Fast forward to today. Blizzcon--Blizzard Entertainment's yearly, self-inclusive convention--opened up a huge can of worms within the gaming community: namely the expected outcry of millions of fans about Blizzard's lore and game decisions. In short, Blizzard's choice to focus entirely on male protagonists and antagonists hinders the much-needed push to diversify the sex and gender of the gaming industry. At least one blogger in the WoW community (among many others) thinks this is a step backwards. As one Twitter user put it:
The argument of "it was a different time that's why we can't have women" doesn't wash when we're talking about A MADE UP TIME.— Dysmorphia (@dys_morphia) November 16, 2013
I've read Big Bear Butt for a while; his loving tendency to rant and write always inspires me to blog. His input has certainly called up some heated conversations, including his own. In particular, I was drawn to this quote:
Nobody, and I do mean NOBODY has the right to tell ANY author or creator what they should do to change their own creative efforts because clearly you know better.
This is where it gets interesting to me. I'm going to look at both sides. To avoid prolixity, I'm sticking with the pronoun "her."
Defending Big Bear, he's absolutely right that a writer and creator's outlet is no business but her own. The success of any true artist is generally attributed to the originality of her work. Creativity is a very personal and individual process, much as this blog is for me. I should feel free to write how and what I desire. He's also right that consumers can speak with their wallet. If Dysmorphia and Restokin are unhappy or disapprove of Blizzard's choices, they're welcome to explore other options--certainly the beauty of our multi-faceted society. Veronica Roth's fans might simply put the book down if Allegiant doesn't meet expectations. It reminds me of an old adage: if an activity causes you pain, don't do it.
As for Restokin and Dysmorphia, they follow in the long-honored tradition of discontent and expression. When Charles Dickens began his writing career, his novels were published as episodic entries in periodicals. Although mostly utilizing the "cliffhanger" convention that television often entertains, Dickens was able to incorporate reader and colleague feedback between installments. In effect, he was able to adjust his writing based on the response of his audience and contemporaries. For Resto and Dys, it's more about the unified relationship between creator and consumer. If Blizzard hopes to stay in business, they allege, they should be more mindful of the diversity of their targeted demographic.
Frankly, I'm in the middle. A writer should have creative license to craft their world as she sees fit. Blizzard grew to its current size because of the story and gameplay that they wanted to share with the community, just as Veronica Roth's creativity birthed the current fanbase for her work. However, Blizzard has always been responsive to consumer feedback. They've always listened to constructive criticism regarding gameplay; why should lore be any different? Dickens did it, film companies always do it, and Blizzard should do it, too.
Thus, Big Bear's assertion that no one has the right to critique or petition an author is rather misguided. A reader or gamer has as much right to petition an author as the author has the right to accept or reject the criticism. Consequently, while Resto and Dys justifiably can push to alter Blizzard's intentions, I think it's rather tough to assume that Blizzard (or any creator) can fully appease every niche in their audience. If Blizzard decides to stay the course, then Resto and Dys have the rationale to potentially end their ties to the game. Sad, but all good things must come to an end, right?
