GTA V: No Female Protagonist

Would love some feedback on my most recent blog, titled GTA V: No Female Protagonist.

http://www.gamespot.com/users/experience_fade/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-26035885

For the most part, I like the blog. My main issue is with your opening:

"Let me do my best Carolyn Petit impression. Ahem.

I don't know if it's a sign that my views and morals are evolving for the better, or if I'm just nitpicking something that isn't a problem, but am I the only one who is bothered that GTA V has no female protagonist?"

Strike that first sentence. It is pointless and, even if you didn't mean to, unnecessarily mocks a member of GS' staff. Even though it's tongue-in-cheek and you're actually saying something that Ms. Petite might, this sentence doesn't serve much purpose beyond riling up readers and making fun of Ms. Petite's reputation and outspoken views. I find it to be somewhat insulting, but moreso it is a distraction to the rest of your piece.

Otherwise, I would like to see you play a bit more devil's advocate. Why should Rockstar employ a female? Are there any actual perceived benefits besides just having a female lead to say you have a female lead? Can the game actually be better seeing how GTA plays with a female character? How about more interesting plot lines, more shock and debate at witnessing and playing a gun-toting single mom running over unsuspecting citizens and carjacking yuppies? 

Anticipating and answering questions or concerns from the "other side" before they're asked is a great debate strategy, and I could see a few more examples of this being useful to your argument.

Good read overall, though.

Would love some feedback on my most recent blog, titled GTA V: No Female Protagonist.

http://www.gamespot.com/users/experience_fade/show_blog_entry.php?topic_id=m-100-26035885

experience_fade

I appreciate your feedback, zyxe. I admit, the Carolyn Petit line, though out of pure respect, was definitely not the best sentence to start with. It shall disappear!

I enjoyed your editorial and appreciated the very few grammatical errors. However, there were a few awkward sentences that need punctuation adjustment, or rewording. For example:

Trevor, the crazy backwoods psychopath. Because if you were creating one of those killing, no remorse kind of characters, he couldn't live in the city, right?

"Trevor, the crazy backwoods psychopath" is an incomplete thought/sentence and can't stand on its own. Further, I don't know why it's significant to mention that Trevor lives in the backwoods and not the city, as psychopaths live everywhere. I couldn't relate to the irony here.

Now you have a lot of good points, and your editorial certainly confronts an interesting topic. I agree that video games have, and still tend to favour hyper-masculine protagonists. However, you undermine your argument at certain points. For instance, at the beginning you say: "I just don't get it" and "can't quite figure out" why Rockstar did not include a female as one of the three protagonists. Yet, without much evidence to back your claim, you determine that Rockstar's exclusion was deliberate, driven by monetary greed, or even out of sexist bias. The contradiction is strongest when you conclude: "Rockstar, shame on you," without proving they did anything wrong other than disappoint you.

By relying solely on speculation and assumption, your editorial morphs into an opinion/rant. For me this was distracting. I think your editorial is weak only in that it is divided in direction. I believe it could be a really successful article if you rewrote it as either 1. a rant, or 2. a purely speculatory editorial, avoiding the jump to unfounded conclusions.

All in all, thanks for the read! If it seems like I'm being a hard-ass, it's because I am, but only because I see lots of potential in your writing :D