that don’t stray away from these fields, explaining why mostly gamers make games and people that love food cook, why readers tend to write, there is ample opportunity for newcomers to create things for an audience they dont feel is catered to but expecting those with a love for games to create something far from the realm of gaming is flawed.
Skin colour and sex is not the only form of diversity or even one that makes vast differences yet it is the only one that this woman seems to care about, what should be requested is diversity of thought and talented writing not anything else, skin colour or sex as a whole make little difference to character, story or atmosphere development in a team environment or even a solo environment, some of the best written character male or female have been written by the opposite sex or race, claiming only X can create for X is a fast way to lack of creative freedom and art as a whole.
Catering ideas to people that have no interest is a flawed concept, there have been thousands of attempts in hundreds of industries to cater to people that don’t read, don’t watch, don’t play, don’t run, don’t like challenge, etc. they all fail, recently comics have tried to expand its market under demand of forced diversity, 5 of 5 attempts in the last year have collapsed as those being catered to did not buy they products and the original audience was pushed into the backround and stopped buying as well.
Games that have taken the route of not being games have also failed resulting in a fraction of sales despite journalists showering praise upon these titles (tsles of tales), even AAA titles that stray into the realm of catering to an audience that does not exists get panned among gamers (gearbox).
Taking a quote directly from the article 
“So caring about your audience is good, relevant, and necessary art. But it is also good business. You can read any book about how to run a start-up and run into ideas about customer development and value proposition. Read a few more and you run into ideas about co-design to take the risk out of creating for new markets. This is care.”
What the article itself advises isn’t caring about your audience its completely ignoring your audience for the sake of those with  flawed views of an industry they only know at face value, several of those the article mentions have a narcissistic view of wanting to see themselves in a medium used to escape reality, other warped views of how fantasy should represent reality then go on to complain about things being “too realistic”.
The entire article is written from a pseudo intellectual place, virtue signalling for those that want things to change to suit them rather than finding a place in an already established system, if the writer wants to create game to suit people that are not an audience go for it, the industry itself will be supported by those that built it from the start, not those joining once it became popular enough.


“Localisation” the new Racism

The definition of racism

“prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.”

I figured it was best to start here since most people that throw the word around don’t seem to know its meaning, majority ignoring the “based on the belief that ones own race is superior” part of the definition other going as far as calling mere disagreement racist.

While whats to come may stretch the definition a little its no more ridiculous than any other notion of racism brought to light by the radfem and social justice movement.

Localisation “Adapting a product to meet the language, cultural and other requirements of a specific target market.” I went with the free dictionary definition for this as it was the most suitable and while the definition sound harmless at face value it is those enacting and enforcing these changes that are the problem.

In recent years those in charge of this practice have taken it upon themselves to become moral gatekeepers of what aspects of other culture are lesser aspects and whether they should be approved or not, thus discriminating against details of a culture they deem themselves morally better than.

Feminism and fun house mirrors

Art has, since its inception, been a way to depict and reflect life and society. Whether it be the crude paintings of cavemen, the poetic works of Van Gogh or the thought provoking scripture of Tolken. It is a rudimentary, straightforward or a personal take, or an extreme twisted into a story. It is something that people have used to convey how the world is or how they view it.

In light of this it has always struck me as strange that some feminist critique of art tries to ponder how society reflects the art we create (even the twisted fantastical extremes are a somehow molding society). To me, this feels illogical. Nobody goes to a plastic surgeon on the advice of a spoon’s reflection nor do we base our diet and self worth off the reflections we see in a fun house mirror.

When studies have shown that from the age of three children are able to discern reality from animation, fact from fiction, why is it believed that society as a whole are unable to do the same at a later age?
This critique believes people are taught and influenced by things commonly understood as fantasy by the general public. Things that have had multiple studies proving little to no long term influence on people.

Media and Young Children’s Learning


A longitudinal study on the relationship between video game use and sexist attitudes.


Yet beliefs, such as the ones listed below, seem to prevail from those who would deem the opposite to be true. When an inability to differentiate fantasy from reality is a sign of poor mental health, what is the implication on those that view art as an influence on development? Are they themselves, unable to separate the two or just believe this to be a widespread issue, or is it little more than the push of disproved theories to condemn ideas they personally frown upon in an attempt to gain authoritarian control over a subject?