But, regardless, why can’t GTA use a stereotype? It isn’t as if there does not exist a person who is the stereotype of the culture they belong to. There are Russians who drink a lot of vodka, there are black guys who where tons of gold chains, there are white women who have purse dogs and wear Louis Vuitton. Are we supposed to bar every story from using stereotypical characteristics in their main characters just because they are stereotypes? That is crazy. Just because GTAs main characters have some racially stereotypical characteristics does not mean that Rockstar is making a comment about all people of that race. The argument just doesn’t make any sense. Furthermore, GTA is a game that is just one big stereotype, from the way they depict NYC to the way prostitutes holler at you from the street. It is supposed to be a caricature.

As for the game industry having more diverse lead characters, sure, that would be nice. But, remember who it is that writes the majority of these stories: white dudes. So is it any surprise that the protagonists end up being white? Not really. What probably needs to change is the demographic of game designers. But, of course, given how fucked up and racist most of the world is, the barriers to minorities breaking into a competitive industry that requires large amounts of (very, very expensive) education (generally), are pretty slim. So, as much as it would make the game industry better if there were a good number of non-white protagonists, no one is really in a position to tell writers how to write their stories. What needs to happen is a sea change in the way society is structured, and that will invariably lead to more racially egalitarian employment opportunities.

Your criteria for recognizing racism is incredibly arbitrary. I can name a reason why virtually every well received game of the past 3 years can be perceived as racist, but it simply isn’t the responsiblity of game makers to try to predict what might be offensive to people who don’t buy or play their games. Their job is to make good games and to make money. If people are offended by a game or find its premise objectionable, they are free to simply not buy the game.

Why do you seem to think that a video game cannot exist without making a political statement? Would it be racist if Pac-Man was shaded brown instead? How about the little dots or the ghosts? My point is this: the only thing that gives a video game greater meaning than what is literally on the screen is what you read into it, and it’s cowardly of you to try to shirk responsibility for your own feelings by shunting it off to the people who put these games in your hands.

[And, for the sake of argument, I decided to hold off on your ideas on the increasing prevalence of customized protagonists until now: This is an absolutely TERRIBLE idea. In case you didn't notice, as a result of the high level of customization in Mass Effect, Shepard (or whatever you renamed him/her to) undergoes only cursory character development, and when he does, it is handled clunkily because the scripting has to deal with all of the potential back stories and personalities you represent, and so, occasionally we get a stilted line from a supporting character that reminds you what kind of character you chose, but no true development, like the development that many supporting characters go through. Game makers can't create a story that develops a character they aren't familiar with, so, allowing the user to customize their character more will weaken the actual importance of this character to the story. I'm not against having protagonists in games that are a variety of races, but I think that whoever the protagonist is should have a full and developed back story, and this simply isn't possible if the main character doesn't exist until the user makes it.]