Silentpony said:
And at that point, I simply lose interest. And my larger point is basically if the inclusive character doesn't add anything to story, character or gameplay, then they're pointless. They don't take away, sure. But they don't add anything, and there's no real reason to have them. And I don't get the controversy of not having them. Likewise though, I don't get the controversy of having them.
Take Kren for example. Dragon Age would have been the exact same game if Kren wasn't in it. He added nothing. However, Inquisition would have been the exact same game if every area have a dozen Krens in different corners, being Kren. Because he adds nothing.
In most games with open(ish) worlds and extensive(ish) casts, you'll encounter countless characters who could be described as largely "one-note"; huge numbers of characters will mention only one passing thing about their profession, or location, or what-have-you to the protagonist. That's somewhat inevitable, with worlds populated to add flavour, but without endless dialogue.
I object, then, when it only becomes a point of criticism when they happen to bring up attraction or gender identity, or something else that can loosely be connected to liberalism or other political bug-bears of the current gaming community. It's no more "one-note" than the guy who refers solely to his shield, or to his profession as a smith, yet it's somehow more objectionable.
It may not add a huge amount, but it's
not meant to; flavour-text is rarely meant to add anything but a little flavour. That's its purpose.
I'm definitely in favour of better written characters that actually make the effort to go into these topics in greater depth. That is
more important. But this is not an
either/or situation, and the former does not replace the latter. Just like we can have quests that focus intensely on somebody's professional smith-work, and we can also have somebody for whom smith-work is just the basis for a little bit of flavour-text.
---
...And, that all aside, representation-- even very simple verbal or visual representation-- can be quite affirming when you've hardly ever had it before.
Vendor-Lazarus said:
I live near a capital city in one of the most progressive countries, yet I've never known or even seen a transperson in the flesh and only a handful of gay people.
You will have seen more than you think. You can only be counting those you
know to be trans, or you
know to be gay-- but how often is it going to be recognisable in passing in a stranger? You will have passed a fairly significant number of people from both groups in the street, and simply never known it, because why would you?
Particularly since same-sex couples very often do not feel secure enough to show affection in public, even holding hands.
