(POSSIBLE SPOILERS INSIDE) The agenda and political discussion of Naughty Dog

[Torillian]

DonFerrari said:

Torillian said:
Issue with statements about how reasonable it is for a video game character model to be one way or another is that you only have a single person to go on. Single individuals are always an amalgam of different not so likely things. I have a PhD (2% chance), Crohn's disease (1% chance) and am a father of an interracial child (15% chance based on interracial marriage rates). The chances of me being all of those is .01x.02x.15 or .003%, but that doesn't change the fact that I as a single person am those things. If you think it's unreasonable for a game character to be a certain way all you need is a single example of someone being like that in the real world and you're already wrong, even if there's only a single person like that in the entire world because that single character is also just a single person. You'd need multiple people with these traits to meet up randomly before you could say anything about likelihood of an event occuring.

Guess you are mixing things.

Would it be reasonable to meet you on the street at random? 1 in 7 billions people? Nope. Would it be possible? Yes it would.

So it is possible that someone like her exist (and we have the female that was used as reference that is very similar to her), but is it reasonable as within expectations? Not really. Is it a problem? Of course not, after all life is made of very (un)likely events that are unique when weaved together.

But then how do you define reasonable? If a single character is a gay, black, transgender woman with green eyes they're an amalgam of unlikely things but they are just a single person and if I want to make a game about such a character it would be no different to me finding someone like that in the real world and doing a documentary on them or making that a character in a movie for a story I felt like telling. If I tell a story about a lottery winner is that not reasonable?