Not really. I've never heard of anyone (besides what I've just read on these forums) say that people were naturally good at karate simply because they were asian.
Well, Karate is a regional martial art specific to Japan. Ethnicities are tied to a region. Martial arts exist in virtually every part of the world, because at some point some culture is going to have people who systematically want to beat the shit out of other people. East-Asian martial arts are well known, and certainly spring to mind whenever people use the term "martial arts", but they are certainly not the sum of martial arts. The English have Single Stick, the ancient Greeks have boxing, the French have Savate, so on and so forth.
A person who is naturally strong, agile, has good stamina and is a good fighter will be naturally good at Karate, if they learn Karate. "If they learn Karate" is an important point there, since Karate refers to a specific set of martial arts. One that comes from Japan, and was developed by the Japanese. Hence, at some point, someone who knows Karate is connected to the Japanese through some Kevin Bacon-esque chain of relations. How long that chain extends depends on the context of the situation. And whether or not it makes sense for a person to know Karate will also depend on the situation.
So let's say I was making a game about feudal Japan and I see a samurai guy throw a jab-jab-cross-hook combination at a guy. My brain's going to melt down and scream "WHAT" because I have just witnessed an astounding anachronism. Japanese samurai in feudal Japan tended to use Karate last I checked, you know, given their incredibly isolated island country. So it totally makes sense for a Japanese guy in this context to be "naturally good at Karate", because that's what he would have known if he was a trained fighter.
Flash forward to Meiji Era Japan when it starts to receive western influence. Same thing happens, fight breaks out a dockside bar and a ronin Samurai lets out a jab-jab-cross-hook combination. I would think that's pretty odd, once again, but then his British friend comes up and you learn that this guy learned boxing from the English while working on a trade ship to make end's meet, then went on to be a semi-successful prize fighter. Ok, that makes sense now and could be an interesting plot hook.
In modern era, if I saw a dude in Japan use Karate I would not be surprised, as that is still a culturally significant and pervasive martial art over there. If you pulled me aside and asked, "Hey, here's this random fighter from Japan. What style do you think he uses?" I'd probably say, "Judo, Karate, or Kendo". This really has nothing to do with the color of his skin, but the culture he grew up in. If you grabbed a random white guy who was raised in Japan, or learned to fight in Japan and asked the same question, I'd give the same answer. It's a matter of what influences a person was likely exposed to based on their environment.
However, say I had a setting more like Mass Effect and there was an Asian guy who started busting out some Karate on people I'd have different expectations. In a far future, post-country, united humanity sort of world, I very much doubt there would be a bias for an Asian guy knowing Karate over anyone else, unless he learned it specifically to connect with his ancient heritage. I still wouldn't start pointing fingers and calling racism, however, that's simply absurd.
Anyway, I read the article.
It's a mixed bag. I disagree with his tone in many parts, it rings too loudly of big bad white men doing big bad things, but he does touch on some good points.
On disability accessibility, I think a company should make a reasonable effort, within their means, of adding accessibility options. Closed captioning, color blind interfaces and re-mappable controls spring to mind the most. However, I expect reasonable efforts not herculean efforts. This stems from my belief that it is morally right, if you produce a product, to maximize the number people that can enjoy it if doing so is at little/no further expense to yourself. Like, if I made a game and sold one copy for $1,000,000,000 (it's a really good game, guys!), but could have sold 100,000 copies and netted $1,000,000,000, I believe I would have done something immoral.
I agree with some previously said statement that games can be a commodity, a good developed to make money. They can also be made as works of passion, or toys, or made as peices of art. Games are a highly flexible genre that are not easy to pin down. Comparing an indie game to a AAA title can be a bit like apples and oranges, as they often are created to achieve different experiences.
I very strongly believe in artistic freedom for media. If you want to tell a specific story about specific characters in a specific way, then go for it. If you want to make a game with scantily clad, buxom women and men with bulging muscles because you're getting all misty eyed over Frank Frazetta, be my guest. I don't think what you're doing is "disgusting" or shameful. If you're telling a specific story, and you want a gay, minority, specific gender, whatever to be a main character or part of it that's great. However, if you're throwing in a minority character to be "edgy" or to "not be racist", I think that's morally wrong and should not be done. In my mind, that is exploitative and bigoted. While I found Faith an exceedingly annoying character from a design perspective, having an Asian protagonist was just like having any other protagonist. I don't think it is particularly praise worthy, however, or that having a white protagonist would have been any better/worse. Her ethnic background was not a plot point in the game, or a defining aspect of the character, so it really doesn't ping on the radar as being a noteworthy aspect of her design. It's like if she were to be wearing green shoes instead of read, simply a visual difference. Had she been swapped for a white character, the setting, moral lessons, themes and character interactions would have been completely unchanged.
In a free-form game that is meant to immerse the player into their character and make them feel the identity of a character, then coding in such things as homosexual actions does make perfect sense. I won't besmirch a developer for not doing it, however, given the potential development costs required in doing so. I do not consider to to be a moral obligation to enhance the immersion and identity a player feels with the game, but rather simply a design decision. The point he made about games allowing male characters to wear female clothing, and vice versa, was an interesting one and something I hadn't really considered before. Nor was giving the option for players to tailor content to only allow advances from a particular gender, but I'm not so sure how I feel about that.
On diversifying the workforce, I think people should be hired if they can do the job. If HR determines that having an individual possessing perspective on a target demographic is valuable, then that's certainly a part of their job and should factor into their evaluation as a potential employee. However, I would disagree strongly with hiring a woman over a man just because she's a woman. I think that is a disservice to both individuals. I also think it's a bit silly to rigidly labor under the delusion that only women can identify with women or target them as an audience. Being of a culture does not imply deep, meaningful connection with it, nor does being not of that culture imply ignorance of it. I also believe that an employee who is a good cultural fit is a stronger candidate, but this should be a matter of personality, philosophy, behavior and habit not race, gender, sexual identity or sexual orientation.
Gears of War (Overused example, i know.)
Team Fortress 2 (The heavy class.)
Unreal Tournament (I think they had something similar to TF2's heavy.)
Street Fighter (Rufus, the sumo guy)
BlazBlue (Iron Tager, Arakune)
First off, Arakune's not even recognizably human so I'm not sure what he's doing on that list. He has a male, human voice I suppose, but his body is a gross blob thing.
This list plucks at the strings of something far, far more subtle happening, and something that is missed in debates about sexism. What is valued as positive traits varies between the sexes, and this is not often taken into account when making comparisons.
This is speaking from the perspective of American social trends.
For men, strength, status and power are seen as positive, or attractive traits. Physical beauty/handsomeness is, for many men, secondary. Damn near any male protagonist character is going to be handsome, pretty, or strong. If not, they're almost universally a comic relief character or a gag character. A man who is ugly, but a hardened warrior or powerful politician, will still garner admiration and respect. People forget that the dumpy, balding, incompetent male is just as much a stereotype as the ditzy bimbo, but society by and large does not care if males are stereotyped or made fun of.
The Heavy and Rufus (especially Rufus), I shall point out, are comic relief characters. Most of the TF2 cast is comic relief in some form or fashion. Rare is the game where you'll find a serious, chunky, kind of homely, not very strong or badass male protagonist who drives a Corolla to his office job every day. I can't think of one off the top of my head (not to say it doesn't exist).
For women, beauty and sex appeal are highly valued. Capability and success are also regarded as a positive traits, but not to the degree that it exists for men. Thus, it is far more common to have the ineffectual but attractive female (I will point out that the incompetent yet attractive male is relatively common in Japanese media), because having a woman that's just a pretty face still works, and is still viewed as admirable. Having a woman who is homely, yet physically strong to the point of being heroic, is less realistic than a man who is homely, yet physically strong, simply due to sexual dimorphism. Thus, I think it is less likely to be believed, and is less likely to be portrayed in media. Plus, it is I think undeniable that society would not really know how to take this depiction, it's simply not as socially prevalent or accepted as the strong yet ugly man. It could be an interesting character flaw to explore, however.
Something I do find slightly disturbing is the notion that if a female character is a strong, uncompromising badass but also very attractive, it is sexist or somehow detracts from her worth. I'm uncomfortable with that notion since it sends the message, "You can't be attractive and strong at the same time." Life is not a game, and some people are lucky enough to get health, brains, look, personality, the whole package. It's rare, but often those people are able to leverage their capabilities to achieve great success in life. Heroic things, one might say. Such an exaggeration is believable for a game where you are supposed to be playing a hero.
By and large, protagonists in games, of either gender, are not under-average people. They are usually heroic, above average, or average at worst. There are exceptions to the rule, but not many.
