Gaming Journalists Make No Damn Sense

[Worgen]

Doesn't that bring us back to the whole Chekhov's Gun theory? Basically if there's a gun on a mantle it needs to be fired by the 3rd act?
ie if the story establishes a wife/girlfriend/boyfriend/husband with the main character, they need to have a scene together. If we establish their sexuality, there needs to be a love scene. And doesn't have to be pornographic, a simple kiss-fall-to-bed-fade-to-black works. If a character is trans, it needs to be brought up. Details shouldn't be added for detail's sake, only the essentials to tell the story.

Lets take Doom. Its a first person shooting about a for all intents and purposes faceless, speechless protagonist pimping around hell with a shotgun. Any details for the Doom guy that don't come into play beyond that are unnecessary. Doom guys sexuality, gender identity, food preferences, religion, shoe size, hair color, anything that doesn't add to the kill demons story/gameplay doesn't need to be there, and in fact takes away from the story.

It does tend to be one of those things that always are estalibshed, like the significant other will play no roll except as an "oh shit, I have to safe the city/mothership/dam/specialty dildo" moment and to welcome the hero home. Trans is a bit different, in early movies it was to make the bad guys be more off putting or for them to die at the hands of racist rednecks so everyone can learn a valuable lesson.

Doom isn't a good example since they made doom guy a silent protagonist for the purpose of pretty much anyone being able to put themselves in his shoes and if you replaced him with a women/kid/dog/sentient battleship that is man sized, nothing about the game would change aside from the minuscule amount of text between certain levels. Really his form didn't start to matter till Doom 3 and even then you could have been one of the cute sentinel bots, Doom 2016 was the first one that really established his form as mattering more with Doom Eternal rubbing the comic in everyones faces. That rip and tear scene was silly.

 

[Worgen]

That's usually how I feel. I used to roll my eyes at how every single action movie protagonist needed to have a sex scene with someone they just met hours ago.

I quite dislike that also.

No. But only one of those things are ever shoe-horned in.

One of the reasons why people complain about one of these things, and not the other, is because the companies just appear to be doing it for brownie points. "See, look, we made this character gay! Look how progressive we are! Look at what a statement we're making! Applaud our politics! Applaud our representation! Specifically, applaud us on Twitter and advertise for us, thanks"

It's one part that, and one part: "We hired a diversity consultant who told us that there's an untapped market of minorities out there that we need to reach, so we shoved in these these changes in order to appeal to that demographic".

There's lazy writing, then there's trying to score points. These things can be both at the same time, but only one of those things are ever both.

Bioshock Infinite is finished installing. I got the Rapture DLC too.

That's my point, people only see it as shoe-horned in or political because its not the 'norm.' And probably because there are organizations that have been waging decade long campaigns against it.

I think that is just an excuse. Its an easy way to say "I don't like this thing but I can't argue against it, I know, I can attack it by saying they are just trying to score brownie points." We saw the same thing with men trying to help women with things awhile back when people would just call a male feminist or something a white knight. You don't feel comfortable with what it says if you attack the action directly so you attack the motivation. Does it really matter if some big name game has a gay character? I mean games tend to be made by artists, how would you know that one of them isn't gay and really wanted so and so character to be gay?

I wouldn't have really bothered, Bioshock Infinite isn't bad but it can't really match Bioshock 1 or even 2. The words I would use to describe it are unrealized potential, its got a lot of cool moments but it doesn't really do anything with them.

Perhaps. Inclusion just for inclusion's sake may seem more insulting than not being included at all.
Like the "token" black person who is either a stereotype, or is the first to die, or both.

I'd much rather see meaningful inclusion than shoe-horned in "hey we made this background character gay!"

Actually a good example of that is the disney remake of Beauty and the Beast. That I would consider just pandering since they seemed to kinda highlight that they finally had a gay character in the press material or something before it launched, or at least it was leaked. Then it turned out to be a tertiary character and the extent of him being gay was something like him dancing with a guy at the end.

 

[Elfgore]

Perhaps. Inclusion just for inclusion's sake may seem more insulting than not being included at all.
Like the "token" black person who is either a stereotype, or is the first to die, or both.

I'd much rather see meaningful inclusion than shoe-horned in "hey we made this background character gay!"

What is meaningful inclusion to you? Gay people are more than just being gay, so it's blatantly unfair to say the only time it must be brought up is if it's 100% relevant to the story.

 

[Houseman]

That's my point, people only see it as shoe-horned in or political because its not the 'norm.'

The reason why a heterosexual couple or character isn't referred to as "shoehorned in", is because there's no political motivation for doing so. You can't score points by doing it. Therefore the inclusion should be for some other reason. Hopefully a good reason that fits neatly into the plot. At the very least, it's to market the sex appeal of the couple.

But a homosexual couple or character appears shoehorned in because they were inserted, not because it would enhance the narrative, but to gain political points.

That's the difference.

If it isn't for the sake of the plot, and only done to gain political points, it's shoehorned in. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's the 'norm'.

I think that is just an excuse. Its an easy way to say "I don't like this thing but I can't argue against it, I know, I can attack it by saying they are just trying to score brownie points."

If that were true, then people would ALSO be complaining when minorities and their issues take the center stage, when they aren't just relegated to a background character, and when the inclusion of minorities actually serve and enhance the plot.

Except they don't. We only see people complain when it's a shoehorned in background character, as opposed to the main focus or a main plot point. This seems to suggest that what you say is not true.

Can you think of any good examples of LGBT representation in video games, where the character has a main role in the story, and where people still complained about it in the same way that they do about a shoehorned in background character or out-of-game lore detail?

What is meaningful inclusion to you? Gay people are more than just being gay, so it's blatantly unfair to say the only time it must be brought up is if it's 100% relevant to the story.

Meaningful is just that, meaningful. It should have some purpose other than to score brownie points on twitter. If their sexuality isn't important to the plot, it's not meaningful, in the same way that it isn't necessarily meaningful that a straight character is straight. Is Crash Bandicoot's sexuality meaningful?


@SilentPony
By the way, I got past the beginning of Bioshock Infinite, when you go past all the colored bathrooms and Elizabeth remarks on it. It reminded me that it takes place in 1913, where the protagonist is a Pinkerton and was in the army, fighting Native Americans. He was very likely racist himself and held the same views as the rest of Colombia. The only one who questioned the social disparity was Elizabeth, who lived her entire life in ignorance up in a tower.

So he may not be the best example.

 

[Worgen]

The reason why a heterosexual couple or character isn't referred to as "shoehorned in", is because there's no political motivation for doing so. You can't score points by doing it. Therefore the inclusion should be for some other reason. Hopefully a good reason that fits neatly into the plot. At the very least, it's to market the sex appeal of the couple.

But a homosexual couple or character appears shoehorned in because they were inserted, not because it would enhance the narrative, but to gain political points.

That's the difference.

If it isn't for the sake of the plot, and only done to gain political points, it's shoehorned in. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's the 'norm'.

Actually, not true. It's more common then you think to insert a wife or girlfriend or even a family for characters. Sometimes its done for political points, sometimes its done to try and give more audience connection. I'll give a few examples. Do you remember the movie The Revenant, they gave Hugh Glass a family, while he might have had a relationship with a Pawnee indian woman, there is no evidence he had any children. I've heard that Batgirl was introduced in the Batman series to help alleviate accusations that Batman and Robin were in a homosexual relationship. They even gave Will Smith a wife in the movie Bright despite the fact that actually took away from the character who seemed like he wanted to be more of the loaner detective type.

No, it has everything to do with it being the norm or not. You don't notice it for hetrosexual couples, you only notice it for gay ones, meaning by your logic, gays can only exist in media if its a gay story, otherwise its being shoehorned in for the nebulous concept of political points. Would you make that point for black characters also?

If that were true, then people would ALSO be complaining when minorities and their issues take the center stage, when they aren't just relegated to a background character, and when the inclusion of minorities actually serve and enhance the plot.

Except they don't. We only see people complain when it's a shoehorned in background character, as opposed to the main focus or a main plot point. This seems to suggest that what you say is not true.

Can you think of any good examples of LGBT representation in video games, where the character has a main role in the story, and where people still complained about it in the same way that they do about a shoehorned in background character or out-of-game lore detail?

Actually that does happen, there was a soccer game a few years ago Fifa had a black main character and there was fan backlash about not being able to get into the roll of the main character because he didn't look like the player.

The problem with good examples of LGBT representation in games is that there kinda hasn't been. Games that get the closest are fighting games, mobas, hero shooters, and ones where you can create your character. Odd hand I can't think of a single game outside the VN/porn game scene with a gay main character that you don't choose the sexuality for. Although weirdly enough even in porn games you get backlash for characters who are traps and such, granted it tends not to be big but people will still complain about whats in a characters pants that they want to fuck. JRPG games do rather frequently have the assumed gay fairy acting character as a back ground character or vender. People tended to give Tingle from Legend of Zelda a lot of shit for that. But there just kinda really aren't main characters who are gay in big name games. Probably the biggest was Overwatch.

 

[SupahEwok]

Houseman up to his old tricks again, and people still falling for it.

 

[BrawlMan]

Houseman up to his old tricks again, and people still falling for it.

Not me. I barely even knew the guy existed. Plus, I already said my piece in this thread.

You know the saying" Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Fool me 3 or more times, than I'm a dumb motherf@cker."

 

[Worgen]

Houseman up to his old tricks again, and people still falling for it.

Ehh, I'm having fun, I'll keep going a bit longer.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

The reason why a heterosexual couple or character isn't referred to as "shoehorned in", is because there's no political motivation for doing so. You can't score points by doing it. Therefore the inclusion should be for some other reason. Hopefully a good reason that fits neatly into the plot. At the very least, it's to market the sex appeal of the couple.

But a homosexual couple or character appears shoehorned in because they were inserted, not because it would enhance the narrative, but to gain political points.

Why can't it enhance the narrative the same way a heterosexual couple does? Why does it have to be "to gain political points"? Is it the mindset "that's not normal, so whoever did this just wants to make a point"? Maybe it is normal for the person who placed it in the story.

 

[Houseman]

Do you remember the movie The Revenant

Sorry, I never saw that movie.

But what are you saying, that the character having a wife in a story is shoehorned in? Was this done to score political points? Was the character's heterosexual relationship announced to the media in advanced so that it could be applauded on twitter? THAT'S what it means to shoehorn something in.

Bad writing exists everywhere. Shoving in a certain thing to score political points overlaps with bad writing, but is it's own separate circle on the venn-diagram.

No, it has everything to do with it being the norm or not. You don't notice it for hetrosexual couples

What is there to notice, exactly? An absentee character that doesn't influence the plot in meaningful ways? You're saying that people have double standards because they don't get up in arms about insignificant characters that don't do anything? Why would they?

I see a big difference between an insignificant background character that only exists because of bad writing, and an insignificant background character who is only there to score political brownie points. I don't see it as a double standard to notice and/or get upset about one or not the other.

by your logic, gays can only exist in media if its a gay story, otherwise its being shoehorned in for the nebulous concept of political points. Would you make that point for black characters also?

By my logic, you should only bring attention to something if it's relevant to the plot. The Rock's Samoan-ness isn't brought attention to unless it's to explain his size, or unless his Samoan family is involved, like it is in Hobbs and Shaw. Will Smith's blackness in Men In Black isn't pointed out unless it has something to do with racial issues, like when he time-traveled to the 1970s in the third movie.

Why bring attention to someone's sexuality unless it's relevant to the plot? The answer is either "bad writing" or "to score political points".

Actually that does happen, there was a soccer game a few years ago Fifa had a black main character and there was fan backlash about not being able to get into the roll of the main character because he didn't look like the player.

And this brings us back full circle to the topic of game journalists being jokes. Game journos these days love taking a handful of comments from twitter or underneath some blog and then exaggerating it into a full-on movement where none exists. When I googled "fifa black main character", the first link I got was "No, People Are Not Mad That FIFA 17’s Main Character Is Black" The second link is Vice's "People are mad they have to play a black character in FIFA 17 " article, in which they quote all of two (2) people disagreeing with it.

Here's the blog in question that Vice sourced the comments from: facebook link
I skimmed a few of them, and I invite you to as well. See if you can find any evidence of a "fan backlash".

Oh, and on this subject, how many people do you hear about not being able to relate with Lara Croft because she's a woman? Who's the core demographic for those games? Who has kept the series afloat for, like, 25 years now by continuing to purchase Lara Croft games? Not European women who look like Lara Croft, I can tell you that much.

The problem with good examples of LGBT representation in games is that there kinda hasn't been

Then this all makes sense now.

Let me make an illustration. Suppose there's a man who operates a shooting range. He wants to order some realistic, human-looking cutouts of targets for people to shoot, so he looks online and orders a bunch. The next week, someone comes up to him and says "I notice that all your cutouts are of Hispanics. Are you some kind of racist?" The range-owner replies "That was the only choice they had, all the rest were sold out!"

Of course, the person's concern was entirely reasonable, as is yours.

You only see people complaining about LGBT representation. The person only sees people shooting at cutouts of Hispanics.
But, like you yourself said, there are no good examples of LGBT representation in games. So it's not necessarily true that gamers who complain are bigots, there's just nothing worthy of praise, so it seems like lopsided condemnation to you.

It's not a case of political disagreement, it's just that all of the examples of LGBT representation suck.

Complaining about all the bad examples (which make up 100% of examples) looks like bigotry, just like how shooting cutouts of Hispanics (because there is nothing else to shoot at in this hypothetical range) makes it look like racism.

Why can't it enhance the narrative the same way a heterosexual couple does?

I never said it couldn't. I also never said that heterosexual couples necessarily enhance the narrative.

If attention is called to a character's sexuality it should be in service of the plot. When it isn't, then it's either "bad writing" or "shoehorned in".

 

[Satinavian]

Why can't it enhance the narrative the same way a heterosexual couple does? Why does it have to be "to gain political points"? Is it the mindset "that's not normal, so whoever did this just wants to make a point"? Maybe it is normal for the person who placed it in the story.

I would say :

If the gay NPC is the only NPC whose sexual orientation you actually learn or whose relationships are mentioned, it probably is shoehorned in. I have seen many cases of gays in games where it felt natural, but also a couple where it really didn't. Not everyone tells aquaintances or even random strangers about their love-live.

Not that it is particularly relevant for most games.

 

[Elfgore]

Meaningful is just that, meaningful. It should have some purpose other than to score brownie points on twitter. If their sexuality isn't important to the plot, it's not meaningful, in the same way that it isn't necessarily meaningful that a straight character is straight. Is Crash Bandicoot's sexuality meaningful?

Except we live in a hetero-normative society. Unless you specifically have a part that shows a character is gay, 99% of the world is going to assume they're straight.

 

[Elfgore]

Houseman up to his old tricks again, and people still falling for it.

But it's fun watching horrible arguments fall apart.

 

[Houseman]

Except we live in a hetero-normative society. Unless you specifically have a part that shows a character is gay, 99% of the world is going to assume they're straight.

So?

I don't see what this has to do with the question you asked me, or my answer to that question. What's your point?

 

[Worgen]

Sorry, I never saw that movie.

But what are you saying, that the character having a wife in a story is shoehorned in? Was this done to score political points? Was the character's heterosexual relationship announced to the media in advanced so that it could be applauded on twitter? THAT'S what it means to shoehorn something in.

Bad writing exists everywhere. Shoving in a certain thing to score political points overlaps with bad writing, but is it's own separate circle on the venn-diagram.

The Revenant is a based on a true story movie and if you remember it for anything it would be Leonardo Di Caprio having a scene where he gets mauled by a bear. So its a movie based on a real dude and they gave him a family, partially so he could get revenge for them killing his son. In reality Hugh Glass never had a son and his epic trek after the guys who left him for dead after the bear attack was really just to get back his gun they took and no one died at the end. Obviously they gave Hugh Glass a family because single men are seen as weird and they thought that just having him chase someone a thousand miles to get his gun back wouldn't resonate with audiances the same way that getting revenge for his sons murder would.

What is there to notice, exactly? An absentee character that doesn't influence the plot in meaningful ways? You're saying that people have double standards because they don't get up in arms about insignificant characters that don't do anything? Why would they?

I see a big difference between an insignificant background character that only exists because of bad writing, and an insignificant background character who is only there to score political brownie points. I don't see it as a double standard to notice and/or get upset about one or not the other.

No, I'm saying that you have a double standard because you are getting up in arms about an insignificant background character that doesn't do anything if they happen to be gay and not straight.

By my logic, you should only bring attention to something if it's relevant to the plot. The Rock's Samoan-ness isn't brought attention to unless it's to explain his size, or unless his Samoan family is involved, like it is in Hobbs and Shaw. Will Smith's blackness in Men In Black isn't pointed out unless it has something to do with racial issues, like when he time-traveled to the 1970s in the third movie.

You are actually kinda proving my point here. You aren't questioning the ancestry of either of those characters, you just accept it and move on because someones skin color hasn't really been relevant for characters in movies for awhile. In fact, your bringing up of Men in Black kind of undermines your argument, if you had brought up something like Bad Boys you might have had more of a point. Because in Men in Black you could have replaced Will Smith with a white actor and no one would notice, aside from the skill and charisma of the actor. His skin color has no bearing on his background in Men in Black.

Oh, and on this subject, how many people do you hear about not being able to relate with Lara Croft because she's a woman? Who's the core demographic for those games? Who has kept the series afloat for, like, 25 years now by continuing to purchase Lara Croft games? Not European women who look like Lara Croft, I can tell you that much.

Laura Croft came from the before times long long ago so her gender is kind of grandfathered in so Tomb Raider tends to be above any kind of gendered backlash, although people did complain her tits weren't as big in the reboot. A better example is Senuo from Hellblade. I can still find threads on steam with people asking or demanding to have a male main character option. There is also a thread with someone wanting a male option for Horizon Zero Dawn, although pretty much all the responses are making fun of him.

Then this all makes sense now.

Let me make an illustration. Suppose there's a man who operates a shooting range. He wants to order some realistic, human-looking cutouts of targets for people to shoot, so he looks online and orders a bunch. The next week, someone comes up to him and says "I notice that all your cutouts are of Hispanics. Are you some kind of racist?" The range-owner replies "That was the only choice they had, all the rest were sold out!"

Of course, the person's concern was entirely reasonable, as is yours.

You only see people complaining about LGBT representation. The person only sees people shooting at cutouts of Hispanics.
But, like you yourself said, there are no good examples of LGBT representation in games. So it's not necessarily true that gamers who complain are bigots, there's just nothing worthy of praise, so it seems like lopsided condemnation to you.

It's not a case of political disagreement, it's just that all of the examples of LGBT representation suck.

Complaining about all the bad examples (which make up 100% of examples) looks like bigotry, just like how shooting cutouts of Hispanics (because there is nothing else to shoot at in this hypothetical range) makes it look like racism.

I messed that up, what I meant was there haven't been any good examples of lgbt main characters, like the player character where you don't have the choice of their sexuality. You tend to only have the ability for the main character to be gay in games where you can choose, like Saint's Row 3, which had pretty good representation since you could fuck any member of the crew regardless of gender, except Keith David who is too beautiful for this world and would not give in to his baser desires for either gender.

 

[Houseman]

The Revenant is a based on a true story movie and if you remember it for anything it would be Leonardo Di Caprio having a scene where he gets mauled by a bear. So its a movie based on a real dude and they gave him a family, partially so he could get revenge for them killing his son. In reality Hugh Glass never had a son and his epic trek after the guys who left him for dead after the bear attack was really just to get back his gun they took and no one died at the end. Obviously they gave Hugh Glass a family because single men are seen as weird and they thought that just having him chase someone a thousand miles to get his gun back wouldn't resonate with audiances the same way that getting revenge for his sons murder would.

Neat. That sounds like the inclusion is based on narrative reasons, which disqualifies it from the criteria of being shoehorned in.

No, I'm saying that you have a double standard because you are getting up in arms about an insignificant background character that doesn't do anything if they happen to be gay and not straight.

Because only one of those insignificant background characters were included to score political points. That's the difference. These two situations aren't the same in principle, and thus, it's not a double standard.

you just accept it and move on because someones skin color hasn't really been relevant for characters in movies for awhile.

I accept it and move on because the movies don't call attention to it. Will Smith doesn't go "Hi, my name is Agent J. I'm black. Pleased to meet you". The movie doesn't see it as relevant, and thus, doesn't draw attention to it, so there's nothing to notice. The only time it is mentioned is when it's relevant to the plot in the third movie. That's how you do it right. He's a character. Not a "black character".

His skin color has no bearing on his background in Men in Black.

Exactly. That's my point. It's not important, so the movie doesn't bring attention to it. This is how it should be done. If there's no reason to bring it up, don't bring it up

I can still find threads on steam with people asking or demanding to have a male main character option

And I can google up people who think that Bigfoot exists, or that the earth is flat. We should have some standard for what constitutes an "outrage", lest we fall into the trap of cherry-picking one or two examples and then claiming that "gamers" as a whole, have a problem, a la Vice's "journalism".

Can we say that if we can't find a dozen (12) people complaining about a thing, then it isn't worth mentioning? Does that sound reasonable?

I messed that up, what I meant was there haven't been any good examples of lgbt main characters

Are there, then, good examples of lgbt background characters? If not, then the point should still stand, where it's not that people are complaining because they're bigots, people are complaining because the characters are worthy of being complained about, since they're only included to score political brownie points.

 

[Worgen]

Neat. That sounds like the inclusion is based on narrative reasons, which disqualifies it from the criteria of being shoehorned in.

See, double standard right there.

I accept it and move on because the movies don't call attention to it. Will Smith doesn't go "Hi, my name is Agent J. I'm black. Pleased to meet you". The movie doesn't see it as relevant, and thus, doesn't draw attention to it, so there's nothing to notice. The only time it is mentioned is when it's relevant to the plot in the third movie. That's how you do it right.

Exactly. That's my point. It's not important, so the movie doesn't bring attention to it. This is how it should be done. If there's no reason to bring it up, don't bring it up

No, that's my point, you are able to just see Agent J as just Agent J since seeing black people in movies has been normalized to you. You call out gay characters because they are still seen as abnormal as movie leads.

And I can google up people who think that Bigfoot exists, or that the earth is flat. We should have some standard for what constitutes an "outrage", lest we fall into the trap of cherry-picking one or two examples and then claiming that "gamers" as a whole, have a problem, a la Vice's "journalism".

My point was just that there are people that do think like this and do care enough to make idiots of themselves to try get things the way they want and are comfortable with.

Are there, then, good examples of lgbt background characters? If not, then the point should still stand, where it's not that people are complaining because they're bigots, people are complaining because the characters are worthy of being complained about.

Yeah, there are a good number of examples of good background or secondary characters. You have characters like Kanji in persona 4, pretty much everyone in Saint's Row, Alphys and Undyne in Undertale (actually totally forgot that you play a nonbinary character in Undertale, Frisk is never gendered in the dialog and is androgynous enough to be any gender the player wants), Good portions of the cast in the Mass Effect games, and a bunch of characters in Borderlands.

 

[Houseman]

See, double standard right there.

How? It's based on the principle: "is it included for narrative reasons?" If yes, then it's not shoehorned. If no, then it's shoehorned.

In order for something to be considered a double standard, it would have to be treated differently even though it's the same, in principle. If it meets the same criteria but is treated differently, then you can call it a double standard.

you are able to just see Agent J as just Agent J since seeing black people in movies has been normalized to you.

No, it's because his blackness isn't brought up.

Contrast that to the Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, where his blackness is brought up in order to address a plot point about what it means to "be black".

You mentioned frisk/Chara/Kris. Nobody complained about their ambiguous gender or sexuality because it's never brought up.

People did, however, complain about the trans character in Mass Effect: Andromeda who basically introduces herself by telling you that she's trans. It served no purpose, you never see her again, and the creators patched that line of dialogue because even they were ashamed of it.

There's a pattern here, and it's consistent, which seems to contradict the notion that there's a double standard at play.

You have characters like Kanji in persona 4,

I never played that, but isn't his homosexuality a plot point? Like, he has to struggle with the personification of his inner self and his own view of homosexuality? Yes, that is a good example of a good character that nobody complains about because it's done well. Can you find 12 people complaining about Kanji being shoehorned in?

Or about any of the other good examples you mentioned?

If not, then what evidence do you have of a double standard?

 

[Worgen]

How? It's based on the principle: "is it included for narrative reasons?" If yes, then it's not shoehorned. If no, then it's shoehorned.

In order for something to be considered a double standard, it would have to be treated differently even though it's the same, in principle. If it meets the same criteria but is treated differently, then you can call it a double standard.

No, because they could have given him a boyfriend instead of a son for the exact narrative reasons and it would have been about as historically accurate and you would think it was shoe-horned in.

No, it's because his blackness isn't brought up.

That's my point though, that because its not brought up the roll could have gone to pretty much anyone. But since you are used to seeing black actors in rolls you didn't notice it.

You mentioned frisk/Chara/Kris. Nobody complained about their ambiguous gender or sexuality because it's never brought up.

I wasn't bringing that up as a point, I just forgot about it and thought it was neat.

People did, however, complain about the trans character in Mass Effect: Andromeda who basically introduces herself by telling you that she's trans. It served no purpose, you never see her again, and the creators patched that line of dialogue because even they were ashamed of it.

Then that would be an example of doing it badly.

I never played that, but isn't his homosexuality a plot point? Like, he has to struggle with the personification of his inner self and his own view of homosexuality? Yes, that is a good example of a good character that nobody complains about because it's done well. Can you find 12 people complaining about Kanji being shoehorned in?

I can find a weirdly large number of people trying to argue that hes not really gay. But I was mainly using this as a point of showing good gay secondary characters.

The really easy go to is the whole Tracer thing.

 

[Houseman]

No, because they could have given him a boyfriend instead of a son for the exact narrative reasons and it would have been about as historically accurate and you would think it was shoe-horned in.

You're claiming to know how I (or the stand-in for my "side" of the debate) would react to a hypothetical scenario? That's a pretty serious claim. Based on what evidence?
I don't think you've been able to show a single example of people thinking that a well-done (which means included for narrative reasons) LGBT character is considered to be shoe-horned in.

If you can find an example, then you'll have some evidence to base your claim on.

That's my point though, that because its not brought up the roll could have gone to pretty much anyone. But since you are used to seeing black actors in rolls you didn't notice it.

Again, you're telling me why I do or don't think certain things. Let's be real, you can't read minds. You need some solid evidence of a pattern to be able to make the claim that you know what's going on inside of people's heads.

The really easy go to is the whole Tracer thing.

And to that, I say it's shoehorned in. I'd go further and say that all the lore is shoehorned in because none of it exists inside the game, or has any impact on it, and was made up after the game came out.

But let's assume it meets our criteria of having over a dozen people complain about it.
Let's assume that there are a disproportionate amount of complaints about the shoehorning of Tracer's sexuality, compared to the rest of the lore.

You claim that the reason for this is that they disagree with it on a political level. They want to uphold the status quo.

I found this topic on the subject, from someone who is bisexual, saying "it feels so forced", making all the same points about bad writing that I made. Here's another one
. Here's a third. I can find more if you want. Really, I can keep going...

So do these users have double standards too? Are their concerns and complaints legitimate, or just a guise to hide their homophobic beliefs?