It's also just that they're doing it in a silly way; they could have avoided half of the issues surrounding it if they came out from the get-go and said; "Look, we kind of want to do it like we did with Battlefield 1, where it's clearly based in WW2 and all that, but we're taking our own creative spin on it to try and make the game more enjoyable for everyone." That would at least be pretty reasonable and you can go "Yeah, OK, I can understand that."
And if they wanted to go the full historical route, there are several instances of women making a difference in the war - the Russian front (like in Enemy At the Gates, with Rachel Weisz also at the front), and the French Resistance (where only women could do the unsavory task of sleeping with German officers to get intelligence, steal documents, etc). It just feels like a completely unnecessary controversy if they had handled it with any amount of grace or tact.
And as for the basic line, "get with the program or don't buy it" - yeah, that's pretty much what everyone does with all games anyway. I think The Witness is interesting and looks great, but I'm not gonna spend $40 USD on a pretty world to slowly walk around in and line puzzles (and yes, I know there was more to the game than that, and the other thing is really neat, but it's not really my speed - I prefer my puzzle games more like Myst and Professor Layton than The Witness). So I didn't buy The Witness. The games I think are worth the money, I buy, and sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong. But all consumers already look at the product for what it is before purchasing. This is just another way of saying "Fuck you, deal with it", which I'm fine with, it's their game, they can do what they like with it. But it's maybe not the best policy, particularly when CoD seems to have the Lion's share of the market and manages to dodge all these kinds of controversies.
It's also just that they're doing it in a silly way; they could have avoided half of the issues surrounding it if they came out from the get-go and said; "Look, we kind of want to do it like we did with _Battlefield 1_, where it's clearly based in WW2 and all that, but we're taking our own creative spin on it to try and make the game more enjoyable for everyone." That would at least be pretty reasonable and you can go "Yeah, OK, I can understand that."
And if they wanted to go the full historical route, there are several instances of women making a difference in the war - the Russian front (like in _Enemy At the Gates_, with Rachel Weisz also at the front), and the French Resistance (where _only_ women could do the unsavory task of sleeping with German officers to get intelligence, steal documents, etc). It just feels like a completely unnecessary controversy if they had handled it with any amount of grace or tact.
And as for the basic line, "get with the program or don't buy it" - yeah, that's pretty much what everyone does with all games anyway. I think _The Witness_ is interesting and looks great, but I'm not gonna spend $40 USD on a pretty world to slowly walk around in and line puzzles (and yes, I know there was more to the game than that, and the other thing is really neat, but it's not really my speed - I prefer my puzzle games more like _Myst_ and _Professor Layton_ than _The Witness_). So I didn't buy _The Witness_. The games I think are worth the money, I buy, and sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong. But all consumers already look at the product for what it is before purchasing. This is just another way of saying "Fuck you, deal with it", which I'm fine with, it's their game, they can do what they like with it. But it's maybe not the best policy, particularly when CoD seems to have the Lion's share of the market and manages to dodge all these kinds of controversies.
It's also just that they're doing it in a silly way; they could have avoided half of the issues surrounding it if they came out from the get-go and said; "Look, we kind of want to do it like we did with Battlefield 1, where it's clearly based in WW2 and all that, but we're taking our own creative spin on it to try and make the game more enjoyable for everyone." That would at least be pretty reasonable and you can go "Yeah, OK, I can understand that."
And if they wanted to go the full historical route, there are several instances of women making a difference in the war - the Russian front (like in Enemy At the Gates, with Rachel Weisz also at the front), and the French Resistance (where only women could do the unsavory task of sleeping with German officers to get intelligence, steal documents, etc). It just feels like a completely unnecessary controversy if they had handled it with any amount of grace or tact.
And as for the basic line, "get with the program or don't buy it" - yeah, that's pretty much what everyone does with all games anyway. I think The Witness is interesting and looks great, but I'm not gonna spend $40 USD on a pretty world to slowly walk around in and line puzzles (and yes, I know there was more to the game than that, and the other thing is really neat, but it's not really my speed - I prefer my puzzle games more like Myst and Professor Layton than The Witness). So I didn't buy The Witness. The games I think are worth the money, I buy, and sometimes I'm right and sometimes I'm wrong. But all consumers already look at the product for what it is before purchasing. This is just another way of saying "Fuck you, deal with it", which I'm fine with, it's their game, they can do what they like with it. But it's maybe not the best policy, particularly when CoD seems to have the Lion's share of the market and manages to dodge all these kinds of controversies.