@saltymemesoup: If I came off as harsh, I apologize, and would like to have an honest discussion. Honest question that I would love to see answered, and not deflected out of irritation. How does it hurt anyone to be inclusive? As a human being. Tangibly. Do you have a number, or a death toll? What is the quantification of actual human suffering? Are there hours of pay somebody didn't get because of this, or freedom somebody didn't get because of this? How is it hurting anyone, tangibly? Personally, I can't see that it does, short of bigots and religious zealots who are stonecold believing their opinion as fact, and that other people shouldn't have the freedoms that they do, and I'm not being dramatic. Also, I'm not calling you a bigot or zealot, I'm just pointing out the scale of tolerance. I don't know you and have no right to make that assumption. How does pushing for happiness in other people in a way that doesn't tangibly hurt anyone else, actually mean so much to you that it is seemingly bothering you? Do you not believe in non-conforming gender roles? Or, am I misjudging, and it isn't bothering you, and in this case, is it that you think the author doesn't really care, and that they include the comment for clicks? I'd love an honest answer, because I think we too often get frustrated and throw words on a screen without trying to have a conversation, and that will never change anything.
I can see it two ways. One, the author is including the comment for clicks. Disingenuous use of tolerance can be frustrating to see, and I could see how it could bother someone. Two, they are just trying to be inclusive, as part of a human agenda and not a political one. To me, I don't know if it matters, and I mean that honestly. The positive impact of helping many, many people outweighs the possibility that they simply wanted clicks. Yes, the message is progressive, but how does progressiveness bother you? What has it taken from you? Also, progressiveness can be for all ends of the political spectrum, from liberal to conservative. It's not just a liberal thing, as is often assumed (I didn't say you made that assumption). Regardless, progressiveness, in this case, is a kindness. To me, types of kindness don't have to be mutually exclusive. I can donate money and time to help veterans and also think that our kids need more funding for school. I can buy local and support my hardworking countrymen, while appreciating diversity. I can push for progressive rights while reinforcing rights of others without stripping them. This is just a statement in a video game review, for a Monster Hunter type-game, and I think there's a chance that you're reading too much into it. With this statement, this single sentence, all I see is that several people can breathe a small sigh of relief to feel included in a world that so often tells them they aren't even normal.
Beyond the function of the cards, the flavor lends itself to a series really well. The narrative behind the game is steeped in rich lore and intriguing characters. Excited to see how this turns out!
@saltymemesoup: I ask this with all sincerity, how does this inclusion actually hurt you, enough that it offends you? There really are countless people out there who would love to feel included, and this review points it out, is all. It doesn't dwell on it, or push it upon the reader. Gender non-conformity is NOT a common inclusion, so they threw in a quick insert letting the reader know. The review didn't say it would be a worse game without it. It isn't political, it's inclusion and accessibility. If it said "the game included a nice color-blind mode" would you still be offended? By your logic, you should, but if you weren't, then with all due respect, it's on you that you see politics here. A rising tide raises all ships. Inclusion helps others without hurting you, so I'd recommend redirecting your energy and not look for a negative here where there isn't one. Spend more time playing games and having fun on your end, and less time worrying about why you think someone else you've never met should NOT have the same fun as you. I mean that, I'm not even trying to troll or bash you, as everyone is entitled to their opinion. Live and let live, and you'll be happier for it.
@moonco: While this is a great point, it brings up two other, interesting points. Firstly, Jason Momoa was not always super ripped, but rather sleek before he picked up his role in Game of Thrones and Aquaman. Secondly, it goes to show that you need to give an actor a chance, because so many people were up in arms over Momoa being cast as Aquaman in the first place, citing he was NOTHING like the source material, yet now he's considered great for the part, AFTER he got to show us he could do it. I think Pattinson will be fantastic.
Good for them. I really enjoyed Terraria, at least back when I was invested in it, however many years ago. Don't know how it's aged in the current gaming landscape, but I always though of it as Minecraft that took itself more seriously, with a little more bite and playability.
@jsprunk: Fair point, though I'm not saying THE most influential, just one of them. Almost the entire single-player (and sometimes multiplayer) AAA landscape nowadays seems to pull something from the design cemented in GTA III. I'm not saying ALL games, but many.
Oloryn's comments