Cyberpunk's creator slams critics who claim Cyberpunk 2077 is racist / inaccurate to the source, refutes their claims

[ravenshrike]

Double post

Edited June 20, 2019 by ravenshrike

[D13H4RD]

In other words, just your typical SJW outrage just made to further an already very flawed agenda that only sheeple will follow. 

 

The only difference in this case is that the original creator of the Cyberpunk media that 2077 is based off on stood his ground firmly and promptly called them out on their hypocrisy and attitude. The guy is already in my good list for dictating how others who are in no way involved should tell him how his work should be done. 

[Sky Spark]

18 hours ago, Princess Luna said:

That's great and all, don't really care much since people complaining about politically correct is quite mainstream and the best thing you can do about it is ignore it, what I do want to know is: Will they address this?

Those are the specs CDPR used for the E3 demo.

[Derangel]

4 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Fixed that for you. It's already been mentioned, but there are games that do fictional politics pretty well, mostly because they were made from the ground up for that. The narrative has been set up for political hyperbole, and the political aspect is either subdued or satirical.

 

Though, they completely miss the mark on one game, and another game is self defeating if their claim is accurate.

Fictional politics are derived from real-world politics. A lot of art is a reflection of the era it is made in. 50's sci-fi and horror was a reflection of McCarthy-ism and the Red Scare (Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a great example of this). The counter-culture movement of the 80s including punk rock and 80s cyberpunk (among other things) was a direct result of the "greed above all else" mentality of the era of excess. Art imitates life. Its a saying that holds true throughout the eras. Modern art uses modern politics because that is what influences modern artists.

 

I don't think the message needs to be "subdued" or "satirical" for it to work, it just needs to be done well. Bioshock's politics are pretty far from subtle, but it works because the world feels real and the political themes fit that world. The Metal Gear series is about as subtle as a nuclear explosion, but that doesn't make it bad.

 

Instead of screaming "don't put politics in muh vidia gamez" people need to step back and rework their argument. I don't think most people are mad about any and all politics in video games (because that would be stupid) and instead are mad about how some of it is presented and marketed. It doesn't help that there are people out there profiting off the outrage (on all sides) and causing people to froth at the mouth the moment anything happens with any media.

[Delicieuxz]

12 hours ago, maartendc said:

Honestly, if you read the article, the only point the writer makes is that there is a violent gang in the game that is predominantly made up of people of Haitian origin... OK... to draw the conclusion that the game is full of racial stereotypes might be a stretch from one demo...

 

The RPS author says a lot about their perception of how blacks are characterized in Cyberpunk, and how The Animals are an (allegedly - elsewhere disputed) mostly-black gang obsessed with "juice" (drug metaphor?) that works for the Voodoo Boys:

 

"I’d later ask quest director Mateusz Tomaszkiewicz if the factions are more nuanced than they appear. So far, they’ve all been defined by one fixation: juice for the Animals, uploading themselves for the Voodoo Boys. He told me that nuance would appear over the course of the game, and that the Animals would appear again under different circumstances. He didn’t give me any examples of that nuance, mind."

 

"Then – because again, we’re very strong – we rip the turret off its base and turn it on the Animals. At this point, I feel increasingly uncomfortable that we’re shooting at predominantly black people labelled as animals."

 

"I’m also increasingly concerned about Cyberpunk’s handling of non-white cultures. Last year’s Gamescom demo drew criticism for its clumsy and inauthentic presentation of a Latino character, and I’m not convinced the Voodoo Boys are a step in the right direction. At one point V, the player character, mockingly says “and who are dem” in response to Placide’s pronunciation. I asked Tomaszkiewicz if he was concerned they weren’t treating certain cultures with enough respect."

 

"The violent black thugs betrayed us, as the corporate white man said they would. If CD Projeckt are trying to subvert expectations – if the punchline is, but sometimes the thugs are really thugs – then it’s not one that lands."

 

 

The OP is not about only the RPS article but also the commentary that followed it and other sources of similar criticism. Aside from the comments section for the RPS article, another article I read said it's unacceptable to call a gang of (allegedly) mostly-black people The Animals when there's a history of negative association.

 

 

Quote

Other than that, he just said the gunplay felt weak. That wouldn't surprise me considering the developers are mostly experienced in making RPG's with swordplay (the Witcher) and not shooters...

 

I don't see any mention of sexuality in the article at all. What are you all even talking about?

 

12 hours ago, melete said:

I think the OP might have seriously misunderstood "transhumanism" to mean "transgenderism" i.e. "transhumans." Transhumanism is actually a philosophical concept/movement about the links between biological humanity and advanced technology and specifically how technology could transcend natural/human limitations, it doesn't have anything to do with gender identity.

 

The RPS author regards the topic of transhumanism as a platform to metaphorically explore and promote 'positive' (or a certain) imagery of transgenders, and takes issue with the game depicting transhumans in a manner that isn't deliberately-enough flattering to transgenders.

 

Again, the OP is not about only the RPS article but also the commentary that followed it and other sources of similar criticism.

 

There was also criticism over an in-game poster showing a chick with a dick:

 

Cyberpunk 2077 art criticized as transphobic is meant to reflect corporate exploitation, says the artist

[CarlBar]

16 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The RPS author takes the topic of transhumanism as an opportunity to metaphorically explore and promote 'positive' (or a certain) imagery of transgenders, and takes issue with the game depicting transhumans in a manner that isn't flattering to transgenders.

 

Really? I finally went and read it after a few comments here and honestly most people in my mind are either quoting hugely out of context or just haven't read the article. At no point does the article go on about transhumanism at great length. It's mentioned specifically in relation to the fact that cyberpunk has a strong element of cyber-augmentation. What they're talking about is the classic cybernetics eat your soul trope and how that is or is not explored. And transgenderism is never mentioned anywhere in the article.

 

The only place on the entire page transgender is even mentioned is two instances in the comments section, neither by the author, (i used ctrl+f to check).

 

To be blunt people are making **** up.

 

The article does express concern about the one note characterisation of two of the groups. And thats a fair criticism, (Rhonan got blasted with this with regards to the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie), and the fact that said one note characterization exactly matches old stereotypes used to justify racism is also a concern in a different fashion, (there's valid reasons to use them, but using them just because you can isn't one of them), they're naturally insulting to many people in those racial groups. It's not considered acceptable to walk around calling everyone you meet a Wan**** or other curse word so what makes it magically acceptable to use an insulting stereotype to depict a particular ethnicity?

 

The author i should note, (and i agree btw), never claims Cyberpunk absolutely is doing this, but the fact that they're first look at the game provides no evidence that they're not is concerning, we've all seen all kinds of media thats made a bad first impression, promised the full experiance will be better and then failed to deliver. Expressing concern over that is both reasonable and normal in both casual conversation and journalism about a topic.

 

Honestly the issue here isn't the original article, or the comments of that article. It's people elsewhere making **** up then others blaming the author and the comments because said other people elsewhere made **** up.

[cj09beira]

8 hours ago, Nowak said:

Yeah but every gamer points that to that when talking about "politics in muh vidya" while completely ignoring actual political messages and themes in games. I guess it's fine so long as it doesn't deal with identities other than White Straight Man.

 

By the way, did you know that absolutely no customization options in Cyberpunk 2077 are gender-locked, allowing you to create trans and non-binary characters? Guess that makes it political and therefore bad now huh?

its one thing to have a game/franchise have a certain political message, its another to simply shove an unrelated political message that doesn't fit in the game's setting, in bf5 for example the problem was that the franchise has been quite realistic for a long time had they done that on a game with more fantasy in it, it would  have been fine, its one of those things that reduces immersion and i am all about immersion.

in that specific case i was more taken by the fact that at the time there would be no prosthesis that good than the fact that she was female.

the battlefield thing also has some baggage behind i believe, people seem fed up with lack luster games so that relatively small detail was mainly the route of that discontent.

people are fine with some politics in the games as long as it makes sense

[Princess Luna]

3 hours ago, Celli said:

Those are the specs CDPR used for the E3 demo.

Hey Mikey!

 

Oh I know, it really only was for the gag ^^

 

Then gain you gotta wonder how didn't CD Projekt not requested a change or take down of this erroneous information at Google's front page yet.

[Sauron]

13 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I find it horrifyingly hilarious that the left behaves more like fascists than anyone else in society today, and yet is completely incapable of seeing it.

I find it much more horrifyingly hilarious that you think asking for women or trans people in videogames is closer to fascism that chanting "jews will not replace us" and shooting up a mosque to "save the west from invaders". Both of which were done very publicly by right wingers in the last couple of years, multiple times.

 

The lack of self awareness is astounding.
 

Spoiler

 

 

[EldritchMoose]

22 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

Imagine if we could have a game without political stances, correctness and all other things.

So no political stances, no correctness and no other things...all I can imagine is a blank screen if you're giving me that little to work with tbh.

19 hours ago, Vode said:

Motherfuckers. Those political correctness retards really need to shut the fuck up. To all of you out there: Fuck you!

That'll show 'em! You go tell those SJWs! I'm sure you've already scared one or two into submission and if you keep going, more might follow at some point!

19 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

No, what I mean is "How about not making the same public outcry for yet another game (or media in general) or underpresentation, especially based on a 40 min gameplay." But thank you for putting words in my mouth on the "I like it more when games/games critics agree with me politically". But I am not surprised since it's you, once again.

That isn't even close to what you said. Perhaps if you would learn how to communicate more effectively you will find that people are less able to put words into your mouth.

19 hours ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I think people are a bit over-sensitive these days.

 

19 hours ago, RuffRuffmcgruff said:

Never has a truer sentance been said, god help them if they where around in the xbox live days of 2010!

Oh yeah, it's people these days that are the problem. It's nothing like the good old days where parents around America ralliued together to ban video games because a Florida lawyer told them GTA was evil. Or tried to have music albums banned because some of the tracks may have featured a naughty word or two...

 

Or that time when D&D and rock music were clearly tools of Lucifer the fallen archangel intended to win over children's souls. Or remember when the Beatles inspired a serial killer? Fatty Arbuckle's sex parties?

 

Moral panics and resulting pearl clutching has been around for as long as the entertainment industry has existed. All that's happening now is that everyone has a platform, so everyone seems more vocal (kinda like how people used to not know any gay people because they knew nothing about the world beyond the Bumfuck Nowhere, VA city limits.

19 hours ago, SenpaiKaplan said:

Man those were the days! Certainly gave you some thick skin! 

This being that same thick skin that got us that outrage over Steam removing games like Active Shooter and that one scene from Avengers: Endgame? Because I see thin skin that stretches for miles in every direction every time someone starts boycotting some piece of media or another.

17 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Solitaire normalizes oppression though!

Not just that, it reinforces the patriarchy and traditional gender norms in their depiction of Kings being more valuable than Queens. Segregation of black and another colour of card, there's an asexual hook in there.

 

Add in a couple jokes about "playing with yourself and you may be on to something...

11 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Suffice to say that American "liberals" are equally as totalitarian, racist, and sexist.

Of course they are, they're American. Americans don't understand the concept of nuance.

 

Which is why you end up with two political groups that mostly employ the same tactics, but just feel like their use is justified because "the other side is totally bad, you guise!"

 

It's also how you somehow ended up with one side that is accused of being both communists and Nazis, despite the fact that they had a fairly well-published public disagreement three quarters of a century ago where both those parties were on opposite sides. Man I wish we could go back to a time where we had more imagination for "people we don't like" than just calling them Nazis.

10 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

But I will still point out that the left holds greater power right now because they've taken over most of our media companies as well as large swaths of the "educational" sector.

You do realise that "the right" is currently in control of two thirds of the US government currently (and up until recently, all three branches) as well as having more representation on the Supreme Court, right?

 

You're deluding yourself if you think that the left has greater power simply because "the media" may skew more to the left. With regards to higher education, students are easily rallied against "the Man" because they're poor and in debt and forced to pay into a social security system they know will never benefit them.

[EldritchMoose]

With regards to the point at hand:

 

The article is a poorly-written attempt (and a successful one, at that, going by the people it appears to have triggered in this thread alone) to stir controversy for the sake of generating traffic.

 

It's clickbait. And we all fell for it. Granted, I don't know what could be expected from someone who claims to be taking an in-depth look into a game based solely on his experience with a demo.

 

----------------------

Regarding politics in videogames: I think devs and publishers need to start leaning more into exactly how political their games are. I cringe every time I read how much the Division 2 (a game about societal collapse that literally mentions the gun ownership debate in its intro and includes a mostly destroyed White House) and Watch Dogs 3 (which is set in the completely non-political landscape of post-Brexit London and is built around a core concept of fighting an oppressive government) are somehow not political.

 

Devs should work on telling the stories they want to tell, not the ones their publishers are assuring them will sell better. I'm genuinely wondering how much the FF7 remake will sanitize out of the original's blatant anti-corporate, environmental terrorist message.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

Really?

That's an implication of the RPS article title, "Cyberpunk 2077's E3 demo has weak gunplay and unimaginative stereotypes", and the opening paragraph, "At some point, Cyberpunk 2077 has to evolve from a visually impressive – yes Keanu, even breathtaking – world and into something more interesting. I want more than meat and gun oil: I want moral dilemmas and a thoughtful exploration of transhumanism", and the author being transgender and with an obvious chip on their shoulder about it by their emphasizing of pronouns on their Twitter page. And further indicative is how the RPS author gripes about alleged depictions of other groups in the game's demo.

 

Yes, really. The parallel is palpable.

 

Quote

The author i should note, (and i agree btw), never claims Cyberpunk absolutely is doing this, but the fact that they're first look at the game provides no evidence that they're not is concerning, we've all seen all kinds of media thats made a bad first impression

Companies should go to length to prove they're not being racist, stereotyping, transphobic? That's co-opting projects and insisting they must adopt your agenda to prove they aren't against your agenda.

 

Quote

we've all seen all kinds of media thats made a bad first impression promised the full experiance will be better and then failed to deliver. Expressing concern over that is both reasonable and normal in both casual conversation and journalism about a topic.

I think that in the example of Cyberpunk 2077 and the RPS article, it shows someone has an axe to grind and is looking for a vulnerable target to co-opt for a personal crusade.

[Morgan MLGman]

28 minutes ago, EldritchMoose said:

Oh yeah, it's people these days that are the problem. It's nothing like the good old days where parents around America ralliued together to ban video games because a Florida lawyer told them GTA was evil. Or tried to have music albums banned because some of the tracks may have featured a naughty word or two...

 

Or that time when D&D and rock music were clearly tools of Lucifer the fallen archangel intended to win over children's souls. Or remember when the Beatles inspired a serial killer? Fatty Arbuckle's sex parties?

 

Moral panics and resulting pearl clutching has been around for as long as the entertainment industry has existed. All that's happening now is that everyone has a platform, so everyone seems more vocal (kinda like how people used to not know any gay people because they knew nothing about the world beyond the Bumfuck Nowhere, VA city limits.

This being that same thick skin that got us that outrage over Steam removing games like Active Shooter and that one scene from Avengers: Endgame? Because I see thin skin that stretches for miles in every direction every time someone starts boycotting some piece of media or another.

Not just that, it reinforces the patriarchy and traditional gender norms in their depiction of Kings being more valuable than Queens. Segregation of black and another colour of card, there's an asexual hook in there.

4

I'll just give you one example to elaborate on what I meant, I do not want to discuss political correctness because I have some... strong views about it.

You do know Eddie Murphy, right? He made a lot of movies back in the days that were funny as sh*t and people loved them. One of them was "The Nutty Professor", do you think such a funny and harmless movie would be allowed to be released today? It's from 1996. No, it wouldn't or it would have faced a huge media & social media backlash because of "stereotypes" about black people, it would have been accused of racism, white supremacy and so on, along with the people who produced it.

It was perfectly fine in 1996 though.

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, Derangel said:

Fictional politics are derived from real-world politics

Star Wars is derived from WW2, the Wild West, and Knights of the Round Table.

Being derived from something in the real world means nothing.

4 hours ago, Derangel said:

don't think the message needs to be "subdued" or "satirical" for it to work, it just needs to be done well.

That's how you do politics in video games well, either subdued or satirical.

 

4 hours ago, Derangel said:

Bioshock's politics are pretty far from subtle, but it works because the world feels real and the political themes fit that world. The Metal Gear series is about as subtle as a nuclear explosion, but that doesn't make it bad.

Both of those games are pretty satirical with their politics.

[EldritchMoose]

2 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

I'll just give you one example to elaborate on what I meant, I do not want to discuss political correctness because I have some... strong views about it.

You do know Eddie Murphy, right? He made a lot of movies back in the days that were funny as sh*t and people loved them. One of them was "The Nutty Professor", do you think such a funny and harmless movie would be allowed to be released today? It's from 1996. No, it wouldn't or it would have faced a huge media & social media backlash because of "stereotypes" about black people, it would have been accused of racism and so on, along with the people who produced it.

It was perfectly fine in 1996 though.

I know Eddie Murphy. He made a lot of stuff that I personally found funnier and more deserving of a sequel (Coming to America springs to mind) than the Nutty Professor was. You're not wrong, society marches on and with it the norms and values which dictate what is generally thought of as more acceptable. That said, negative stereotypes are not necessarily universally seen as bad. Using and subverting tropes is a popular strategy for comedies these days.

 

My point was that this is something that has always gone on and not the fault of "the SJW kids these days". The main reason that it's more visible nowadays is because it's both politically and commercially profitable to either stir controversy, react to controversy or abstain from reacting to controversy.

 

This is a tempest in a teacup where a piece of art is labeled as racist simply because a short demo showed a Haitian-centric gang. By that logic, one could make the argument that Netflix's Luke Cage series is racist because it features a Jamaican-centric gang. Hell, bar one all the antagonists and villains are black!

 

It's poorly thought-out logic that only works if viewed through the lens of this particular author. The only way it would hold up as a solid criticism of the game, is if there were literally no other black characters in the game or if all of the other ones also happened to be criminals. We won't know that until the game comes out.

[Morgan MLGman]

15 minutes ago, EldritchMoose said:

I know Eddie Murphy. He made a lot of stuff that I personally found funnier and more deserving of a sequel (Coming to America springs to mind) than the Nutty Professor was. You're not wrong, society marches on and with it the norms and values which dictate what is generally thought of as more acceptable. That said, negative stereotypes are not necessarily universally seen as bad. Using and subverting tropes is a popular strategy for comedies these days.

 

My point was that this is something that has always gone on and not the fault of "the SJW kids these days". The main reason that it's more visible nowadays is because it's both politically and commercially profitable to either stir controversy, react to controversy or abstain from reacting to controversy.

3

I agree - this has always been a part of our modern culture. However, we cannot deny that more and more people jump on the "SJW" bandwagon nowadays, especially on college and university campuses for example. What's worse - they push their worldviews onto others because they're "offended".

I think everyone has a right to offend other people. Do not mistake "offending" with "abusing" though, that wouldn't be a "right" in my opinion. Also, what if those "SJW" worldviews themselves offended someone else's own beliefs? They don't even take that into consideration because they put themselves as morally superior and because of that they have no issues pushing their agenda on others. As a result, obviously, you're a bigot if you disagree with them.

How would people discuss difficult matters if they weren't willing to offend anyone? How would they dare to speak publicly to people if they weren't ready to offend someone?
You cannot possibly speak to crowds of, let's say 10 000 people if you weren't willing to offend at least one of those 10 000 people when speaking about an important and difficult topic. It's pretty much impossible...

[Drak3]

19 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

Also, what if those "SJW" worldviews themselves offended someone else's own beliefs? They don't even take that into consideration because they put themselves as morally superior and because of that they have no issues pushing their agenda on others. As a result, obviously, you're a bigot if you disagree with them.


Actually, they do. They usually consider others less than human. Terrorist groups like Antifa are the outcome of that explicit train of thought.

[Morgan MLGman]

2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Actually, they do. They usually consider others less than human. Terrorist groups like Antifa are the outcome of that explicit train of thought.

From what I've seen, Antifa does exactly what the blackshirts did in fascist Italy and what the brownshirts did in nazi Germany... Which is to shut down speakers with other, often opposing views. Those fascist groups actually counted an intervention as a success if they got the speaking event canceled because of their actions, they would shout other speakers down, protest and even beat them up. See any similarities?

[Drak3]

3 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

See any similarities?

Between legitimate modern Fascism and 1930's Fascism?

The similarities are pretty obvious.

 

But you missed my point.

 

Many in the SJW mob dehumanize anyone that disagrees with them, and have no issues with violence acted upon them (hense Antifa).

[Morgan MLGman]

1 minute ago, Drak3 said:

Between legitimate modern Fascism and 1930's Fascism?

The similarities are pretty obvious.

 

But you missed my point.

 

Many in the SJW mob dehumanize anyone that disagrees with them, and have no issues with violence acted upon them (hense Antifa).

I'm aware, I followed the controversies around the infamous Dr. Jordan B. Peterson so I've seen a fair share of those situations.

[maartendc]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

The RPS author regards the topic of transhumanism as a platform to metaphorically explore and promote 'positive' (or a certain) imagery of transgenders, and takes issue with the game depicting transhumans in a manner that isn't deliberately-enough flattering to transgenders.

 

That is not at all in the article. The word Transgender does not appear in the article once. (I did a ctrl+F on it). Neither does the word sexual or sexuality or gender. It is just not discussed. PERIOD.

 

The only word that is in the article is transhumanism, and that refers to, you know, becoming a ROBOT. Not becoming a different gender.

 

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

The only place on the entire page transgender is even mentioned is two instances in the comments section, neither by the author, (i used ctrl+f to check).

 

To be blunt people are making **** up.

 

I have to agree with you. People are making shit up. Read the article, and you'll see this thread is just a big pile of nothing. 75% of what people seem to be angry about is NOT even in the article.

 

Just like many threads that get posted here.

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, Derangel said:

Bioshock's politics are pretty far from subtle, but it works because the world feels real and the political themes fit that world.

1 hour ago, Drak3 said:

Both of those games are pretty satirical with their politics.

Imagine if - for the reveal of Bioshock Infinite - they only showed the one scene with the couple on stage and the PC given the choice of throwing at them or the announcer, and then showed you choosing to throw at the couple.  Imagine what this RPS author would have thought about that reveal.

[Sauron]

29 minutes ago, Morgan MLGman said:

From what I've seen, Antifa does exactly what the blackshirts did in fascist Italy and what the brownshirts did in nazi Germany... Which is to shut down speakers with other, often opposing views. Those fascist groups actually counted an intervention as a success if they got the speaking event canceled because of their actions, they would shout other speakers down, protest and even beat them up. See any similarities?

I don't, I don't think there has been a single death in an antifa rally and injuries have been mostly due to isolated hotheads who are bound to show up at any protest. In Italy we had actual communist terrorists a few decades ago and I assure you, antifa is nothing like that.

 

And shouting down "speakers" with fascist views is perfectly acceptable - you're free to say what you want but people are equally free to call you a dangerous idiot and shout you down.

[Drak3]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

And shouting down "speakers" with fascist views is perfectly acceptable

That's not what Antifa does. They attack anyone that disagrees with their (Fascist) views.

[Delicieuxz]

53 minutes ago, maartendc said:

That is not at all in the article. The word Transgender does not appear in the article once. (I did a ctrl+F on it). Neither does the word sexual or sexuality or gender. It is just not discussed. PERIOD.

Correspondingly, the OP doesn't say those words are in the RPS article or that those themes are openly discussed in the article. The OP only says:

 

"I personally suspect the author's criticism is disingenuous and basically made to swipe at CDPR and Cyberpunk in hopes of causing damage to the company and the game's sales because Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't the personal soap box platform the RPS author wanted it to be for transgenders and other groups of people, with game characters' attitude toward modifying themselves in Cyberpunk being the trigger for it all."

 

So, who is making things up?

 

Quote

The only word that is in the article is transhumanism, and that refers to, you know, becoming a ROBOT. Not becoming a different gender.

And I've explained my impression that, "the RPS author regards the topic of transhumanism as a platform to metaphorically explore and promote 'positive' (or a certain) imagery of transgenders, and takes issue with the game depicting transhumans in a manner that isn't deliberately-enough flattering to transgenders". I did not claim that's written in the article.

 

I also detailed what gives me that impression, when I wrote,

 

"That's an implication of the RPS article title, "Cyberpunk 2077's E3 demo has weak gunplay and unimaginative stereotypes", and the opening paragraph, "At some point, Cyberpunk 2077 has to evolve from a visually impressive – yes Keanu, even breathtaking – world and into something more interesting. I want more than meat and gun oil: I want moral dilemmas and a thoughtful exploration of transhumanism", and the author being transgender and with an obvious chip on their shoulder about it by their emphasizing of pronouns on their Twitter page. And further indicative is how the RPS author gripes about alleged depictions of other groups in the game's demo."

 

And, again, the OP doesn't claim the RPS article says that, and the OP isn't only about the RPS article but is about the general criticism people have made about Cyberpunk 2077 and the game creator's response to it, as well as my own views.

 

Quote

I have to agree with you. People are making shit up. Read the article, and you'll see this thread is just a big pile of nothing. 75% of what people seem to be angry about is NOT even in the article.

Where are people making something up?The OP isn't about only the RPS article, hence why the thread title says "Cyberpunk's creator slams critics" instead of 'Cyberpunk's creator slams RPS critic'.

 

Accusations of how transgenders are depicted in Cyberpunk 2077 are a part of the criticism, and so are a relevant part of this thread's discussion:

 

Deeply transphobic ad in ‘Cyberpunk 2077’ represents everything wrong with cyberpunk

Cyberpunk 2077 art criticized as transphobic is meant to reflect corporate exploitation, says the artist

 

It appears to me like you imagined having read something in the OP that isn't actually there, and so you assumed things about why people are saying what they're saying.