- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
It had nothing to do with vidya, but Lieberman is why I voted Nader in 2000. He is a filthy fucking traitor. He led the jihad on Bill Clinton. And then Al Gore picked this traitor as his VP. I don't cotton to traitors.
Games Journalism General
- Thread starter Judge Dredd
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2024
This dude is the new Patricia Hernandez, writing dumb horny articles for Kotaku that no one asked for. His next one is going to be something like " WHICH SMASH BROS CHARACTERS HAVE WHICH STD?" or "PICK THE STREET FIGHTER 6 CHARACTER SHOULD I GET KNOCKED UP BY OR ABORT?"
Jason_Cruiser
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2023
The right hasn't had the power the left likes to treat it as having since the pre-war period. The last hurrahs of pro-right wing censorship were during the Hays movie code and Comics Code of the 1930s and 1950's, both of which have long been shot down. After that, most censorship has been lobbied by the left or done by the left. The satanic/conservative panic of the 80s has been massively exaggerated by the left to pretend they were still the underdogs, when they haven't been since the 1950s. And what little censorship was done in that time was companies pandering to said parents because they were the ones with the cash and controlled what their kids were allowed to buy. In terms of actual censorship or banning like you see with right-wing media today by the prog left, it didn't exist then. It's not like Harry Potter and Pokémon were banned from major retail chains worldwide, like you see with anything far-right today. Like most things, the left's total control of the media has allowed them to invent fictional versions of the past that they have astroturfed as truth because no one with power wants to or can fight back against it.
Metamorpho
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2022
I wonder when these retards will realize that calling your opponents Nazis doesn't work most of the time.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2025
The other week Aftermath went total schizo in a effort to circlejerk over the chuds by featuring a Woke Week. This culminated in a Nathan Grayson podcast where they talk about games in a fucking unhinged manner to differentiate between Woke 1 and their attempt to reclaim the word, Woke 2 (aka turbowoke). They 'jokingly' mention cousinfucking.
Two articles that were part of woke week, were about DEI and what 'consultants really do' and that it's totally not a cabal. Interviewed are Alayna Cole from Sledgehammer Games, part of Activision/Blizzard and responsible for Call of Duty; and Robin, a fake name with company withheld.
Big shocker: the articles glaze DEI without even talking about the actual processes, but we already know what they do. They do take time to call white men 'pissbabies' though.
And it ends with her reciting the goal of BRIDGE, that DEI should be built in top to bottom:
I will say, it's pretty bad when their subscriber sheeple even question this:
Here's the local text:
DEI, or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, is a set of:
Well, almost everyone. Those aforementioned pissbabies have managed through sheer repetition to strip DEI of much of its meaning. DEI is woke, DEI is destroying video games, DEI is everywhere doing everything, blah blah blah, the term has been used in recent years so often and so often without its proper context that precious few people know what working in the field actually involves.
So for this edition of What I Do–a regular series where we spotlight just what it is, exactly, that people working in video games do for a living--I wanted to speak to the best person I could possibly speak to in this position: Dr Alayna Cole, who recently worked as DEI (or DE&I) manager at one of the biggest AAA companies on the planet.
Luke Plunkett: Hi Alayna, and thanks for joining us for this! To get us started, can you tell us a bit about your role, and what it is you did at the company?
Alayna Cole: I worked as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion manager at a AAA company for about three years. I managed a small team, and together we directed an holistic range of DE&I initiatives spanning game content, team support, and external initiatives. At our largest, we were supporting a studio of approximately 600 developers across four countries, from game ideation through to post-production support.
LP: Given we often only hear about 'DEI' when it's used in an oppositional context, if you look back over the last five years or so, what would you say the overall company culture was like in terms of their relationship to your work? Do you think your efforts had a lot of support internally?
AC: We were lucky to receive a lot of internal support, which we witnessed in several ways: leadership would encourage people to engage with our initiatives, we received financial resources and dedicated time to conduct our work, and we saw very little pushback from employees of any level of seniority. Early on, we did have to put in the legwork to ensure we could prove our value to our colleagues, but not in a way that felt particularly specific to DE&I. Ultimately, we were something unfamiliar, and it took some time for people to see that we were helpful for them in terms of saving time, encouraging creativity, and supporting wellbeing. The level and type of support we received shifted over time, and there were several complicating factors for that.
LP: OK, so that was over the last few years, but do you think any of that has changed over the last 12 months or so with, you know, everything else that's been going on?
AC: I think it would be easy to blame all of the challenges in the DE&I field to certain political shifts that have occurred over the last twelve months. Unfortunately, from my own experience as well as my broader research, it's a lot more complicated than that. DE&I has an 'ebb and flow' to it in terms of people prioritising this work, which we have seen over decades. That's not to say there aren't ramifications to the political shifts that have occurred in the US over the last twelve months, though; and they have been quite far-reaching, impacting many English-speaking countries outside the US too.
The main impact I've seen is that people who are interested in continuing DE&I initiatives are required to justify their work a lot more, as it's less likely to be accepted at face value that this work is effective, useful, and morally right. There are actually some benefits to that—it means DE&I practitioners need to do more work to explain what we mean by "effectiveness" in DE&I and find the data that proves certain initiatives work.
But that's only a benefit if these questions are being asked in good faith, rather than as a way to slow down or rebuff DE&I work. These changes also mean people and companies need to be genuinely committed to DE&I to make change, or else it is suddenly a lot easier for these initiatives to become de-prioritised because there is less shareholder expectation and scrutiny. However, this doesn't have as much of a negative impact as you might think, as performative companies were already incorrectly prioritising because they would generally invest in highly visible initiatives over more effective ones.
LP: It's interesting that you raise the issue of effectiveness there; is there a way that can be judged or assessed internally?
AC: I think sometimes we can get caught up in the idea of whether DE&I / DE&I programs are "effective" or "not effective", but stakeholders don't always have a meaningful conversation about what they are trying to achieve or want a DE&I program to do. How can we determine if a DE&I program is effective or not without defining what success looks like?
And by that, I don't mean metrics or KPIs. I mean that historically an effective DE&I program was one that didn't get a US company in legal trouble after new civil rights legislation was introduced in the mid-twentieth century. It wasn't about making sure employees felt like they could meaningfully participate in the workplace; it was about compliance. Thankfully, this generally isn't the case anymore, but we're building on a scaffold that is no longer applicable and expecting the result to meet success criteria that it wasn't originally designed for.
LP: Also, what do you mean by 'performative' companies? Do you mean companies making hollow gestures without doing any of the actual work?
AC: In my research, I've found that some studios are good at their PR presence, social media outputs, diversity websites, and shareholder report language, but aren't necessarily backing that up with meaningful structural change within their studios. I would say 'performative' DE&I occurs when a team prioritises optics over organisational change.
LP: What would you say are some of the biggest misconceptions about the job, both for regular people but also the way the field is perceived and portrayed by weirdos?
AC: I think everyone has an assumption in their head about what a DE&I practitioner does—however, that assumption differs from person to person depending on their context and experience. I've had people assume that DE&I is just about race or gender, without factoring in all the other intersectional vectors of marginalisation that we need to consider. I've had people assume that my work is primarily focused on sensitivity training, recruitment, human resources issues, supporting external organisations, or reviewing game content—but it's rare that somebody realised I work on all of those areas at the same time. I have always treated DE&I as an holistic and all-encompassing field that impacts every aspect of game content, developers, and audiences in ways that can sometimes be surprising. But when your mission is about creating supportive environments and authentic content, it's easy to start understanding how your work can touch every part of the game-making process.
LP: What are those other 'intersectional vectors of marginalisation' that might also need help?
AC: In my work, I think there's space for DE&I to help a huge number of marginalised groups. There are common identity markers that we see talked about with this (race, gender, etc) but this can be about identity, access, context, and more. It might include race, gender, sexuality, disability, neurodivergence, mental health, class, education, access, religion, regionality, culture, language(s), and more.
DE&I—at its core—should be about making space for diversity, ensuring people have equitable access to opportunity, and feel included and like they can be themselves in the spaces they inhabit. That's less about individual identity markers and more about how we create workplace cultures that support everyone.
LP: For all the challenges you've faced, and that the field continues to face, what work would you say you're most proud of in your time at the company?
AC: I am most proud of the way my team and I managed to scale DE&I initiatives beyond us and integrate them into parts of the game development cycle. Reframing DE&I as a way to create innovative and authentic game content meaningfully impacted the way many of the developers we worked with thought about their disciplines, and over time we got to see that become part of their thought processes even when we weren't in the room. This showed me that dissolving misconceptions and demonstrating the value of DE&I is how we can create ongoing structural change.
LP: And finally, given so much of this interview has been about historical struggles, I'd love to end it on something future-facing. So: if you could wave a magic (workplace) wand today and change something about the job for the better, what would it be?
AC: I would say that, in my ideal world, there would be no such thing as "DEI initiatives". Diversity, equity, and inclusion works best when it's holistically integrated into the structure of organisations and isn't championed as a separate thing by certain individuals. The principles and morals of inclusive and equitable practices should simply be embedded in company goals, values, and success criteria, alongside concepts like innovation, quality, market reach, and accessibility.
The first interview, with Dr. Alayna Cole, ran earlier in the week, and you can read that here. The second, with Robin (not their real name, as they still work at the company we discuss) follows.
Luke Plunkett: Hi Robin, and thanks for joining us! Can you tell us a bit about your role, and what it is you do at the company?
Robin: I work within the DE&I team at a games company. My role involves collaborating across different areas of the team, assisting in the ideation, implementation, and post assessment of different initiatives. I've worked across a wide spectrum of projects, from games to workplace, development, and more.
LP: What would you say has been the overall company vibe towards the work of you and your colleagues? Have you found that most people are receptive to the kind of things you're working towards?
R: It has mostly been supportive. There is a genuine desire across the board to do things right and to open up to new perspectives and make sure the company's different initiatives are encompassing of a range of lived experiences and backgrounds.
One common misconception is that DE&I work is often directive or imposed. The reality is that teams often reach out for support, whether that is for input, research, or bringing in a different perspective. There can be moments of hesitation or disagreement to certain recommendations, which is natural, but more often than not there is a willingness to find balanced solutions.
LP: Have those vibes changed much in the last year or so, given everything that's happened in the US? Whether in terms of how you've noticed your work has been supported among colleagues, or if there have been any changes made to it by management?
R: The overall level of support from leadership has remained steady for me and the team. What has shifted is that some false external conversations and narratives have, at times, influenced internal perceptions. This means that we might have to spend more time clarifying what the work we do actually involves to counteract and address misunderstandings. In certain instances, it has required revisiting and re-explaining things that previously felt well understood. This naturally adds extra layers of effort, but has reinforced the importance of clear and transparent communication to push against misunderstandings that can sometimes arise internally.
LP: Have those 'false narratives' changed your efforts in any way, or created extra work for you?
R: It has definitely resulted in additional work. Some of the work has involved revisiting how things are communicated, but a large part has been about creating spaces for dialogue and clarification. There is often a need to explain not only what the work is, but also what it is not, and to reinforce that ultimately, the creative decisions has always been and will always be with the teams themselves. It is challenging, and sometimes even downright frustrating, to have to revisit topics that felt settled internally, but highlight how important ongoing communication and trust-building are in this field.
LP: I realise this is a broad and difficult thing to answer precisely, but would you have even a rough idea on the percentage of colleagues you have at the company who are sharing these misinformed views?
R: It is difficult to really quantify, as it is often a vocal minority with varying degrees of information and perspective amongst themselves. And while they may have an impact, what matters more is the overall trajectory. Even when there are misunderstandings, there is still a strong foundation of people who see the value of the work we do and are open to engaging with it. Over time, continued dialogue and transparency tend to make a difference.
LP: When we talk about those false narratives and misconceptions colleagues (and the public!) can have about your work, what do you specifically think those are?
R: One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that there is some secret cabal that funds and pushes these initiatives. In reality, most people working in this space are trying to contribute to more thoughtful and inclusive environments, often with limited resources and budgets. It is also a shame to see how quickly these people become targets for harassment online. This work is often collaborative, with teams seeking input rather than being directed.
People in DE&I roles generally act as advisors, providing context, raising considerations, and supporting teams in making informed choices. I genuinely think that a lot of the misinformation would quickly die down if people genuinely understood what it is we actually do, and how we do it.
LP: When you say you're advising development teams at the company, how does that work specifically, across both the company itself and also directly on a game's development? Are you invited in at certain points to check in on things, or are you there at the beginning to help shape things?
R: It varies depending on the project and the team. Some teams approach us early-on during conception, while others reach out later in production. The support we extend can take different forms, from sharing perspectives and resources to providing feedback on specific elements. Generally, the earlier the collaboration kicks off, the more there is room to reflect and iterate, however, there isn’t a single model that applies to every situation. With time, the awareness of the team and the kind of support it extends has grown, and more teams are engaging in ways that best suit their needs and timelines.
LP: A lot of this chat has been about some pretty negative stuff, so why don't we end it by asking about what you think your biggest successes have been in the role to date?
R: So much progress has been made on many fronts in recent years, and it has had a meaningful impact both internally for teams and externally for players. One of my proudest experiences was contributing to the release of a project that was widely appreciated for the care and thoughtfulness put into representing its world and characters.
What stood out was how intentional and thoughtful the creators were from the start, and consistently carried that spirit throughout production. The response from players was incredibly encouraging, and showed that there is a real appetite for this kind of work. I feel grateful to have played a part in that journey.
Some other articles for woke week included on cooking food from a lesbian vegan comic strip and one chronicling the plight of trannies in GDQ, which I'll be posting as A&N articles soon since they're long and others might have fun laughing at them.
Two articles that were part of woke week, were about DEI and what 'consultants really do' and that it's totally not a cabal. Interviewed are Alayna Cole from Sledgehammer Games, part of Activision/Blizzard and responsible for Call of Duty; and Robin, a fake name with company withheld.
Big shocker: the articles glaze DEI without even talking about the actual processes, but we already know what they do. They do take time to call white men 'pissbabies' though.
And it ends with her reciting the goal of BRIDGE, that DEI should be built in top to bottom:
I will say, it's pretty bad when their subscriber sheeple even question this:
Here's the local text:
'The Mission Is About Creating Supportive Environments And Authentic Content': What A DEI Manager At A AAA Video Game Company Actually Does
If you've ever been exposed to the worst corners of the internet, and especially the ones that spend their days failing to enjoy a single thing about video games, you'll probably have seen the disdain some shitheads– from angry YouTubers through to, ah, the current United States administration--have for anyone working anywhere near "DEI".DEI, or Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, is a set of:
Which means you can instantly see why pissbaby white men are always so ready to complain about it, but also why video games--an industry traditionally dominated by white men--needs it so badly. Games are selling to a global market in multicultural and multiracial societies, and whether you're talking about representation or just good business sense, the better games are able to diversify their development teams and subject matter, the better it is for everyone.
Well, almost everyone. Those aforementioned pissbabies have managed through sheer repetition to strip DEI of much of its meaning. DEI is woke, DEI is destroying video games, DEI is everywhere doing everything, blah blah blah, the term has been used in recent years so often and so often without its proper context that precious few people know what working in the field actually involves.
So for this edition of What I Do–a regular series where we spotlight just what it is, exactly, that people working in video games do for a living--I wanted to speak to the best person I could possibly speak to in this position: Dr Alayna Cole, who recently worked as DEI (or DE&I) manager at one of the biggest AAA companies on the planet.
Luke Plunkett: Hi Alayna, and thanks for joining us for this! To get us started, can you tell us a bit about your role, and what it is you did at the company?
Alayna Cole: I worked as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion manager at a AAA company for about three years. I managed a small team, and together we directed an holistic range of DE&I initiatives spanning game content, team support, and external initiatives. At our largest, we were supporting a studio of approximately 600 developers across four countries, from game ideation through to post-production support.
LP: Given we often only hear about 'DEI' when it's used in an oppositional context, if you look back over the last five years or so, what would you say the overall company culture was like in terms of their relationship to your work? Do you think your efforts had a lot of support internally?
AC: We were lucky to receive a lot of internal support, which we witnessed in several ways: leadership would encourage people to engage with our initiatives, we received financial resources and dedicated time to conduct our work, and we saw very little pushback from employees of any level of seniority. Early on, we did have to put in the legwork to ensure we could prove our value to our colleagues, but not in a way that felt particularly specific to DE&I. Ultimately, we were something unfamiliar, and it took some time for people to see that we were helpful for them in terms of saving time, encouraging creativity, and supporting wellbeing. The level and type of support we received shifted over time, and there were several complicating factors for that.
LP: OK, so that was over the last few years, but do you think any of that has changed over the last 12 months or so with, you know, everything else that's been going on?
AC: I think it would be easy to blame all of the challenges in the DE&I field to certain political shifts that have occurred over the last twelve months. Unfortunately, from my own experience as well as my broader research, it's a lot more complicated than that. DE&I has an 'ebb and flow' to it in terms of people prioritising this work, which we have seen over decades. That's not to say there aren't ramifications to the political shifts that have occurred in the US over the last twelve months, though; and they have been quite far-reaching, impacting many English-speaking countries outside the US too.
The main impact I've seen is that people who are interested in continuing DE&I initiatives are required to justify their work a lot more, as it's less likely to be accepted at face value that this work is effective, useful, and morally right. There are actually some benefits to that—it means DE&I practitioners need to do more work to explain what we mean by "effectiveness" in DE&I and find the data that proves certain initiatives work.
But that's only a benefit if these questions are being asked in good faith, rather than as a way to slow down or rebuff DE&I work. These changes also mean people and companies need to be genuinely committed to DE&I to make change, or else it is suddenly a lot easier for these initiatives to become de-prioritised because there is less shareholder expectation and scrutiny. However, this doesn't have as much of a negative impact as you might think, as performative companies were already incorrectly prioritising because they would generally invest in highly visible initiatives over more effective ones.
LP: It's interesting that you raise the issue of effectiveness there; is there a way that can be judged or assessed internally?
AC: I think sometimes we can get caught up in the idea of whether DE&I / DE&I programs are "effective" or "not effective", but stakeholders don't always have a meaningful conversation about what they are trying to achieve or want a DE&I program to do. How can we determine if a DE&I program is effective or not without defining what success looks like?
And by that, I don't mean metrics or KPIs. I mean that historically an effective DE&I program was one that didn't get a US company in legal trouble after new civil rights legislation was introduced in the mid-twentieth century. It wasn't about making sure employees felt like they could meaningfully participate in the workplace; it was about compliance. Thankfully, this generally isn't the case anymore, but we're building on a scaffold that is no longer applicable and expecting the result to meet success criteria that it wasn't originally designed for.
LP: Also, what do you mean by 'performative' companies? Do you mean companies making hollow gestures without doing any of the actual work?
AC: In my research, I've found that some studios are good at their PR presence, social media outputs, diversity websites, and shareholder report language, but aren't necessarily backing that up with meaningful structural change within their studios. I would say 'performative' DE&I occurs when a team prioritises optics over organisational change.
LP: What would you say are some of the biggest misconceptions about the job, both for regular people but also the way the field is perceived and portrayed by weirdos?
AC: I think everyone has an assumption in their head about what a DE&I practitioner does—however, that assumption differs from person to person depending on their context and experience. I've had people assume that DE&I is just about race or gender, without factoring in all the other intersectional vectors of marginalisation that we need to consider. I've had people assume that my work is primarily focused on sensitivity training, recruitment, human resources issues, supporting external organisations, or reviewing game content—but it's rare that somebody realised I work on all of those areas at the same time. I have always treated DE&I as an holistic and all-encompassing field that impacts every aspect of game content, developers, and audiences in ways that can sometimes be surprising. But when your mission is about creating supportive environments and authentic content, it's easy to start understanding how your work can touch every part of the game-making process.
LP: What are those other 'intersectional vectors of marginalisation' that might also need help?
AC: In my work, I think there's space for DE&I to help a huge number of marginalised groups. There are common identity markers that we see talked about with this (race, gender, etc) but this can be about identity, access, context, and more. It might include race, gender, sexuality, disability, neurodivergence, mental health, class, education, access, religion, regionality, culture, language(s), and more.
DE&I—at its core—should be about making space for diversity, ensuring people have equitable access to opportunity, and feel included and like they can be themselves in the spaces they inhabit. That's less about individual identity markers and more about how we create workplace cultures that support everyone.
LP: For all the challenges you've faced, and that the field continues to face, what work would you say you're most proud of in your time at the company?
AC: I am most proud of the way my team and I managed to scale DE&I initiatives beyond us and integrate them into parts of the game development cycle. Reframing DE&I as a way to create innovative and authentic game content meaningfully impacted the way many of the developers we worked with thought about their disciplines, and over time we got to see that become part of their thought processes even when we weren't in the room. This showed me that dissolving misconceptions and demonstrating the value of DE&I is how we can create ongoing structural change.
LP: And finally, given so much of this interview has been about historical struggles, I'd love to end it on something future-facing. So: if you could wave a magic (workplace) wand today and change something about the job for the better, what would it be?
AC: I would say that, in my ideal world, there would be no such thing as "DEI initiatives". Diversity, equity, and inclusion works best when it's holistically integrated into the structure of organisations and isn't championed as a separate thing by certain individuals. The principles and morals of inclusive and equitable practices should simply be embedded in company goals, values, and success criteria, alongside concepts like innovation, quality, market reach, and accessibility.
'There Is A Genuine Desire Across The Board To Do Things Right': The Successes And Challenges Of Working In DEI At A Games Studio
My original plan this week was to run a single big feature on DEI at major games companies, interviewing a number of people who work or have worked in the field. But when the first two experts I spoke with provided such thorough and informative responses, I shelved that plan and decided to give each of them the full spotlight, two people who have worked on some of the world's biggest--and as a result, most challenging, in terms of public reaction and awareness--games series.The first interview, with Dr. Alayna Cole, ran earlier in the week, and you can read that here. The second, with Robin (not their real name, as they still work at the company we discuss) follows.
Luke Plunkett: Hi Robin, and thanks for joining us! Can you tell us a bit about your role, and what it is you do at the company?
Robin: I work within the DE&I team at a games company. My role involves collaborating across different areas of the team, assisting in the ideation, implementation, and post assessment of different initiatives. I've worked across a wide spectrum of projects, from games to workplace, development, and more.
LP: What would you say has been the overall company vibe towards the work of you and your colleagues? Have you found that most people are receptive to the kind of things you're working towards?
R: It has mostly been supportive. There is a genuine desire across the board to do things right and to open up to new perspectives and make sure the company's different initiatives are encompassing of a range of lived experiences and backgrounds.
One common misconception is that DE&I work is often directive or imposed. The reality is that teams often reach out for support, whether that is for input, research, or bringing in a different perspective. There can be moments of hesitation or disagreement to certain recommendations, which is natural, but more often than not there is a willingness to find balanced solutions.
LP: Have those vibes changed much in the last year or so, given everything that's happened in the US? Whether in terms of how you've noticed your work has been supported among colleagues, or if there have been any changes made to it by management?
R: The overall level of support from leadership has remained steady for me and the team. What has shifted is that some false external conversations and narratives have, at times, influenced internal perceptions. This means that we might have to spend more time clarifying what the work we do actually involves to counteract and address misunderstandings. In certain instances, it has required revisiting and re-explaining things that previously felt well understood. This naturally adds extra layers of effort, but has reinforced the importance of clear and transparent communication to push against misunderstandings that can sometimes arise internally.
LP: Have those 'false narratives' changed your efforts in any way, or created extra work for you?
R: It has definitely resulted in additional work. Some of the work has involved revisiting how things are communicated, but a large part has been about creating spaces for dialogue and clarification. There is often a need to explain not only what the work is, but also what it is not, and to reinforce that ultimately, the creative decisions has always been and will always be with the teams themselves. It is challenging, and sometimes even downright frustrating, to have to revisit topics that felt settled internally, but highlight how important ongoing communication and trust-building are in this field.
LP: I realise this is a broad and difficult thing to answer precisely, but would you have even a rough idea on the percentage of colleagues you have at the company who are sharing these misinformed views?
R: It is difficult to really quantify, as it is often a vocal minority with varying degrees of information and perspective amongst themselves. And while they may have an impact, what matters more is the overall trajectory. Even when there are misunderstandings, there is still a strong foundation of people who see the value of the work we do and are open to engaging with it. Over time, continued dialogue and transparency tend to make a difference.
LP: When we talk about those false narratives and misconceptions colleagues (and the public!) can have about your work, what do you specifically think those are?
R: One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that there is some secret cabal that funds and pushes these initiatives. In reality, most people working in this space are trying to contribute to more thoughtful and inclusive environments, often with limited resources and budgets. It is also a shame to see how quickly these people become targets for harassment online. This work is often collaborative, with teams seeking input rather than being directed.
People in DE&I roles generally act as advisors, providing context, raising considerations, and supporting teams in making informed choices. I genuinely think that a lot of the misinformation would quickly die down if people genuinely understood what it is we actually do, and how we do it.
LP: When you say you're advising development teams at the company, how does that work specifically, across both the company itself and also directly on a game's development? Are you invited in at certain points to check in on things, or are you there at the beginning to help shape things?
R: It varies depending on the project and the team. Some teams approach us early-on during conception, while others reach out later in production. The support we extend can take different forms, from sharing perspectives and resources to providing feedback on specific elements. Generally, the earlier the collaboration kicks off, the more there is room to reflect and iterate, however, there isn’t a single model that applies to every situation. With time, the awareness of the team and the kind of support it extends has grown, and more teams are engaging in ways that best suit their needs and timelines.
LP: A lot of this chat has been about some pretty negative stuff, so why don't we end it by asking about what you think your biggest successes have been in the role to date?
R: So much progress has been made on many fronts in recent years, and it has had a meaningful impact both internally for teams and externally for players. One of my proudest experiences was contributing to the release of a project that was widely appreciated for the care and thoughtfulness put into representing its world and characters.
What stood out was how intentional and thoughtful the creators were from the start, and consistently carried that spirit throughout production. The response from players was incredibly encouraging, and showed that there is a real appetite for this kind of work. I feel grateful to have played a part in that journey.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
Luke Plunkett is a white male too. What does that make him?Two articles that were part of woke week, were about DEI and what 'consultants really do' and that it's totally not a cabal. Interviewed are Alayna Cole from Sledgehammer Games, part of Activision/Blizzard and responsible for Call of Duty; and Robin, a fake name with company withheld.
Big shocker: the articles glaze DEI without even talking about the actual processes, but we already know what they do. They do take time to call white men 'pissbabies' though.
And it ends with her reciting the goal of BRIDGE, that DEI should be built in top to bottom:
I will say, it's pretty bad when their subscriber sheeple even question this:
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
Quarterback Rex Grossman
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2023
Scans from the December '96 issue of EGM (text below):
Letter to editor:
EGM replies:
The third scan is four pictures of game characters made up of about twelve polygons each and barely distinguishable as human: Lara Croft, Mai from Fatal Fury, Sofia from Toshinden, and Robin from Pilotwings 64. The text is garbled but reads:
Sorry about the quality but I was using a mouse scanner from 2003.
Note the proto-woke language such as "cater to horny males" and the industry-adjacent editor believing Lara Croft's role should be about "helping women gain equal standing with men." Most horrying is that as far back as 1996 they were already discussing uglifying female characters to attract a modern audience.
Letter to editor:
EGM replies:
The third scan is four pictures of game characters made up of about twelve polygons each and barely distinguishable as human: Lara Croft, Mai from Fatal Fury, Sofia from Toshinden, and Robin from Pilotwings 64. The text is garbled but reads:
Sorry about the quality but I was using a mouse scanner from 2003.
Note the proto-woke language such as "cater to horny males" and the industry-adjacent editor believing Lara Croft's role should be about "helping women gain equal standing with men." Most horrying is that as far back as 1996 they were already discussing uglifying female characters to attract a modern audience.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2026
Polygon still suffering from TDS I see. I thought this was a gaming outlet?
strumpets exeunt
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2025
It's Dead Zone, isn't it? If so, lol on that being "one of his scariest books."
Alcoholism
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2020
Mai and the Toshinden girl I can kinda understand by Lara Croft is literally just a woman in a sleeveless shirt cause she's in a hot fucking jungle and it makes sense.
Mr Processor
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2022
This makes me think he has Persona 5 "homophobic" confused with Persona 4 "transphobic." (According to communities of online weirdos during the height of woke.)
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
Kenneth Shepard strikes again with another gay and woke clickbait Kotaku article, thinking that a certain Pokémon is trans.
(Archived Article)
Kenneth Shepard is so pathetic that Smash JT has more likes than Kotaku.
(Archived Article)
Kenneth Shepard is so pathetic that Smash JT has more likes than Kotaku.
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
Rebekah Valentine left IGN.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2026
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2019
They couldn't even give us a half-decent-looking lesbian and they expected everyone to buy this shit?
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2017
Rebekah Valentine is the liberal bitch that made the hate-clickbait IGN article about Black Myth: Wukong alongside that racist piece of shit Khee Hoon.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2022
"I'm not a furry but..." sounds like you're in DEEP denial. I could arguably be considered a furry after what I bought and started wearing at home (for fun) but I don't deny what others see me might see me as. You don't have to be a yiff-yiff furry though, just like having sex with a dude doesn't make you some pride flag waving degenerate.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2017
King is talking about his gay ask book where some door to door salesman kicks a dog to death in graphic description, then goes on to become President, but luckily the brave writer turned psychic saves everyone by trying to shoot him, so Dog Killer tries to shield himself with a baby.
Dead Zone.
Fuck, that book sucked.
As far as game journalists, apparently one of them heard that if the game The Secret World got a certain metacritic score, they'd get bonuses and more development for the game.
So this cock sucker waited until almost the deadline.
Then he reviewed it based off A FUCKING ALPHA TEST version he'd played 5 months prior.
I've always hoped that particular journalist ended up sucking on used tampons for sustenance to survive.