Well said, Adrian. Inconsistencies like this are why I don’t read Polygon anymore. Whether you agree with their stances on social issues or not, Polygon’s authors do a poor job of backing up their claims with actual evidence and reason.

A bit to add to your critique:

“The world CD Projekt has created is oppressively misogynist.”

Taken literally, what Gies actually wrote here would mean that the world in Witcher 3 holds malicious or prejudiced thoughts and attitudes against women to the point that it causes distress for women. This is impossible for two reasons: 1) a fictitious world in a video game is not a person, so it does not hold thoughts of any kind, misogynist or otherwise, and 2) it does not go out and oppress women.

This is an example of anthropomorphism; the attribution of human qualities to non-human beings or objects. It’s sloppy.

What Gies probably meant to say (and admittedly, how most readers likely interpreted it) was, “The world CD Projekt has created contains numerous examples of oppressive misogyny.”

This clarification is small, but it’s important. In his actual words, he essentially claims that CD Projekt has created a being out of a video game that oppresses women; in his implied meaning, he reveals his discomfort with the subject matter. The latter is a completely different message, and it more clearly exposes your question, “Why is such a world a problem?”

If Gies meant to say that he is uncomfortable with the misogynist themes in Witcher 3, he should have said it properly. If he meant to say that Witcher 3 is oppressively misogynist, he can’t just talk about the game’s content — he has to prove that the game actually damages and oppresses human beings. I doubt he’s going to do that.