Alopex wrote:
Interesting find. I can't say I'm that surprised -- GC's forum posts that involve hypothetical characters/players traditionally have an obvious 50/50 split in gender pronouns, which I always thought was a laughable P.C. maneuver.
I think that's generous to men. He always makes a point of referring to his hypothetical paladin players in the feminine.
GC is a human chimera. Everything about the man is manufactured unreality and betrays deeper issues in society (hurr durr).
He's billed as a game design genius when in reality he has been a lead for only one other game, and came to Bliz after the developer went bust because...guess. He's billed as a moonlighting marine biologist when in reality he was forced into a career change after even a marginal public university wouldn't give him tenure.
Every experience I've ever read from disinterested people who have met the homely, potato-looking man is like meeting the Wizard of Oz. He's consistently portrayed as a graceless and nervous individual who furtively smokes cheap cigarettes (on a seven digit income) and tries way too hard to be funny.
That's the kind of man of cardboard you wind up with when PC becomes a substitute for talent.
That's Weena's video game island sinking into the ocean.
Jokes are cracked about how his hobbies include "nerfing paladins" when in reality, it has been exclusively under GC's watch that paladins went from being decidedly underpowered to being game-breakingly faceroll and overpowered. It has been GC who has continuously simplified their mechanics and given them ever-more-powerful tools.
Eventually, you realize it's not even an oversight; the unreality is almost an end onto itself. That's what happens when you have to make steak out of grizzle. When reality doesn't work, deny it and invent something else. When the rules of reality fail, invent new ones.
And here we are.
Weena wrote:
I agree there are instances where feminism has had poor effects on games, for example the mad generated by the greeting of the Pandaren leader.
This instance however, you've blown it out of proportion, and have extrapolated it into feminism eroding freedom.
Which it has, particularly when it comes to associations. But it's a huge leap from this instance of slight word change in a tiny emote to that. It's almost like alarmism.
Your observation in this scenario, with emote wording being changed from 'Vizier retracts it's shield' to 'Vizier retracts her shield', is really a poor example that detracts from what is otherwise a valid point.
There are two discrete, but related, issues at work:
1. PC comes at the cost of genuine creative efforts (sit down, Ms. Rand), resulting in crappy games
2. Efforts to hijack video games as a means to influence people, undermining free thought
Weena wrote:
I'm wondering if anything would have been seen out of place had the wording changed from "it's" to "his".
Do you seriously think such a thing would happen at all?
This choice was made due to politics, not as some sort of fix.