Wrex Brogan said:
Its not that I'm not interested. I find interesting characters to be interesting. But when they're one-note, when their entire character can be summed up in a single word, then they're simply not interesting.
To take from the ZP of the Evil Within, I'm picturing an Executive and a writer in a room. The Exec says
"I think we should have a gay NPC"
And the writer comes back with
"What type of character are you thinking?"
"I just told you, gay"
"No I mean what's their motivation, what's their character arc, how do the effect the player character, the story?"
"I just told you, gay, gay, gay and gay! Jeez, why are you so hard to work with?!"
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.
Imagine if instead of personal identities, it was food preference. An Assassin's Creed trailer comes out and everyone is up in arms that none of the character like Mac & Cheese, and they demand for Mac & Cheese representation.
And so all the companies strive to out do each other. EA has a character that likes Mac & Cheese. Ubisoft one-ups them with two characters! And then Blizzard breaks the world with a playable character who likes Mac & Cheese!
And the whole time its just Shadow of War, Assassin's Creed, and a new Overwatch character. The Mac never comes into play, the cheese is never mentioned, and functionally nothing has changed. Nothing was lost, sure. But nothing changed.
That's how I view it.