Hogwarts Legacy Will Allow For Transgender Characters
- Thread starter thebobmaster
- Start date
- Status
Yeah it probably just means the character will refer to your character using the different dialogue. They probably have two voice track, one for male avatar and one for female avatar. If the player pick male character with female avatar the NPC will use the dialogue meant for male character regardless of avatar. So it's probably not some super outreaching action, it's just a simple change to character creation.
Anyway seems more like a publicity stunt/trying to get around JK controversy. In all likelihood a vanishingly low number of player will actually care about this.
No, it's not any better, because you seem to keep forgetting that the child in this case, has been treated like literal trash and sub-human by the parent in this equally terrible example. They are suspect of any show of affection from the "parent" in this analogy, because of past examples of complete disregard for their feelings, actively taking actions to marginalize and abuse them, and basically treating them like shit. So then, one day, this "parent" shows up, and is all smiles, holds out a fucking toy and is like "so we're cool now right? No problems, or lingering issues to deal with. I gave you a shiny thing, so all is forgiven. Be happy and thank me for my good 'parenting'" Is it really shocking that the "kid" is suspicious and feels this gift possibly isn't genuine?
And seriously, comparing the company that is really only looking to make money, to both the owner of a dog, and parent of a child, is really terrible. This isn't a fucking Brady Bunch kind of idyllic scenario, with angelic parents who have done no wrong, and a rebellious child just lashing out.
Well not only that she's fake crying as one of the most successful women ever, people pretend she wouldn't instantly be forgiven if she wrote another mainline Harry Potter book. Part of the whole "fanatic" pop culture thing is, well...fanatics.
Last edited:
Sure, but let's not pretend Rowling doesn't have a weird chip on her shoulder regarding people calling her out on things. This started even before her full blown anti-trans bullshit, claiming Dumbledor was gay and Hermione was black long after the fact, as some sort of attempt to retroactively score points.
Eh, as someone who is writing a novel, I can KIND OF appreciate details about a character that you never bothered to detail in the narrative, because it wasn't at all pertinent to the story, but might come up due to conversations later, and you'd have to be like "Ok no, that character is X."
Not saying JK didn't try and do damage control, but that IS something that can happen with creative writing. It's something you might have in the back of your brain, but with no way to actually work it in, it's just something YOU know, and everyone else would just speculate on.
For example, a character in the book I'm working on, is asexual, and *I* know that, and it will eventually be relevant like, 2-3 books later, but right now, with them being a child, it's not really a detail that needs to come up in any capacity in the novel I'm working on. So if someone tried to say "X is totally going to hook up with Y" I'd have to correct later with a "well actually" remark.
Like the Dumbledore is gay thing, I can 100% see as a detail that WAS in her head, and she just never bothered to flesh out, because it has zero bearing on him as a teacher at a children's school. Hermione being black, does seem like something that would come up in the descriptions, especially given how many other details about her appearance are given in the novels.
Just like Tracer being a lesbian has zero baring on her being a soldier in Overwatch. Or any number of other characters with non-explained sexual orientations. Because it means fuck all in the course of the game. Yet people still make a big deal out of this crap like labeling a fictional character means anything.
Let me ask a question. If there is no relationships or romance in a piece of fiction, what is the point of labeling them as gay, straight, bi, asexual, etc? Why not leave it blank and let the reader decide to make them whatever they want in their own mind? Why can't Tracer be a lesbian for those who want her to be, and why can't she be straight for others? Would that not allow for the player/reader to create their own bonds with a character if they so chose?
I perfectly understand options in game with romance ala Elder Scrolls, Mass Effect, etc etc. But why put it there when it has no place to be there as you said yourself?
In a world where you can turn into a cat person accidentally using a potion or even change genders using one (see The Deathly Hallows sequence where they're creating decoy Harry Potters) I kind of don't see the point in this move really because if the true goal of Trans people is to be accepted a the opposite sex as much as possible then in Harry Potter magic means you literally don't have to deal with any of the normal problems of transitioning such as your voice not fitting or issues round not passing etc.
Seems like damage control more than anything really, also likely not hard to do you just don't program any restriction in stuff in and have the game determine male or female via the tick box of witch or wizzard lol.
Seems like damage control more than anything really, also likely not hard to do you just don't program any restriction in stuff in and have the game determine male or female via the tick box of witch or wizzard lol.
My understanding is its entirely identity association. People want to see people like them doing cool things. The Trans community has claimed Samus Arand as a trans character because they think its cooler if he is trans. Doesn't matter her/his gender identity never comes up, it doesn't enter into story or gameplay in anyway, but that's the hill they've claimed.
Happens all the time with all forms of sexuality, gender, religion, politics, etc...
Fuck me Christians are convinced a guy like Jesus, a middle-Eastern Jew, is actually a blue eyed brunette white small business owner who votes Republican from the suburbs of Ohio.
Some people can only work with a story if they can project themselves as the main character, and part of that is needing to be able to identify with that character as much as possible.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. No piece of media can ever satisfy everyone and if something doesn't trigger with you doesn't mean that it automatically is the spawn of satan right?
I don't understand the need to associate with a fictional character in anything I play, read, or watch so i guess I just don't understand that mentality. And considering how fanatic people get over things it makes it even more strange to me and I just don't get it.
Does giving Lara Croft a dick make her more relatable somehow? If so....how? How does something you don't see, she never acts upon, and is utterly irrelevant throughout her entire 20+ year legacy of games have any meaning. Much like the thing Rowling did with DumbleDore by saying, "Oh BTW he's gay." What does that mean? What does that do for the character? Why would that matter in his role at Hogwarts?
Why would they?
I don't understand why this is supposed to be controversial. Even if transgender issues weren't a thing that people talk about, I would still want every game with a character creator to allow for as much freedom as possible. If for no other reason than for the fact that you can create some really messed up shit. Video games are a perfect medium for that sort of thing, so it shouldn't be an issue. It isn't even about gender politics, it's just about freedom that video games provide. Saints Row has had this since forever and it was never an issue.
There are exceptions, of course. For example, I do not like the latest trend in Assassin's Creed games. The entire premise of the game shouldn't allow you to pick your gender. And you shouldn't even have a dialogue tree. AC Origins is, for that reason, the last decent AC title. What Ubisoft has done in Odyssey and Valhalla makes no sense in the context of the story, no matter how hard they're trying to justify it. Ubisoft just wants to appeal to the widest audience that they can, and they're doing it at the expense of the quality of their games. As bad as Syndicate was, at least they were able to properly justify letting you play as either a male or female Assassin.
Last edited:
could just be some person worried they're going to get social media backlash for presenting themselves as an ally on social media but working on this game. I mean I wouldn't be surprised if the normal mobs were running round looking for people who work on the game and admit to doing so to try and push them to leave the project just to harm the game a little bit or cause disruption to things.
and yet she controls all the lore 100%. Any other games made aren't canon unless she deems it so lol. Welcome to what happens when you make a fictional world, you get control over it.
I mean the phrase "It's never enough" does get used for very specific reason lol.
I mean yes you can play as a Trans character but clearly there needs to me multiple other Trans characters in the game otherwise people will never interact with a trans character at all and that would ruin the whole point of the whole gesture anyway. No point in doing it if people aren't forced to see it and it's not merely an out of the way option.
There is a Zero Puncuation quote that has always stuck with me on this topic, so I went and found it's full dialogue:
"Seems like it wasn't that long ago that people kept going "More female protagonists! Female gamers need characters they can identify with and look up to! 'Cos it's not like themes of adversity and the human condition are fairly universal, no, I can only possibly relate to a character with whom I share some circumstantial physical characteristics, because I'm fucking psychotic.""
And to me that sums up the need to make Dumbledore Gay, or Hermione a crippled black girl, or the Doom Slayer a vegan(Yes that's a thing too).
Worth pointing out
1) Tracer is Straight in Russia lol. That's how little Blizzard stand by their positions really and why Tracer's lore isn't in the game itself for the most part.
2) People were actually mad Tracer was a Lesbian because Zarya wasn't revealed as one and Tracer is "Conventionally attractive"
3) I can sort of understand the motive behind the want for representation but I find it quite silly too. To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher when a journalist asked if she felt proud to be the first female PM of the UK "No, I'm more proud of being the first Scientist to become Prime Minister, I don't see being a woman as anything amazing, it's not a unique qualification of any kind I was born this way, However I chose to be a Scientist and worked toward that goal and got there out of choice, I wasn't just handed that thing from birth."
Something tells me that quote wouldn't hold much water if 90% of all game protagonists were gay. There'd probably be some people clamoring for game characters who catered to their straight sensibilities. Or just for the simple sake of variety.
And saying 'why can't you relate to characters whom you don't share physical characteristics with; are you a psycho' is a nice way of deflecting legitimate issues with diversity within media. Women, non-whites, and gays have pretty much had little choice but to identify with straight, white men in movies, series, and games. And very few of them ever made claims they can't relate to them, just that it would be nice for them to get some more options. That along with how stigmatized some of these groups are, so that the gay or trans character isn't depicted as the usual victim or creepy weirdo.
And the 'Dumbledore is gay and Hermione is black' issue wasn't that they needed to be, but that throughout the entire series there's zero implication of this only for Rowling to suddenly present them as such when the story was pretty much over. It comes across as her trying to be inclussive while conveniently having dodged outcry from conservatives or racists had they been so from the start. Can you imagine Dumbledore being depicted as gay starting from the first book back in 1997? A headmaster in charge of little children is gay?! This was before even the shitstorm over Spongebob and Patrick being a bit too gay for being friends and not having girlfriends.
This gets thrown around all the time and I think it is fairly debunked at this point. Since the dawn of gaming you've had more than enough chances to play as "not-white men" so it is a bullshit statement. People use "straight white man" as a general label at this point and it's been false for a long time. Hell even movies have proved that false since the fucking Wizard of OZ in the late 30's. (though film didn't have any gay's till the 70's but still things progressed).
When was there only ever white men heroes in gaming. Some of the earliest fucking protagonists in games were woman or not even human. So where does this dominance come from? Just because there wasn't a perfect 50/50 split between men and women as a main characters doesn't make the ratio some grave injustice and it's a stupid argument to make that it ever was.
Holy Shit! is Harry Potter that old!? Fuck I'm an old piece of shit. I thought that crap was like 10 years ago at most.
That's actually one of my favorite quotes from Yahtzee as well and when i rewatch ZP comps it strikes out to me everytime. Because he is right. That's the truth.
Let me ask this, if the goal of the trans community is to be seen as the gender that they feel like they belong to, then why don't the just identify with men and or women characters? Why specifically does the character need to be trans? When all trans people seem to want is to be accepted and fit into whatever gender they deem themselves to be? By the very demand of making the trans-ness of a character known you are demanding to stand out as different which is counter productive to what the message seems to be.
Sounds like anything other than a third option as trans, with the game acknowledging your character status, won't be seen as enough (at least for some)
kotaku.com
This is just a fool errand, everyone circumstance is different, you obviously can't make game perfectly customizable for everyone. You need a cut off point, considering 99.5% of people perfectly fall in either male or female category it's kinda foolish to spend precious dev time on something that will reflect a tiny minority (and even there there's plenty of sub division within that .5%). In this case they probably had to due to JK reputation, but it sounds like every other game is better off just staying as far away from the topic as possible.
Trans Inclusion Means More Than Just Adding Potential Gender Options To Hogwarts Legacy
Upcoming Harry Potter game Hogwarts Legacy will feature some customization options related to gender, according to a report by Bloomberg. It’s a step toward trans inclusion in a game mired in controversy, even if it still shows the limitations of video games’ handling of trans people.
kotaku.com
This is just a fool errand, everyone circumstance is different, you obviously can't make game perfectly customizable for everyone. You need a cut off point, considering 99.5% of people perfectly fall in either male or female category it's kinda foolish to spend precious dev time on something that will reflect a tiny minority (and even there there's plenty of sub division within that .5%). In this case they probably had to due to JK reputation, but it sounds like every other game is better off just staying as far away from the topic as possible.
- Status