Lack of Gay Character Options in RPGs "A Shame," Says BioWare Producer

[Ratty]

It's all very interesting.

Personally, I disagree, at least with this. (I don't mean for that to come off as rude or confrontational, imagine I put a sincere winkie face here or something)

No problemo.

I typically don't care how the media or critics decide to label gamers, they're rarely helpful during discussions that don't also include charts, graphs, and a need to label the data something, though "consumer" is probably a viable alternative anyway.

It's a nice example of consumerism and the interaction between people's identities, what they buy and who's selling it to them I think. But that's just me.

There's just too many significant divisions of gamer that trying to accurately refer to them all under one label seems pointless.

That's one of the interesting things about it I'd say. And I agree that it's basically a useless term now because it's been applied too broadly. Most hobbies seem to have several different names for enthusiasts ("book worm" "bibliophile" / "movie buff" "film geek/nerd/nut/etc.") it's kind of strange that game playing has been stuck with just the one for so long.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or maybe we should stop using the term "gamer" at all? At least, not in any way more descriptive than saying "moviegoer" or "book-reader". Considering Kamui somehow used it to describe a vocal minority of the forum-going/video game reviewing community I'd at least say that was statistically incorrect.

That'll work. It's why "retarded" isn't considered an offensive and derogatory term like "idiot" and "moron" were.

in retrospect the fact the first 2 Bioware games didn't allow you to be gay is actually pretty baffling..in a bad way

Bioware had intended for the option. It was removed.

For some reason, the "let the artists create the game they want" argument was nowhere to be found. It's weird. I know gamers aren't a hivemind, but you'd think if the creative freedom argument was at least remotely sincere, this would have been another big sticking point for at least a few of the same people.

Unless, of course, the argument isn't sincere...nah.

 

[Something Amyss]

How about we all pretend that he's actually a producer for Obsidian or CD Projekt RED, that might clear up some of the negativity in this thread.

But probably not, since the subcurrent seems to be more about not wanting gays in games (for "totally legit and not bigoted reasons" of course)

 

[clippen05]

My question is: When will games stop forcing us to choose within the gender binary. I want to play a Turtlekin Shepard in Mass Effect 4; I don't care if he can be gay or not.

 

[UberPubert]

That'll work. It's why "retarded" isn't considered an offensive and derogatory term like "idiot" and "moron" were.

What an odd dose of sarcasm born out of misunderstanding...

You're assuming I suggest we retire the term due to feelings getting hurt, which isn't my intention. I just think it's not a very descriptive term, and constructive discussions about the topic should evolve to use more specific ones. For all I care we could call fighting game enthusiasts Button Mashers or RTS players Korean Keyboard Jockeys, it makes little difference to me so long as the idea gets across that we're not conflating the two.

 

[Ratty]

My question is: When will games stop forcing us to choose within the gender binary. I want to play a Turtlekin Shepard in Mass Effect 4; I don't care if he can be gay or not.

I know you're being sarcastic, but the gender binary is total bullshit in general. All of the "scientific evidence" for a strict gender binary is based on ignoring or claiming as flawed the thousands of people who don't fall neatly into the x and y chromosome divisions they teach in school. The thousands of men with breasts and women with facial hair, supposedly "male" and "female" secondary sexual characteristics. And that's not even getting into those who would normally be designated transgender persons.

However breaking from the gender binary would be legitimately harder in games than having gay/lesbian characters. It is worth doing. Saint's Row has already done it with all the player character options they've allowed.

I don't want them in there because they often feel really forced as if they're trying to prove a point (which they are). The romantic relationships in a lot of games are really awkward and unnatural and adding same sex relationships just takes that awkwardness to a whole new level since people don't seem to know how to write them properly. I also think its completely pointless to say a particular character is gay and have it add ZERO value to the progression of the story.

Why? Is it completely pointless to have a character who is black without it adding value to the story? Seriously replace "gay" with any other minority in the sentence you just said. As if it's pointless to have representation of non-straight white characters in a story without them justifying their existence in the plot somehow. How about having them in there because people other than straight whites exist. Or because only having straight whites is not only boring but also unlikely in sci-fi settings and unecessary in fantasy settings.

 

[Nieroshai]

While I myself welcome all types of storytelling and my own sexuality would make me a hypocrite if I objected to LGBT characters, this is my stance: if the population is 3+ percent gay/bisexual, isn't insisting that a majority of games accommodate LGBT characters officially pandering? Nearly all games that let you build your character seem to have the option to be whatever you damn well please, and all other games are typically about specific characters. Characters who have their own orientation, one which is usually 99.9% ambiguous. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. And I don't feel under-represented. And I don't feel the need to be represented when it means stomping on a written character.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Lack of gay characters sucks, but the lack of anyone actually being able to write relationships in games is the reason why we don't have them. Not discrimination.

And yet, people clearly still write relationships in games. Does that mean they're prejudiced against straight people?

The problem comes when you make the character's defining trait as gay. I find that the character is just there to make a social commentary and nothings else. I know that this has been mentioned before but look no further than Fallout New Vegas. Veronica was a lesbian and she only mentioned it once or twice and that was it. It wasn't her defining trait it was just a extra tidbit of information to make the character feel more real.

I thought of New Vegas, myself, but my mind turned to the player character instead, since you can play a gay character with either the Confirmed Bachelor or Cherchez Les Femmes perks.

As a gay man, i don't want to play as a gay character if he is poorly written and just there for the sake of it being there to appease the more vocal minority. If you're truly passionate about making a gay character and him having great development and growth and other things that a character needs to be compelling, not just a gender identity then you should write one and for no other reason one should be written.

To be honest, I conditionally disagree. Sure, it's bad when a gay character is written defined solely by their sexuality, and worse when their written "sexuality" is essentially comprised of harmful stereotypes, but if gay characters become more prevalent, and more subject to the terrible writing, horrid cliches and shoehorned-in romance of common love stories...good. That's the normal state of things, and homosexual relationships being perceived as "not normal" (read: "icky") is the center of the problem. Having only well-written gay characters sounds pretty utopian in the first place, and requiring well-written characters to change the status quo is a bit "perfect solution fallacy."

Really, if I'm reading this particular vocal minority right, I'm hoping they win. The positive part of the message seems to be "stop acting like it's hard, and just write them in already! They're normal people!"

hmmm... why is pandering considered negative amongst the gaming community?

Three reasons, I would guess:

1) Gaming is still widely seen as an immature medium, leading gamers to be hypersensitive about anything that could be used to reinforce that stereotype.

2) Gamers are quite often cynical, and that paranoia a lot of the time leads them to mentally replace "pandering" with "manipulating," and react badly.

2) Gamers don't like something pandering to anyone but themselves.

Take your pick.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

hmmm... why is pandering considered negative amongst the gaming community?

The word itself has a negative twist on it. To pander is to indulge or gratify something that shouldn't be indulged or gratified. Google: gratify or indulge (an immoral or distasteful desire, need, or habit or a person with such a desire, etc.). I guess the real question is why some things are called pandering and other things aren't, or if people are using the word as defined.

 

[UberPubert]

Gamer isn't really a broken term, it just needs to be more specific.

Does it? I already made note of the term "moviegoer", I'm not actually certain what people who read books are called...simply "readers" I suppose? These terms are used pretty generally and without qualifiers, so I consider myself to be both of these through regular consumption, though gaming is absolutely my main hobby.

If we are to use gamer as a specific term, what do we use to call people who treat it as a secondary or tertiary pastime? I've heard the term "casual" thrown around a bit but it's never really stuck, and when I hear numbers quoted on sales and average user playtime these casual gamers actually end up as the majority. Is using a separate qualifying term for the people who actually dominate the user base justified or even helpful when trying to discuss their habits? What about those who would claim your or I are casual by spending more time and money on games? Do we label them as hardcore gamers?

 

[PBMcNair]

I am opposed to them because they were just so damn poor and ham-fisted in DA2.

That's my problem too. It's like they looked at feedback from DA:O and said people were complaining about the lack and/or presence of homosexual characters, and decided that the best answer was to make everybody bisexual. It felt really lazy.

 

[UberPubert]

Well we have terms like "film buff" for people that preoccupy their time with movies and "scholar" for people that like to read more than the average person. I'm not sure what we could use for someone whose main hobby is playing video games, plus gamer just rolls of the tongue better than most other replacements.

Like I was trying to explain to ratty earlier, I don't really care for the term "gamer" or whatever replaces it, since whichever way it's sliced I don't believe the larger "people who play videogames" demographic can be reduced to an easily identifiable one. I wouldn't even call film buffs or scholars easy to define, since they're pretty widespread and have conflicting schools of thought all the time even between simple "entertaining vs. academic" criticism or preference towards their respective works.

On the other hand, "gorehounds" can accurately depict the kind of moviewatcher who might enjoy an Eli Roth flick, "repressed middle aged mom" describes someone who unironically enjoys Twilight and fifty shades of grey.