WARNING: Last of Us 2 has leaked

[CriticalGaming]

How is a main character being straight by default more organic than a main character being gay? Why does the gay character need organic justification whereas the straight character apparently doesn't?

So I've always felt like a character's sexual preference is irrelevant unless the story features romantic relationships. So really you're characters shouldn't even acknowledge sexuality imo unless it is a part of the story. Straight or gay, doesn't matter. Does Luigi's sexuality matter in Luigi's Mansion? What is Master Chief's preference? Samus Aran's? Lara Croft's? I don't know any situation with those characters that would directly indicate their sexual orientation. Yet they are beloved characters.

So I feel like a character's orientation should not be a defining characteristic of who that person is. Sublimental sure, but not as a core center point of the character. Which is a mistake i feel happens a lot.

Could you run the definition of "pander" by me real quick? Is it "creating a product for a certain audience", or did it at some time morph into "creating a badly written product for a certain audience"?

What I mean by pandering is when something is created for the sole purpose of trying to relate to an audience, but doing so in a way that doesn't blend with the story or setting of the work. When a character sticks out, completely out of place in the rest of the body of work. Or creating a thing specifically to cater to someone in a poor way.

The marvel characters exist solely to stand out as a group of LBGTQ+ characters, and that's their only reason for existing. Rather than creating a set of cool new heroes and revealing their LBGTQ+-ness in the context of their story, Marvel instead just gave a bunch of characters LBGTQ badges instead of creating them with substance. Which explains why even people in the LBGTQ+ community aren't buying into the crap.

Pretty much everything created is meant to pander to someone. Big publishers greenlight games that they think will sell, which means they're pandering to what they believe is the biggest customer demographic.

You're right. But there is good pandering that fits into the body of work. And there is the ugly shit that stands out like a bird shit on a clean window. There is nothing wrong with trying to pander to a certain audience, but the best way to go about it is to cater to a specific audience without alienating everyone else. Which is basically what people's argument for Dark Souls having an easy mode in it is right? The game panders to a crowd who likes difficult shit, but including an easy mode allows the game to include other people as well right?

As opposed to the safe "straight white" protagonist? Why is straight white the default setting in your head? What makes a gay or non-white character "diverse"? Do you also rave on games having straight and white protagonists as being lazy and safe writing?

I don't know where you think straight white dude is my default protagonist. I don't know where I've ever given that impression, given my love of the Tomb Raider reboots, Horizon Zero Dawn winning GOTY imo in 2017, every custom character i've ever made in the history of ever has been a woman. The vast majority of games i truly love do not feature the straight white dude as the default.

And frankly shitty writing is shitty writing regardless of who the main characters are. I don't understand why people seem to label you the moment you don't like with they way LBGTQ content is included in whatever given media. Me disagreeing with the way it's handled doesn't make me prejudice.

 

[CriticalGaming]

This is worth a watch in regards to this subject.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So I've always felt like a character's sexual preference is irrelevant unless the story features romantic relationships. So really you're characters shouldn't even acknowledge sexuality imo unless it is a part of the story. Straight or gay, doesn't matter. Does Luigi's sexuality matter in Luigi's Mansion? What is Master Chief's preference? Samus Aran's? Lara Croft's? I don't know any situation with those characters that would directly indicate their sexual orientation. Yet they are beloved characters.

---

You're right. But there is good pandering that fits into the body of work. And there is the ugly shit that stands out like a bird shit on a clean window. There is nothing wrong with trying to pander to a certain audience, but the best way to go about it is to cater to a specific audience without alienating everyone else. Which is basically what people's argument for Dark Souls having an easy mode in it is right? The game panders to a crowd who likes difficult shit, but including an easy mode allows the game to include other people as well right?

Stuff like race and sexuality don't matter but at the same time, they do matter. If you're a straight man, you see and treat women you're attracted to differently from say a male friend regardless of how small or large (unconscious or conscious) that difference is. Most games have standard save-the-world plots where defeating the enemy, surviving, and winning are the sole driving force. In those scenarios, race and sexuality make little difference. But when people are just being people in normal circumstances, that stuff does come out and it does make a difference. Whether you're talking to a buddy at work and they're talking about what they're doing on the weekend with their significant other, stuff like sexual preference naturally flows out in normal conversation. It feels off when people don't talk about those things. The core what TLOU was character interactions so saying that sexual preference shouldn't come out would be disrespectful to the characters. The better written and more character focused games get over cliche "save the world" plots that are merely an excuse to kill 1,000s of enemies (akin to a Jackie Chan movie plot), the more and more stuff like the sexuality of the characters will be a thing.

It will stand out in games because writing in games is bad and straight white male characters are written poorly let alone diverse characters. That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it. Watch Dogs Aiden Pearce sticks out as much as some forced-in gay character. Each game on its own is fine having a straight white male protagonist (with short hair too!!!) but when you look back and see like every game has that, it's not very inclusive at all. It's how TV was so very white when you're not white as a kid, there's definite effects. You can get great diverse characters due to the dev's agenda or you can get a shit diverse character from a dev with no agenda. I don't really find the "why" that important, the end result will stand or fall on its own quality. I don't get why Ellie being gay is alienating, it's not alienating when co-worker Dave mentions that he's going out to dinner with Mike for their anniversary this coming weekend.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I don't get why Ellie being gay is alienating, it's not alienating when co-worker Dave mentions that he's going out to dinner with Mike for their anniversary this coming weekend.

I don't think that Ellie being gay in TLOU2 is a problem. It was a bit weird and forced in the first game's DLC because it just kinda felt like the characters were too young to have that relationship be a plot point. I was more bothered by their age than them being gay.

Abby is a completely different story in TOLU2 and I wont spoil what that issue is, because how it comes across is still unknown.

Like I said it could be fine, if they write it well and it gets pulled off, but it doesn't sound like it does.

 

[Hawki]

I know this wasn't directed to me, but:

As opposed to the safe "straight white" protagonist? Why is straight white the default setting in your head?

Straight will almost always be a default, because straight people account for 95% of the US population, and you're not going to get too much variance of that figure regardless of where you go in the world. Males will likewise be around 50%. White will likely be the default for most people in the United States because as of 2017, whites make up 73% of the population.

You could argue that straight, white, and male, is over-represented if you want, but the first part of that is kind of the default globally, and the second is the majority in the US, so in that context, the skew is kind of expected. Least in the context of Naughty Dog. Then again, I haven't played a Naughty Dog game since Crash, so, um, yeah.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

The point of bring up Neil's "agenda" is the fundamental flaw when you start creating content to pander versus creating content to entertain.

I've always said that diversity comes automatically from good writing, and does not need to be included to fill some sort of checklist which is sadly what a lot of the industry seems to do instead.

Marvel just released a bunch of super heroes that are basically every part of the spectrum, and they are selling like shit. Because they are trying to pander, rather than entertain and crate organically diverse, good, original characters. Even their target audience isn't buying the stuff, because the character isn't automatically good or relatable just because they are trans, gay, whatever, there has to be writing in order to give that character backbone and substance.

Video games often work the same way. I'm all for inclusion, the more the merrier, but only if that inclusion is organic. For example giving the player their own options to have a LBGTQ+ character, like in old Bioware games. Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, etc, where you could form a romance with males, females, robots, creatures, whatever floated your boat. Choice is good right?

Now again The Last of Us 2 could totally surprise us and Abby could end up being a good character. However the way these leaks imply her arch goes, I really don't see how Naughty Dog can turn this around to make the player care or even like this person. And her backstory and personality sounds like it just doesn't make sense for the world they've built.

I’d like to give the game the benefit of the doubt. When you think of it, these leaks are usually done with ill intent (which is unfortunate for the dozens of other team members who busted their asses on the game for years), so painting the project in a good or even neutral light probably ain’t a prerogative.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I’d like to give the game the benefit of the doubt. When you think of it, these leaks are usually done with ill intent (which is unfortunate for the dozens of other team members who busted their asses on the game for years), so painting the project in a good or even neutral light probably ain’t a prerogative.

Yeah, I've said several times that the game could still surprise us. But it's not a good look so far. In the end we'll have to see.

Might be great. Who knows?

 

[Houseman]

which is unfortunate for the dozens of other team members who busted their asses on the game for years

I wonder why we don't hear things being defended from this angle. Instead, we hear "Neil Druckmann's game!"
I think more people would be more sympathetic if it were "we all worked really hard on this, please don't".

Apparently, this is because the original story is that it was done by a disgruntled employee or employees, over the rank and file not getting their promised early bonuses. A narrative like that needs a villain.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

as for her, I don't know why certain people in the gaming industry still feel the need to protect her. Even her own followers don't give a crap about her by this point. That's what happens when you screw over other people with their money and don't do shit with it, but waste it. She never deserve the death and rape threats, that woman is not "innocent" or a paragon certain people make her out to be. Last time she was ever relevant was around 2016. After that she became nothing more than yesterday's news.

You'd think so but here we are, in May of the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty, and she's still being blamed for ruining videogames.

 

[Houseman]

You'd think so but here we are, in May of the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty, and she's still being blamed for ruining videogames.

Because she actually does influence certain video games?

 

[BrawlMan]

You'd think so but here we are, in May of the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty, and she's still being blamed for ruining videogames.

By a bunch of loud morons with too much time on their hands.

Because she actually does influence certain video games?

Some, maybe. Most, no. She sure as hell ain't influencing the Japanese side. Thank Buddha and Christ. Your average gamer Jane and Joe don't know she even exists. The more, the better.

Yeah, I've said several times that the game could still surprise us. But it's not a good look so far. In the end we'll have to see.

Might be great. Who knows?

How about quit worrying and have fun when the game comes out. When jackasses go out their way to spoil a game (story or character) for whatever petty reason, I am not going to look for spoilers for a game I'm interested. I go way out of my way to avoid YT for those reasons. I don't have a Facebook or Twitter account, so I don't even have to worry about spoilers, because I rarely go over to those places. I hate say it Critical, but you partially brought it on yourself seeking the spoilers. You've could have saved yourself all that drama by turning the other direction. I know you have it out for Niel what-his-face, but sometimes it's not worth it. So I suggest you sit back and wait until the game comes out. I always judge a piece of media by its own merits, not some scandal, controversy, or some idiots on airs who can't keep their pie holes closed for five minutes. It's not always easy and I've made similar mistakes, but it can be done.

 

[Hawki]

Because she actually does influence certain video games?

Such as?

I think there was Mirror's Edge: Catalyst, maybe.

 

[Houseman]

Such as?

I think there was Mirror's Edge: Catalyst, maybe.

Such as the game we're talking about, TLoU2

 

[Samtemdo8]

Oh dear....the last game never had those things as far as I remember.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Oh dear....the last game never had those things as far as I remember.

I dunno about the nudity, but they would slap sexual content on the game because of the girl on girl making out. Even if it doesn't get graphic, if the kissing is in any way romantic it'll get this label.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

Spoiler: For what it’s worth

"Oh dude, it doesn't matter. Look, if you think that game can be ruined by a couple of screenshots... really? A studio with thirty plus years of development, with so many awards under their belt they can't even put them all in one trophy closet," said Baker.

"This is the biggest, most ambitious game they've ever done. You really think that that experience can be undone by a couple of screenshots? Think six years of development can be undone by that? It's a game, it's a game. You have to experience it. That's all I'm gonna say."

 

[Hades]

I'm impressed by the bravery if anything else. Doesn't change the fact that so far this seems really dumb. Really, really dumb. I'm not sure how they expected this to turn out well for them.

There's the obvious elephant in the room that plenty of people immediately turned on the game as soon as it turned out the new character was possibly trans. But quite frankly we should disregard those people entirely. People who are too busy jumping on the anti SWJ bandwagon kinda give themselves away as fair weather fans who'll turn on what they like as soon as it involves groups they don't like. There's a far more nuanced reason to react negatively to this which has more to do with what the new character does rather then she is.

Spoiler

The twist that you end up playing as Joe's killer seems almost destined to go over poorly but what worse is that she's seemingly a sociopath who primarily kills Joel for personal reasons. Even worse is that the game will seemingly take the stance that this new character is in the right and paint Ellie as something of a villain for simply not accepting the murder of her father figure. I think that in isolation some of this could have worked but a combination of these factors ensures this new character will likely not get embraced by many people.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

I'm impressed by the bravery if anything else. Doesn't change the fact that so far this seems really dumb. Really, really dumb. I'm not sure how they expected this to turn out well for them.

There's the obvious elephant in the room that plenty of people immediately turned on the game as soon as it turned out the new character was possibly trans. But quite frankly we should disregard those people entirely. People who are too busy jumping on the anti SWJ bandwagon kinda give themselves away as fair weather fans who'll turn on what they like as soon as it involves groups they don't like. There's a far more nuanced reason to react negatively to this which has more to do with what the new character does rather then she is.

Spoiler

The twist that you end up playing as Joe's killer seems almost destined to go over poorly but what worse is that she's seemingly a sociopath who primarily kills Joel for personal reasons. Even worse is that the game will seemingly take the stance that this new character is in the right and paint Ellie as something of a villain for simply not accepting the murder of her father figure. I think that in isolation some of this could have worked but a combination of these factors ensures this new character will likely not get embraced by many people.

I’d like to think we’re missing an extremely important piece of context here. Naughty Dog’s biggest strength has arguably been characterization and making performances seem believable, so perhaps the goal here will be getting the player to see things from Abbie’s POV somehow, for some untold reason. With as much experience as the team has under their belts, I doubt they’d dump on the players with,

“Hey everyone you know those two characters you grew to love so much? Well SURPRISE we’re killing one of them off and guess what else? We’re forcing you to play as the character that killed them! And that’s not all, because she’ll (you’ll) be hunting down your other beloved character and be forced to kill them too!

Oh and btw, this new player character is Trans because *represent*! And don’t even think about not liking it either because we’ll expose you for being the bigoted pigs you are kthanxbi“

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

If you don't like the new character because of the first italicized paragraph, fine.
If you don't like the new character because they're trans, well...
(If the character is even trans and it's not just channers being weird around different body types)

 

[CriticalGaming]

If you don't like the new character because of the first italicized paragraph, fine.
If you don't like the new character because they're trans, well...
(If the character is even trans and it's not just channers being weird around different body types)

I think disliking the character because of the second option can be perfectly valid if that character is not handled well. You can not like a character because of one of their defining characteristics if that characteristic is badly implemented upon the character or the world and it be a perfectly valid reason to dislike them.

There is a difference in liking fictional characters, versus liking real people.

In fiction, the character is just a walking talking bunch of labels and part of what makes great characters is all those labels fitting together with not just the character's personality but also the world in which that character inhabits.

If Aloy was a trans character in a post apocalyptic world with no modern medicine, disliking her/him being trans is perfectly valid because such a thing removes believably of the world the game has surrounded the character in. Therefore putting Aloy in a Trans-skin is not there for a meaningful character trait, it is there for the sake of it and as a result is bad inclusion.

However if you took Aloy and gave her IMPLIED trans characteristics, making her more manly in demeanor and grooming, (of more feminine if the character was male to begin with) then that present a much better way to include trans-traits onto a character without outright forcing it into a video game world in which such things would make no sense.

Every world has to have a sense of believability to it, even the most fantastical settings, because that's what gets the player imersed. And the moment you start doing things that make the player question the ruleset your world establishes is the moment you pull the player out of it.

Thus this character in THLOU2 being trans also presents a problem. Unless the character is in their 50's like Joel and were around before the world collapsed, it will be hard pressed writing to justify how the character could be a transperson in a world where every medical supply must be used for survival and wasting any supplies to make someone trans just doesn't make sense in a world that has effective ended. As a result one of the defining physical traits about the character makes no sense and thus runs a high risk of pulling the player out of it.

What the gaming press and bloggers will assume is people just hate the character because they are transphobic, which I don't think is genuine. Sure some people will be made uneasy about it, and even some many be transphobic.....but to say that's the core reason the character might possibly be disliked is hyperbole at best. There are many other reasons why the character could be disliked, and you have to ask yourself a question before calling people transphobic (you in a general sense not you specifically GX. I'm using generic terms here) "If this character wasn't trans, would they be likable?" If the answer to that is no then the dislike isn't sole based on the transgenderness of the character. The character might just be a scummy piece of shit and nobody want to be forced to play as.