Because it's a story spoiler.
Gonna echo this. Looks like someone didn't play it.
Because it's a story spoiler.
He's of Sri Lankan descent, which is more South Indian than anything else.Wasn't The Order written by someone of East Indian heritage? And didn't it have two East Indian women as supporting cast?
Either the writer of the article didn't play the game or he/she chose an incredibly bad example to use.
Because anything with the minority characters would be a spoiler. They have more screentime, development, and relevance than much of the white cast.
No, she didn't, it's just that fans of the game are choosing the wrong point to harp on and want to defend the game at all costs.
Considering that she wears a rebel style outfit it would very clearly be a spoiler. Like i don't understand why you think there's some conspiracy here.And none of those small glimpses could've included characters that weren't white?
He's of Sri Lankan descent, which is more South Indian than anything else.
I might actually have to check out The Order hearing about this Indian character.
And none of those small glimpses could've included characters that weren't white?
But why couldn't one of the main characters be Indian?
She is.
So main she couldn't be part of any of the promotional material?
And yet, all the marketing material featured nothing but white characters.
Because it's a story spoiler.
Is it common practice to market spoilers?
She is. Did you play the game?But why couldn't one of the main characters be Indian?
They're willfully missing the point to defend the game.Sounds to me like you're just trying to attack the game at all costs. She claimed the cast was white washed, but it turns out that it isn't, and the minorities in it are major characters. I don't see how they're wrong in wanting to defend it.
There are multiple minority characters important to the plot in The Order and they'll definitely be even more prominent in the sequel.
And yet, all the marketing material featured nothing but white characters.
No, she didn't, it's just that fans of the game are choosing the wrong point to harp on and want to defend the game at all costs.
You're willfully ignoring the fact that that the example used to prove the point was a very bad one while also making blanket statements about the actual people saying so. There are plenty and I mean plenty of valid criticisms for the order. You can check my post history for many of my criticisms of it. But inclusion is not one of them.They're willfully missing the point to defend the game.
They're willfully missing the point to defend the game.
They're willfully missing the point to defend the game.
Sounds to me like you're just trying to attack the game at all costs. She claimed the cast was white washed, but it turns out that it isn't, and the minorities in it are major characters. I don't see how they're wrong in wanting to defend it.
They're willfully missing the point to defend the game.
Why would that be a spoiler? If people didn't know what rebels were, then an out of context shot of someone in the uniform wouldn't mean anything and if they did, then how would they know that the character was a major part of the plot from a single shot?Considering that she wears a rebel style outfit it would very clearly be a spoiler. Like i don't understand why you think there's some conspiracy here.
I take it you're in the "Bayonetta is the most sexist portrayal of women" crowd which always seems to ignore the fact she was designed by a woman?
They're willfully missing the point to defend the game.
They're willfully missing the point to defend the game.
Who is saying that every character needs to be non-white?Now we're honestly complaining about characters from England being white?
There is white washing issues but this crusade that every character needs to be a minority now is almost just as annoying.
Why would that be a spoiler? If people didn't know what rebels were, then an out of context shot of someone in the uniform wouldn't mean anything and if they did, then how would they know that the character was a major part of the plot from a single shot?
Of course I haven't played it. I didn't realize the Order was a must play game. As a person of Indian descent, I still don't get to see my color represented in any type of marketing.She is. Did you play the game?
If they explained who she is, that would spoil a critical element of the storyline in the game.
I'd say the minority character in Order played a larger part in the story then did the other knights.
I take it you're in the "Bayonetta is the most sexist portrayal of women" crowd which always seems to ignore the fact she was designed by a woman?
People knew what the rebels were. It's part of the marketing material.
I take it you're in the "Bayonetta is the most sexist portrayal of women" crowd which always seems to ignore the fact she was designed by a woman?
I suppose you think they should've spoiled the part aboutWhy would that be a spoiler? If people didn't know what rebels were, then an out of context shot of someone in the uniform wouldn't mean anything and if they did, then how would they know that the character was a major part of the plot from a single shot?
It's not a must play game, trust me.Of course I haven't played it. I didn't realize the Order was a must play game. As a person of Indian descent, I still don't get to see my color represented in any type of marketing.
Consider it from my perspective.
Why would that be a spoiler? If people didn't know what rebels were, then an out of context shot of someone in the uniform wouldn't mean anything and if they did, then how would they know that the character was a major part of the plot from a single shot?
A women worked on it but it's all filtered through kamiya, right?
Bayonetta is, across the board, complicated to discuss from a sexist/feminist perspective. I don't necessarily think there is a black and white "right" way to view the character.
.
I love this argument. "She was designed by a woman so now way she could be sexist". Was she animated by a woman as well?Just because a woman designed a character doesn't mean the character can't be sexist or misogynist.
Bayonetta is, across the board, complicated to discuss from a sexist/feminist perspective. I don't necessarily think there is a black and white "right" way to view the character.
EDIT: Nevermind. This thread is past attempting to make logical points.Ah the good ole "a woman can't be misogynist" defense.
There's ways to defend Bayonnetta's portrayal but that's really not a good one.
looks to me people have chosen the wrong game to prove their points lol.
Of course I haven't played it. I didn't realize the Order was a must play game. As a person of Indian descent, I still don't get to see my color represented in any type of marketing.
Consider it from my perspective.
Of course I haven't played it. I didn't realize the Order was a must play game. As a person of Indian descent, I still don't get to see my color represented in any type of marketing.
Consider it from my perspective.
Of course I haven't played it. I didn't realize the Order was a must play game. As a person of Indian descent, I still don't get to see my color represented in any type of marketing.
Consider it from my perspective.
You're willfully ignoring the fact that that the example used to prove the point was a very bad one while also making blanket statements about the actual people saying so. There are plenty and I mean plenty of valid criticisms for the order. You can check my post history for many of my criticisms of it. But inclusion is not one of them.
A game you haven't even played and know close to nothing about.
And what exactly are you trying to do?
So you complain about not enough minorities in The Order, a lot of people point out that the 2 most important characters in the game besides Galahad are minorities. And you think the developers aren't giving away major story spilers in ads because they don't like minorities?
Or maybe people get the point while still correcting misinformation about the game?
If you're going to make an argument about something, it would be wise to at least know what you're talking about. Are you the type likes to use words that you don't know the definition to? It's not a good look, for anyone.Of course I haven't played it. I didn't realize the Order was a must play game. As a person of Indian descent, I still don't get to see my color represented in any type of marketing.
Consider it from my perspective.
So main she couldn't be part of any of the promotional material?
Why would that be a spoiler? If people didn't know what rebels were, then an out of context shot of someone in the uniform wouldn't mean anything and if they did, then how would they know that the character was a major part of the plot from a single shot?
A lot of you seem to be missing the main point. It's not that games are required to have minorities or diversity or that sort of thing, it's that using "historical accuracy" as a justification is almost always flawed because
1. The games often has fantastical elements, which throw any semblance of accuracy out the window or,
2. History shows those regions were actually more diverse than the games would have you believe. Especially if we're dealing with large regions or population hubs/trade cities
So again, how would an out of context shot of a person in a revel uniform reveal that the person was a major part of the plot?People knew what the rebels were. It's part of the marketing material.
This is what happens when people get overly-defensive about a game.
The point of the article, and my first post, is that people will constantly use the "historical accuracy" argument to justify the lack of non-whites in games. Prior to The Order coming out, there were a lot of people in here defending the lack of non-white characters in the world (as people keep saying, the two Indian characters who appear were not shown in any marketing materials) by making comments based not on historical fact but on a whitewashing of history that is present in popular culture. It's not a criticism that is limited to The Order but it is the most recent game in which this has come up, which is why it was mentioned.
So again, how would an out of context shot of a person in a revel uniform reveal that the person was a major part of the plot?
Part of the mystery is who these rebels are, who is organizing them, and why do they seem tied with the half-breeds that The Order deal with. Showing that character would give away some of that, and most if not all of her scenes and such don't leave much wiggle room to show her off without it giving away one of the beat changes in the game.
I get it, I really do. But it's not the right game to really be going at in this case.
This is what happens when people get overly-defensive about a game.
The point of the article, and my first post, is that people will constantly use the "historical accuracy" argument to justify the lack of non-whites in games. Prior to The Order coming out, there were a lot of people in here defending the lack of non-white characters in the world (as people keep saying, the two Indian characters who appear were not shown in any marketing materials) by making comments based not on historical fact but on a whitewashing of history that is present in popular culture. It's not a criticism that is limited to The Order but it is the most recent game in which this has come up, which is why it was mentioned.
So again, how would an out of context shot of a person in a revel uniform reveal that the person was a major part of the plot?