I think what you're missing or excusing is "white" was part of his criticism.

For example, if I call a woman a "fat ugly cunt," I am mocking her weight, appearance and perhaps behavior. All the words were part of my criticism.

They shouldn't be tired of it because it's black. Again it's a complete non factor. There's nothing boring about someone because they are the 1000th white person or black person you've met or seen. If that was the case I'd find ireland very boring because almost everyone I see are white. It's such a pointless and irrelevant metric to go by. 

Yeah so basically throw in 2 more characteristics and it's OK to use skin colour when judging someone. I think that's ridiculous. I don't care if a black or white character has been used a billion times I don't think we as people should be judging them like that. What they do and how they act is what matters. 

People are making a big deal about this and it is getting a little silly at this point (especially since the writer even said he got to like the character). I'm seeing people take on just another form of social justice identitarian left, myself included - which I hate myself for lol (I hesitate to use the overused cringeworthy term "SJW" although I sort have just did myself :/)

But I do have one point which I haven't quite seen touched on. I suppose I just find it shallow that the writer seemed at least initially to be 100% focused on the image of the character. I'm not just talking about race, but about the male/gruff as well. To me at least, like 80% of the depth and diversity of a character comes from the actions, and well, "character" of said protagonist.

In order words, I'd rather play a series of games that all featured:
the same exact looking dudes of the exact same race dressed the exact same but had more depth to their character, exhibitted completely different personalities, made completely different decisions, had completely different dialect, emotions, etc..

Vs:
a bunch of characters that represented every possible race under the sun and had completely different wardrobes, hairstyles, etc - yet they had no depth or nothing interesting about them, all spoke and acted the same way, made the same types of decisions, had the same types of emotions, etc.

Obviously visual appearance/dress/general makeup of a character does mean something, sure. After all, it's what you're going to be staring at throughout most of your game. But I guess it just doesn't mean as much to me as to many, vs personality traits.

It's quite simple my thoughtprocess. i treat races as equals and dont judge characters based on their ethnic origin. it literally doesn't enter my brain when i make my judgment.

I'm happy the main character is a white man; for the sequel I want a black female, and very very sexy.

Ok so because I have a different opinion or belief to you I'm trolling. Gotcha. For the record there are a few other posters in this thread with the same opinion as myself. Are they trolls too?

Another thing I didn't post this in the political section. CGI moved it there. Instead of taking a backseat and talking to me like a mod why don't you actually engage in the conversation. Sitting on your high horse taking personal pot shots.

Thanks for reminding me of that RL thread. A lot has happened on RL since then so I'll need to get around to doing an update thread. 

The thing that is getting very not understood is that a criticism of having to many of something is on an editorial not on one game, because on one game it isn't being abused.

But a game is not released on a void. Criticizing a game for lack of originality is completely valid.

Even when the game is original and the fact a person is a gruff white male is just one very small part of his traits? The game isn't unoriginal, the char isn't just gruff (since white male is basically irrelevant).

That is basically the moronic way of reviewing a game for what you wanted it to be instead of what it is.

"Ow great, another FPS, 3/10".