That's a perfectly honest reaction. So you wouldn't play that game, that's fine. But what about folks who are gay who would appreciate being able to have a love story that they can relate to?The_ModeRazor said:
222: Straight and Narrow
- Thread starter Alice Bonasio
- Start date
Ok, I don't mean to sound like a dick or anything, but the game creators not offering gay choices in games isn't homophobia. Homophobia is a fear of homosexuals. Game companies do not exhibit this word at all, they merely are marketing to a majority population. Considering that the majority of most (if not all) cultures are heterosexual, marketing an item that limits the perspective to a homosexual one would be a bad idea profit wise. They don't fear homosexuals, they just don't see marketing directly to them as a profitable way of selling a product.
Now, I do understand the desire of these minority populations wanting inclusion in the Halls of the Heros where the main gay hero doesn't speak in a lisp, wear loud colored clothing, while indiscriminately feeling up every male or female character (depending on preference). It sucks to be left out of being the major role in any form of art, and I think that the suggestion of offering a choice in games would be feasible. However, in order to add this sort of preference, there would be extra costs that go into voice acting and creating alternate lines of story, creating a greater expense for the gaming companies which may not ultimately increase game sales.
I think it's unfair to label game companies as homophobic for following the trends that would make them profitable in their endeavours. If anything, this is just capitalism, or a system of greed.
Now Xbox Live. Remember that many of the players on Xbox Live are insecure teenagers who are stuck in that phase of life associated with identity crisis. However, this is no excuse for slurs against people for their race or sexual preference. But once again, this is the trend of the time and of the people. Education would be the best option, but if people wish to choose ignorance and narrow-mindedness, it would be imperative that we allow them to do so. Considering most of them make asses of themselves when they're arguing based on Pathos anyway, there shouldn't be too much of a fear that their chosen retardation (in the form of denial of empathy and scientific evidence) will be passed on too far when the society as a whole starts to move forward.
But if you disagree, just quote me and reply.
Now, I do understand the desire of these minority populations wanting inclusion in the Halls of the Heros where the main gay hero doesn't speak in a lisp, wear loud colored clothing, while indiscriminately feeling up every male or female character (depending on preference). It sucks to be left out of being the major role in any form of art, and I think that the suggestion of offering a choice in games would be feasible. However, in order to add this sort of preference, there would be extra costs that go into voice acting and creating alternate lines of story, creating a greater expense for the gaming companies which may not ultimately increase game sales.
I think it's unfair to label game companies as homophobic for following the trends that would make them profitable in their endeavours. If anything, this is just capitalism, or a system of greed.
Now Xbox Live. Remember that many of the players on Xbox Live are insecure teenagers who are stuck in that phase of life associated with identity crisis. However, this is no excuse for slurs against people for their race or sexual preference. But once again, this is the trend of the time and of the people. Education would be the best option, but if people wish to choose ignorance and narrow-mindedness, it would be imperative that we allow them to do so. Considering most of them make asses of themselves when they're arguing based on Pathos anyway, there shouldn't be too much of a fear that their chosen retardation (in the form of denial of empathy and scientific evidence) will be passed on too far when the society as a whole starts to move forward.
But if you disagree, just quote me and reply.
They need to realise that video games are usually not there to deliver a deep and touching love story.Susan Arendt said:
I didn't say I wouldn't play it because the protagonist is gay, (because hell, they might make a great game) but it would be just somewhat disturbing.
I'm a gay gamer but i'm not all that bothered about the lack of representation in games. I mean it would be brilliant if their were protagonists who were homosexual or bisexual, and playing Fable II was a really fun experience, i just understand that the general population needs to mature a bit more.
If you're not there yet in the Harry Potter world, be warned.
Did this impact Harry Potter fans in any way, shape or form? No.
Without being told, would you guess that they were? Probably not.
I thought this was one of those weird cases where it was fine that this was the case (it's difficult to write this without spoilering the whole thing) and it made jack all difference to the character AND proved that you don't have to be sparkly and camp etc. but at the same time, did it really need saying at all? Was there anything to gain other than a bit more airtime?
I guess I'm trying to make the point that shoving homosexuality into a player's face in a game doesn't serve any purpose. It doesn't promote tolerance or anything like that - it just makes sexuality an issue where it doesn't need to be.
Harry Potter author JK Rowling has revealed that one of her characters, Hogwarts school headmaster Albus Dumbledore, is gay.
source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7053982.stm
source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7053982.stm
Did this impact Harry Potter fans in any way, shape or form? No.
Without being told, would you guess that they were? Probably not.
I thought this was one of those weird cases where it was fine that this was the case (it's difficult to write this without spoilering the whole thing) and it made jack all difference to the character AND proved that you don't have to be sparkly and camp etc. but at the same time, did it really need saying at all? Was there anything to gain other than a bit more airtime?
I guess I'm trying to make the point that shoving homosexuality into a player's face in a game doesn't serve any purpose. It doesn't promote tolerance or anything like that - it just makes sexuality an issue where it doesn't need to be.
I would have no problem with it whatsoever. Simply looking at you means nothing.wordsmith said:
I never said that. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to get at by saying it, but... while homophobia DOES indeed mean "same" and "fear", that's not the vernacular it's used in, and chances are even if you argue to try and change it, it's the same as the phrase "that's so gay": I doubt it'll ever change. Besides, (and this isn't meant to be rude or anything like that) what else would we say? It's the best we can get with what language we have.wordsmith said:
Er... just because you're gay doesn't mean you have to rescue a prince.ashiii said:
1. She didn't reveal it for "more airtime"; she was asked point-blank about Dumbledore's sexuality, and answered honestly.Charley said:
2. People don't want it shoved in their faces, gay OR straight. I think what is being argued is that we wouldn't mind having a gay character woven into the storyline where it fits and feels natural, like Big Boss in MGS.
The problem with a call to arms like this is that the issue is so much smaller. It's easy to sell the case for a female protagonist (51%) or a non-white protagonist (25% in the US). But only 4% of the US is homosexual, and only 1% of couples!
It takes a lot of time and money to switch around a main character's gender or orientation, especially if it's the player. In fact, it'll pretty much torpedo the chance of your romance mattering to the plot - see Fable and Mass Effect. And when there are likely more homophobic gamers who will avoid your game than gay gamers out there? It just doesn't make business sense. Even if you want your protagonist to break the space marine mold, it's a lot easier to just make him Hispanic (14% of Americans and no backlash).
It takes a lot of time and money to switch around a main character's gender or orientation, especially if it's the player. In fact, it'll pretty much torpedo the chance of your romance mattering to the plot - see Fable and Mass Effect. And when there are likely more homophobic gamers who will avoid your game than gay gamers out there? It just doesn't make business sense. Even if you want your protagonist to break the space marine mold, it's a lot easier to just make him Hispanic (14% of Americans and no backlash).
There's a difference between "simply looking" and a sexually charged look, totally different body language.Yukichin said:
I know you didn't say that, you said that homophobic is used in a way that doesn't literally mean "scared of same sex sexual relations". I'm comparing this to the recent trend (and this might just be locally, I don't know about anywhere else) of anything bad being "jewish", used in the same way as "gay" or "retard" (i.e. "Shut up, Jew!" "Stop being a fricken Jew!" "Damn, that's sorta jewish...").Yukichin said:
And on your last point, I'm glad you asked. It should be something closer to Misohomony. Miso- dislike (as seen in misogyny, misocapnic and misopogonistic), Homo- same.
I'm going to begin ignoring this because I have a feeling we will never agree on it.wordsmith said:
O_O;; weird. We don't have anything like that here, for the most part. It'll happen occasionally, but I find it rude.wordsmith said:
I see. That makes sense... unfortunately, "homophobia" is what society has decided to use. It will probably stay, despite its misnomer.
Here's the question I want to ask:
At what point does inclusion of a same-sex relationship move from being progressive to being untasteful and tacky? I don't mean in the homophobic sense, I mean in the sense that it's genuinely offensive to homosexuals as an inaccurate depiction of homosexuality, or perhaps a depiction whose intentions aren't entirely honorable or genuine. It's one thing to include a homosexual character if your artistic vision genuinely calls for it, that I think is an ideal that the author of this article would like to see realized. But what about shoehorning a gay character in just for the sake of shoehorning a gay character in? For the sake of just trying to LOOK like you're being progressive, humoring audiences and so forth? To me that kind of superficial placation seems like a disrespectful gesture, as much as if a flamboyant homosexual were employed as comedic relief (okay, sometimes this has worked and worked well and I've actually liked the character a lot, but let's just assume the worst, most tactless possible scenario) or if there were a lesbian scene for no other reason than sheer titillation. Honestly, I think that if developers don't have it in them to really be genuine in the way they portray homosexual characters we shouldn't expect or ask them to force it. 99.999999% of the time I don't think it's a matter of outright avoiding dealing with homosexuals out of fear so much as the fact that it just doesn't occur to straight writers who have half a brain or more to think about it when they write, and if it did it would only occur to them either because someone pointed out they had no gays in their cast or because they're a bigot. Let's face it, if they're intelligent, progressive people they just don't think it's an issue.
The bottom line is, is it really a necessity for there to be a "token gay guy" in every cast? Would we really be satisfied if developers went OUT OF THEIR WAY to include homosexuals and minorities as opposed to being genuine about them? When it comes down to it we're talking about an ideal. Ideals are slow to mature, but maybe it's best that way, if only for the fact that when it does come to pass that every group gets their time in the sun then it'll be truly natural and progressive and not forced. Pressuring it is like trying to push a mule up a mountain. The day both we and the developers, who are driven by marketing pressures, stop worrying about these issues of appeal and simply write what comes naturally to us will be a big step forward. If good characters are written, people don't care if they're gay or straight or black or white or Hispanic or Asian or whatever. Case in point: Samuel L. Jackson, a black actor, playing Nick Fury, who was always depicted in the Marvel comics as being a white guy. You know you want Samuel L. Jackson to play that part and not one of the Baldwins. When he plays a character, it's awesome. You don't think about the fact that he's black, you just enjoy his performance. That's how it should be. It's too bad that it has to be both sides, though, because the day they stop worrying about imposing marketing on creativity is a long, long way off.
Still, I say we wait patiently for that day, and those of us who are ready should do what we can to step forward towards it.
At what point does inclusion of a same-sex relationship move from being progressive to being untasteful and tacky? I don't mean in the homophobic sense, I mean in the sense that it's genuinely offensive to homosexuals as an inaccurate depiction of homosexuality, or perhaps a depiction whose intentions aren't entirely honorable or genuine. It's one thing to include a homosexual character if your artistic vision genuinely calls for it, that I think is an ideal that the author of this article would like to see realized. But what about shoehorning a gay character in just for the sake of shoehorning a gay character in? For the sake of just trying to LOOK like you're being progressive, humoring audiences and so forth? To me that kind of superficial placation seems like a disrespectful gesture, as much as if a flamboyant homosexual were employed as comedic relief (okay, sometimes this has worked and worked well and I've actually liked the character a lot, but let's just assume the worst, most tactless possible scenario) or if there were a lesbian scene for no other reason than sheer titillation. Honestly, I think that if developers don't have it in them to really be genuine in the way they portray homosexual characters we shouldn't expect or ask them to force it. 99.999999% of the time I don't think it's a matter of outright avoiding dealing with homosexuals out of fear so much as the fact that it just doesn't occur to straight writers who have half a brain or more to think about it when they write, and if it did it would only occur to them either because someone pointed out they had no gays in their cast or because they're a bigot. Let's face it, if they're intelligent, progressive people they just don't think it's an issue.
The bottom line is, is it really a necessity for there to be a "token gay guy" in every cast? Would we really be satisfied if developers went OUT OF THEIR WAY to include homosexuals and minorities as opposed to being genuine about them? When it comes down to it we're talking about an ideal. Ideals are slow to mature, but maybe it's best that way, if only for the fact that when it does come to pass that every group gets their time in the sun then it'll be truly natural and progressive and not forced. Pressuring it is like trying to push a mule up a mountain. The day both we and the developers, who are driven by marketing pressures, stop worrying about these issues of appeal and simply write what comes naturally to us will be a big step forward. If good characters are written, people don't care if they're gay or straight or black or white or Hispanic or Asian or whatever. Case in point: Samuel L. Jackson, a black actor, playing Nick Fury, who was always depicted in the Marvel comics as being a white guy. You know you want Samuel L. Jackson to play that part and not one of the Baldwins. When he plays a character, it's awesome. You don't think about the fact that he's black, you just enjoy his performance. That's how it should be. It's too bad that it has to be both sides, though, because the day they stop worrying about imposing marketing on creativity is a long, long way off.
Still, I say we wait patiently for that day, and those of us who are ready should do what we can to step forward towards it.
I think games like Fable II show that there is an approach developers could take which would keep everybody happy - let the player decide whether their character is gay or not. Mass Effect did this artfully when they left the option for romance with Liara open to a female version of Shepard. The next step would be leaving the option for romance with Kaidan open to a male Shepard. And why shouldn't it be, anyway? Shepard is the same person. Kaidan is the same person. Regardless of gender, shouldn't they feel the same way? I guess that's the question future developers need to consider.
Rather than defining characters and relationships as being 'gay' or 'straight', video games and their customer base would benefit from taking an open, more fluid approach to sexuality, especially considering that if you write a storyline essentially irrespective of the genders of the characters involved, the story avoids falling into cliches and stereotypes. When you have people who range across all varieties of the gender and sexuality spectrum playing your video games, it becomes more important than ever to make stories that are about the person and not the gender. And I find that, if a character is written with no preconditions of race, religion, gender or sexuality (as all those elements are customisable by player choice) they're automatically going to be written with the same respect that the generic heterosexual white male character template is.
This is why I think that games where you have the option of choosing the gender of the character you play are going to continue to be at the forefront of LGBTI representation. The next step they have to take is simply removing the limitations that prevent characters from pursuing a same-sex storyline, by keeping all romances available to player characters of both genders. It is a shame that more linear, fixed-character stories don't tend to include gay protagonists (with a few notable exceptions), but, without a doubt, it is the best compromise to let the player decide what they see, and what relationships their characters have, since developers don't risk alienating customers if they aren't forcing people to play gay (which I don't necessarily think is a legitimate fear, since socially-conservative groups seem to have it in for video games anyway).
Let's call it a 'blank slate' approach to video games. After all, the characters are supposed to be us, right? What better way to let the player manifest themselves in the storyline than by giving them those alternatives, rather than squeezing us all into the big, square box of genericism?
Rather than defining characters and relationships as being 'gay' or 'straight', video games and their customer base would benefit from taking an open, more fluid approach to sexuality, especially considering that if you write a storyline essentially irrespective of the genders of the characters involved, the story avoids falling into cliches and stereotypes. When you have people who range across all varieties of the gender and sexuality spectrum playing your video games, it becomes more important than ever to make stories that are about the person and not the gender. And I find that, if a character is written with no preconditions of race, religion, gender or sexuality (as all those elements are customisable by player choice) they're automatically going to be written with the same respect that the generic heterosexual white male character template is.
This is why I think that games where you have the option of choosing the gender of the character you play are going to continue to be at the forefront of LGBTI representation. The next step they have to take is simply removing the limitations that prevent characters from pursuing a same-sex storyline, by keeping all romances available to player characters of both genders. It is a shame that more linear, fixed-character stories don't tend to include gay protagonists (with a few notable exceptions), but, without a doubt, it is the best compromise to let the player decide what they see, and what relationships their characters have, since developers don't risk alienating customers if they aren't forcing people to play gay (which I don't necessarily think is a legitimate fear, since socially-conservative groups seem to have it in for video games anyway).
Let's call it a 'blank slate' approach to video games. After all, the characters are supposed to be us, right? What better way to let the player manifest themselves in the storyline than by giving them those alternatives, rather than squeezing us all into the big, square box of genericism?
I just don't see the point in this, how would you be able to know the sexual preference of any given character without them explicitly saying it? There would be nothing to gain or lose in doing so. None of the games I have played (or know of) explicitly stated whether or not a character was gay or not, not because of "homophobia" but because it's not a big deal.
Basically what I'm trying to say is sexual preference is just a small detail that really makes no difference to the character, or the story. Knowing whether or not the main character from the Shadow of the Colossus game kisses boys or not doesn't matter at all when I'm slaying giants does it?
I'm not sure, but when J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore was a homosexual, did that affect the actual Harry Potter story?
Basically what I'm trying to say is sexual preference is just a small detail that really makes no difference to the character, or the story. Knowing whether or not the main character from the Shadow of the Colossus game kisses boys or not doesn't matter at all when I'm slaying giants does it?
I'm not sure, but when J.K. Rowling revealed that Dumbledore was a homosexual, did that affect the actual Harry Potter story?
Right now I'm imagining a gun-fu game where the plot begins with the protagonist answering a phone call (Much like the opening to Jericho), telling him to get to a crime scene or what-have-you. Someone in bed next to him groans (In a muffled, androgynous tone) "What's up sweetie?" To which the protagonist replies, "The usual: Duty calls, making the world a better place for the people I care about." The protagonist then leans over and gives his lover, now sitting up, a deep kiss, and then leaves. His partner is never seen and rarely mentioned throughout the entire rest of the game, which is all about srs cop business, people getting blowed up, and gun-fu ass-kickery.
He would have to appear with short brown hair, slightly unkempt at all times, a bit of five-o-clock shadow, and normal dress. He would need to be grizzled to a point without being a bear, and girly enough without being a flamer. Just your average Joe personality.
The protagonist will be voiced by Steve Blum.
Anyhoo... I would love to see more gay characters in games, being a "gaymer" myself. I would NOT like to see the writers emphasize the sexuality of the protagonist, that is, if it is a single player game with only one protagonist.
While your doing back flips and stabbing people with bullets John Woo style, sexuality shouldn't really need to be brought up. I mean seriously, what the nelly?
Take this situation for instance: The cop/gun-fu master/White Chow Yung Fat is partnered up with a female cop to solve his case or what-have-you. As she makes advances to him, he politely refuses, only subtly implying that the reason that he refuses her is because of his sexuality.
He would also have to be the best, or at least a very talented cop on the force, meaning that his comrades accept him for his skills and personality. That would also count as an excuse for his protagonist status. I don't want a whole "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE" thing going on where the cast looks like they grew up in the "It's a Small World" ride, but just standard balance.
Sure, you'll see stereotypes in games like GTA, of course. It's fucking GTA for crying out loud! No one cares about those games anymore, really (Please don't respond to this part, I'm being facetious).
As far as discrimination on communities like Xbox live goes, no one will know unless you advertise sexuality.
More to the point of the article however, the various 12 year olds calling people "Fag," "Gay," and "Queer" as insults when they lose, or win, or are just bored because their vocabularies are about as expansive as a Hydrogen atom, I just tend to disregard them. Getting into an argument on Xbox live is like getting into an argument on 4chan's /b/: It doesn't fracking matter.
Oh noes, someone is wrong on the internet!
I'm not saying it isn't a problem, it is a serious one, where people use a slur for sexuality as an insult. I understand it just about as much as I understand why black people who subscribe themselves to the "gangsta" lifestyle tend to call each other "******" as a synonym for "bro" or "pal."
I may be a bisexual transgendered gamer, but I don't seem to be taking this as seriously as other people. It is a problem, the lack of gays in games, portrayed correctly, the usage of "fag" and "homo" on Xbox live and the like, and other such issues are as they stand: Issues. Issues that need to be resolved with utmost haste so we can move on and figure out exactly which dimension Mario will be jumping around in for his next wacky adventure.
He would have to appear with short brown hair, slightly unkempt at all times, a bit of five-o-clock shadow, and normal dress. He would need to be grizzled to a point without being a bear, and girly enough without being a flamer. Just your average Joe personality.
The protagonist will be voiced by Steve Blum.
Anyhoo... I would love to see more gay characters in games, being a "gaymer" myself. I would NOT like to see the writers emphasize the sexuality of the protagonist, that is, if it is a single player game with only one protagonist.
While your doing back flips and stabbing people with bullets John Woo style, sexuality shouldn't really need to be brought up. I mean seriously, what the nelly?
Take this situation for instance: The cop/gun-fu master/White Chow Yung Fat is partnered up with a female cop to solve his case or what-have-you. As she makes advances to him, he politely refuses, only subtly implying that the reason that he refuses her is because of his sexuality.
He would also have to be the best, or at least a very talented cop on the force, meaning that his comrades accept him for his skills and personality. That would also count as an excuse for his protagonist status. I don't want a whole "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE" thing going on where the cast looks like they grew up in the "It's a Small World" ride, but just standard balance.
Sure, you'll see stereotypes in games like GTA, of course. It's fucking GTA for crying out loud! No one cares about those games anymore, really (Please don't respond to this part, I'm being facetious).
As far as discrimination on communities like Xbox live goes, no one will know unless you advertise sexuality.
More to the point of the article however, the various 12 year olds calling people "Fag," "Gay," and "Queer" as insults when they lose, or win, or are just bored because their vocabularies are about as expansive as a Hydrogen atom, I just tend to disregard them. Getting into an argument on Xbox live is like getting into an argument on 4chan's /b/: It doesn't fracking matter.
Oh noes, someone is wrong on the internet!
I'm not saying it isn't a problem, it is a serious one, where people use a slur for sexuality as an insult. I understand it just about as much as I understand why black people who subscribe themselves to the "gangsta" lifestyle tend to call each other "******" as a synonym for "bro" or "pal."
I may be a bisexual transgendered gamer, but I don't seem to be taking this as seriously as other people. It is a problem, the lack of gays in games, portrayed correctly, the usage of "fag" and "homo" on Xbox live and the like, and other such issues are as they stand: Issues. Issues that need to be resolved with utmost haste so we can move on and figure out exactly which dimension Mario will be jumping around in for his next wacky adventure.
This article completely disregards Master Chief and Maxwell from Scribblenauts, who are both quite open about their sexuality.
Relatively few games portray the character's sexuality, one way or the other (or even both ways). In most games, it's not even brought up. As someone who doesn't see a problem with homosexuals (as long as they stop invading my personal space; they're prone to do that), I also don't see a big issue for them to be fighting against. It's like environmentalism or intellectualism; so progressive it's shooting right past the realm of sanity (I should know, I've been orbiting sanity for almost 20 years now).
I understand that there are all sorts of restrictions against homosexuality, and I'm not saying that progress is bad. I just feel that it doesn't apply to video games nearly as much as they seem to believe.
Relatively few games portray the character's sexuality, one way or the other (or even both ways). In most games, it's not even brought up. As someone who doesn't see a problem with homosexuals (as long as they stop invading my personal space; they're prone to do that), I also don't see a big issue for them to be fighting against. It's like environmentalism or intellectualism; so progressive it's shooting right past the realm of sanity (I should know, I've been orbiting sanity for almost 20 years now).
I understand that there are all sorts of restrictions against homosexuality, and I'm not saying that progress is bad. I just feel that it doesn't apply to video games nearly as much as they seem to believe.
I honestly have no qualms with gay men. I even think it would be interesting to play a gay man in a game, even if it was just to see what the writers would do.
I think the problem is that many people don't the flamboyancy of camp, gay men. I'm in secondary school, and all the two or three gays in my year are ridiculously camp. Unfortunately, they are also incredibly arrogant, rude and snobby, which in my opinion, doesn't help them at all. I'd have no problem if they weren't walking around being dicks to everyone.
I think the problem is that many people don't the flamboyancy of camp, gay men. I'm in secondary school, and all the two or three gays in my year are ridiculously camp. Unfortunately, they are also incredibly arrogant, rude and snobby, which in my opinion, doesn't help them at all. I'd have no problem if they weren't walking around being dicks to everyone.
unfortunately, the "pink tights" side of the spectrum is what we usually see. resorting to stereotypes isn't just offensive, it's bad character design and therefore bad game design too.MNRA said:
i think i get where you're coming from, but if we're going to have a serious and meaningful exploration of homophobia in games, we need to have an honest representation of homosexuality first.MNRA said:
You know what? a lot of homosexual males hate being forced to play hetero protagonists. And catering solely to the largest demographic isn't how you run a business.Mrsnugglesworth said:
They're fear losing money if they make a game with gay characters in itRexoftheFord said:
Marketing to the majority is a naive and stupid business plan. As a company, you want your products to apply to as broad a market as possible; and there are far more gay people out there than there are people who would refuse to buy your game just because the main character's gay.
Why is it "imperative" that Microsoft indulge ignorance and hatred? Their goal is to produce and manage an online community that their customers will pay to be a part of. Hateful speech ruins that experience and Microsoft loses customers because of it.RexoftheFord said:
/sigh. i'm gonna have to double post or this is going to be impossible to read.
of course we shouldn't have "token gays", and good characterization is good characterization. but there are plenty of stories that are influenced by the characters cultural background. Roots had to be about a black man. Desperado had to be about Mexicans. The Last Samurai had to be about Japanese.NickCaligo42 said:
the point is, there are plenty of potentially great stories about LGBT characters, and it's foolish to ignore them.
actually the Ultimate version of Nick Fury is lack and was create as an homage to Sam Jackson:NickCaligo42 said:
[QUOTE=MajoraPersona]Relatively few games portray the character's sexuality, one way or the other (or even both ways). In most games, it's not even brought up. As someone who doesn't see a problem with homosexuals (as long as they stop invading my personal space; they're prone to do that), I also don't see a big issue for them to be fighting against. It's like environmentalism or intellectualism; so progressive it's shooting right past the realm of sanity (I should know, I've been orbiting sanity for almost 20 years now).[/QUOTE]
the problem is, when sexuality is portrayed, it's almost always heterosexual. and when homosexuality is portrayed, it's often stereotypical and poorly written.
In games where you rescue one single person, it's nearly always a member of the opposite sex, and they're always an object of attraction to the main character.Yukichin said:
Regardless, I was just using that as a figure of speech.
Like I said, I'm gay (so you know I'm not being biased or homophobic), I can't imagine playing a good game as an openly gay character at the moment. I think it would be weird.
Unfortunately, that comes with age. When I was 16, I was actually far more feminine and obviously gay than I am now. Now, I almost got beaten up for saying that someone looked gay at a party and had to explain that I am also gay and all's hunky dory. Technically speaking.Evil the White said:
I don't think that a lot of people here understand that it's not like a bunch of gay people are whining to get representation in a video game. The point is, a lot of us play as characters in a game and to be honest, just like you don't particularly want to play as a gay guy, I'm not always thrilled to be playing as a straight guy. For example, in GTA3, you have to pick up female hookers if you want to gain energy. Although I did as a gameplay element, it would have been nice to have an option.
Now that games are moving to being more sandboxy, it's not fun to play in the sandbox by someone else's rules. If I'm forced by the game to only have a girlfriend, it takes me out of the game. That's why I like the Sims 3 but not GTA4. I hate that I don't have control over that element of the game. My character should be whatever I want him to be, at least in a sandbox game. If it's a game with narrative and there's a reason why the character you control is the one you control, that's a different story. But if it's just an open-ended explore your ass off game, let me be me.
By the way it is the most hilarious thing in the world to slaughter a whole group of people in Halo with a pink suit. Oh my god.
I can think of a lot of things that you or I probably do on a regular basis that we once thought were weird. I'm pretty sure a gay video game character wouldn't be that big a stretch.ashiii said: