Should Diversity be addressed within the narrative or should it be a non-issue?

[DC_78]

SNIPP

Was not my intention to offend. Yes discrimination exists, but not for the reasons you want to site with representation in media.

Now is it right LGBTQ is demonized? No. I fight against that type of stuff in real life. But again you brush off the market demographics like "meh I don't care." Well a lot of folks do and a lot of jobs ride on them. Just like a lot of folks are still bigots and think LGBTQ should be not allowed to marry. So a publisher of any product has to balance that as well, whenever they introduce a LGBTQ character. Will it turn off all the Mom and Pop middle Americans from buying their little Suzies this game or take Timmy to see this movie if we feature a LGBTQ main character? How big is that market? 36%? Sucks, but you cannot wish people's bigotry away, and market forces are impersonal and all powerful. Do you want this type of tokenism if it leads to the companies that do it selling less copies? Because if so then you want something magical.

In my opinion it is pandering and tokenism to write in sub-plots for any character that does not need them to represent another PoV. I read your examples above.

The "conventionally attractive lesbian and the butch lesbian." That is great. More power to them, if the story calls for a romance plot then have the options if the budget allows it. If not I would cut the minor stuff that does not effect the plot out. Boo's relationship misadventure in a bar, for instance, gets cut for advancing the main plot of the heterosexual couple. It is the way of the business world and that offends you?

Would you be turned off if they introduced a conservative christian into OITNB to diversify the show and be inclusive? And no, not a caricature villain or bully. A nice sweet religious bible thumper that is inoffensive, but preaches to the LGBTQ characters every once in a while? What if they wanted to promote this character because she tested well and started focusing sub-plots on her at the same time cutting Boo's for budget reasons? Would that offend you? Despite the show now reaching a wider audience?

So the more representation that is pandering to one group turns off another. That causes even more controversy. More headaches for PR. And that is if the character is received well by the group it "represents." I see how this is horrible and I can wish it was not the way of the world. LGBTQ deserve to be represented. Yet if the story does not call for an in depth review of the character's sexuality, just like if a story does not need to go into detail on a character's religion, who cares? Put that stuff on a bio page somewhere and walk on. Because you have been represented.

 

[Areloch]

I have to wonder.

If you were to go about your normal day, doing the things as you do - getting ready for work, hit the grocery store, maybe see a movie after dinner and so on - but every day, you have a random person come up to you and soliloquise about how they are gay. Would that serve any purpose for function to your day other than confirming that "Yes, gay people exist"?

Because that is what this sort of requirement-of-mention feels like it would be to me. We know gay people exist, trans people, and everyone else. We don't need a daily reminder for that to continue to be true. I don't see how games should be different.

As others have said, if interpersonal drama is a main part of the story, and some of your characters' genders, sexual orientation and so on would be relevant to the issue, then I see no problem at all with the characters bringing it up.

But if you're playing a high action game like Call of Duty, where there's very little downtime, and characters exist purely to push you through the action, having one character stop to talk about how they like men would almost always be irrelevant and serving only to check off a 'diversity' box on a form somewhere.

 

[Vault101]

Now is it right LGBTQ is demonized? No. I fight against that type of stuff in real life. But again you brush off the market demographics like "meh I don't care." Well a lot of folks do and a lot of jobs ride on them. Just like a lot of folks are still bigots and think LGBTQ should be not allowed to marry. So a publisher of any product has to balance that as well, whenever they introduce a LGBTQ character. Will it turn off all the Mom and Pop middle Americans from buying their little Suzies this game or take Timmy to see this movie if we feature a LGBTQ main character? How big is that market? 36%? Sucks, but you cannot wish people's bigotry away, and market forces are impersonal and all powerful. Do you want this type of tokenism if it leads to the companies that do it selling less copies? Because if so then you want something magical.

yes they are a thing, yes its something we have to (to some extent) accept, like for example shows avoiding that kind of thing to due syndication is less than progressive countries

but the problem is it feels like a disingenuous argument

[I/]artistic is EVERYTHING! oh but except when markets and capitalism is concerned![/I] its like you people can't make up your damn minds

back to what I said before...if Lara and Sam and confirmed as for realises gay in the next tomb raider being of gay being "trendy and in" does that make it ok?

[quote/]In my opinion it is pandering and tokenism to write in sub-plots for any character that does not need them to represent another PoV. I read your examples above.[/quote]
that's....fairly arbitrary

[quote/]The "conventionally attractive lesbian and the butch lesbian." That is great. More power to them, if the story calls for a romance plot then have the options if the budget allows it. If not I would cut the minor stuff that does not effect the plot out. Boo's relationship misadventure in a bar, for instance, gets cut for advancing the main plot of the heterosexual couple. It is the way of the business world and that offends you? [/quote]
that depnds on what kind of show your talking about (in this case the hetero romance actually isn't the main one...or its not the most interesting)

OITNB is ensemble show, it has a large cast of characters who all get their "part" so youre example doesn't really apply, and again unessicary subplots isn't pander...in fact there's really nothing wrong with subplots

[quote/]Would you be turned off if they introduced a conservative christian into OITNB to diversify the show and be inclusive? And no, not a caricature villain or bully.[/quote]
oh....well dogget was hilarious and fun to watch...

[quote/]A nice sweet religious bible thumper that is inoffensive, but preaches to the LGBTQ characters every once in a while? What if they wanted to promote this character because she tested well and started focusing sub-plots on her at the same time cutting Boo's for budget reasons? Would that offend you? Despite the show now reaching a wider audience?[/quote]
1. no of coarse it fucking wouldn't

2. this show wouldn't do such a thing because its creators have a VERY clear idea about what it is

3. youre thinking about this in too simplistic terms. Its al about framing.... OITNB has characters that are nuanced, the prison councillor Healy is mysoganistic and actually believes "lesbians are going to take over the world" he feels the world has emasculated him...yet he's also kinda sympathetic,

[quote/]So the more representation that is pandering to one group turns off another.[/quote]
this is why it really depends on the thing in question....that's hwy when a soap opera here tried a gay romance It faild because the only people who would take notice of a soap opera are mums

[quote/] Yet if the story does not call for an in depth review of the character's sexuality, just like if a story does not need to go into detail on a character's religion, who cares? Put that stuff on a bio page somewhere and walk on. Because you have been represented.[/quote]
that's not representation though, or at least its footnote stuff...which is fine, but there's no reason we LWAYS have to fall back on subtext

 

[Vault101]

Ok, that's kinda what i thought. But i mean, how different are all the copypasta straight white protagonists from that definition? Apart from the lack of obligation i mean.
.

because theres lots of them...I mean the "straight man" (figuratively speaking) is a thing in of itself, the straight man amongst wackier characters...but even then a lot of them are male (and white) (see the movie dodgeball)

it would be like the norm would be a cast of mostly crazy woman and the token "straight guy" except the variation where they aren't the main protagonist but the "wet blanket" (at worse) like Gamorah from Gaurdians of the Galaxy, I haven't seen the film but I get the impression she's "serious" while starlord and the like are..less so

women not being allowed to be funny or flawed in another thing

 

[Adam Lester]

If video games are an art form, then we need to allow the creators of said work do as they please. If it doesn't rub you the right way, don't buy it.

Well, I say if it's such an issue, those that feel so strongly about it should take care of the problems themselves instead of stamping their feet and waiting for the mean ol' patriarchal cisgender males to take care of the problem for them.

Take cinema, for example. John Waters and Derek Jarman didn't wait for Hollywood to cater to them, they just went for it.

 

[Adam Lester]

If video games are an art form, then we need to allow the creators of said work do as they please. If it doesn't rub you the right way, don't buy it.

Well, I say if it's such an issue, those that feel so strongly about it should take care of the problems themselves instead of stamping their feet and waiting for the mean ol' patriarchal cisgender males to take care of the problem for them.

Take cinema, for example. John Waters and Derek Jarman didn't wait for Hollywood to cater to them, they just went for it.

 

[Adam Lester]

Sorry about the double-post, by the by.

 

[Vault101]

She is, gamorah i mean, although she has some decent motivation and backstory to flesh her out a bit. I think what's going on there is people are trying to make up for the abhorrent portrayal of women in movies in the black-and-white days, so everyone defaults the the polar opposite of the hysterical hapless woman cliche, and that's where we get the super-serious, independent, emotionally distant woman cliche. Be nice if we could break out of this cliche-driven artistic rut we're in as a nation, but for that to happen, we'd need to take artistic risks, and that means financial risk, and nobody wants to do that

yeah, I mean I'm not criticising Gomorrah completely (Rita from Edge of Tomorrow is quite similar) but women often get put in those roles...which can somtimes lead to "skylar white" syndrome

It may very well be a "waryness" of portraying women, it can also be pure numbers. You have one woman she has to carry everything, I do feel there is this tendency to make them "brilliant" or hypercompetant (ala Elizabeth from Bioshock Infinite) and I'm all for competent women...there just needs to be room for flaws, there needs to be women who can be competant but also funny or unattractive or just a little messed up, and there is only a small niche for that, like Mellisa Mcarthy or too a lesser extent Rebel Wilson (who's very existence is a mystery to me)

 

[DC_78]

yes they are a thing, yes its something we have to (to some extent) accept, like for example shows avoiding that kind of thing to due syndication is less than progressive countries

but the problem is it feels like a disingenuous argument

[I/]artistic is EVERYTHING! oh but except when markets and capitalism is concerned![/I] its like you people can't make up your damn minds

back to what I said before...if Lara and Sam and confirmed as for realises gay in the next tomb raider being of gay being "trendy and in" does that make it ok?

You are equating my personal views in art with the market's or with Gamergate. I have no problem with ANY artist taking a risk and making what they want. I encourage it. I dislike however outside pressure forcing change for a minority to be token represented over an artistic vision. I dislike the appearance of pandering, like you describe in the next Tomb Raider, but I understand wanting to do it if it came from within the writer's own vision. I am also a realist in the fact that the market for any consumer art, like blockbuster movies and AAA games, has to be considered. Indies not so much. They can do whatever they like, and if it hits big in the mainstream? Great!

that's....fairly arbitrary

How so? If they have just thrown in a new character that exists to be this cultural representation why should they get a sub-plot? Maybe a backstory. Sure. But an entire minor story arch? Nope. Just my personal tastes.

that depnds on what kind of show your talking about (in this case the hetero romance actually isn't the main one...or its not the most interesting)

OITNB is ensemble show, it has a large cast of characters who all get their "part" so youre example doesn't really apply, and again unessicary subplots isn't pander...in fact there's really nothing wrong with subplots

1. no of coarse it fucking wouldn't

2. this show wouldn't do such a thing because its creators have a VERY clear idea about what it is

3. youre thinking about this in too simplistic terms. Its al about framing.... OITNB has characters that are nuanced, the prison councillor Healy is mysoganistic and actually believes "lesbians are going to take over the world" he feels the world has emasculated him...yet he's also kinda sympathetic,

I will assume OITNB is Orange is the New Black? I do not watch it myself, sorry, so my examples will be generalised.

this is why it really depends on the thing in question....that's why when a soap opera here tried a gay romance It failed because the only people who would take notice of a soap opera are mums

Good for that soap opera, but again the market spoke. Now should we try and make them do it again in a few years? Should we be offended? Should we try and get them to reverse the change?

that's not representation though, or at least its footnote stuff...which is fine, but there's no reason we ALWAYS have to fall back on subtext

that depends on what kind of show you're talking about

I'll just leave that quote from you here.

If Sally the Space Marine is the star of StarTrooper Wars: Aliens 15 and she is written as a lesbian character from the get go, and she goes through the entire movie killing aliens and watching her crew mates die. How do we imply she is a lesbian? A flashback to her dating someone? Want to give her a three minute sex scene in the engine room with Becky the engineer before an alien kills Becky? No that is kinda sexist ala Tropes vs. Women and all. How about a passionate kiss before she hits the escape pod and sends Becky away. There sure.

Or you know you could just have her look at a picture on her night stand with her kissing a woman for ten seconds. Simple, easy, and does not scream "Look a Lesbian!" Subtlety in writing is an art that few writers seem to posses and even fewer critics seem to look for. A character's sexuality is not there defining component in most stories to be worn on their sleeve and all too often the media likes to try and make it so.

 

[Vault101]

You are equating my personal views in art with the market's or with Gamergate. I have no problem with ANY artist taking a risk and making what they want. I encourage it. I dislike however outside pressure forcing change for a minority to be token represented over an artistic vision. I dislike the appearance of pandering

and how is it any worse or [b/]more of a problem[/b] then having to pander to *perceived* market ideas? again its the same bloody thing, people have created a bogeyman when they can't see the real one...or worse act like its somehow OK

[quote/]like you describe in the next Tomb Raider, but I understand wanting to do it if it came from within the writer's own vision. I am also a realist in the fact that the market for any consumer art, like blockbuster movies and AAA games, has to be considered.[/quote]
and yet people seem so eager to say "nuh huh! you can't have s thing! the market says so" now again I know its a thing, but its not actually infallible

[quote/]to be this cultural representation why should they get a sub-plot? Maybe a backstory. Sure. But an entire minor story arch? Nope. Just my personal tastes.[/quote]
why the fuck not? subplots are good...in fact if they DON'T get anything beyond "heres an other" then that's tokenism


[quote/]Good for that soap opera, but again the market spoke. Now should we try and make them do it again in a few years? Should we be offended? Should we try and get them to reverse the change?[/quote]
did it though? cause I don't know about anyone else but this was one of the few times I (and a considerable number of girls in the boarding school I lived at at the time) sat down to watch that shit, now at the time it was probably for thr wrong reasons...but we watched

and if its driven by homophobia that doesn't make it ok....home and away (the sitcom in question) lives in its own sanitised version of reality, a gay couple would not actually be a big deal

[quote/]

If Sally the Space Marine is the star of StarTrooper Wars: Aliens 15 and she is written as a lesbian character from the get go, and she goes through the entire movie killing aliens and watching her crew mates die. How do we imply she is a lesbian? A flashback to her dating someone? Want to give her a three minute sex scene in the engine room with Becky the engineer before an alien kills Becky? No that is kinda sexist ala Tropes vs. Women and all. How about a passionate kiss before she hits the escape pod and sends Becky away. There sure.

Or you know you could just have her look at a picture on her night stand with her kissing a woman for ten seconds. Simple, easy, and does not scream "Look a Lesbian!" Subtlety in writing is an art that few writers seem to posses and even fewer critics seem to look for. A character's sexuality is not there defining component in most stories to be worn on their sleeve and all too often the media likes to try and make it so.[/quote]
so all those hetero sex scenes in mvoies...the ones that aren't essential....they're ok...but as for the gays we can't have that?

you know what? I like sex, a little but of sex in my fiction can be nice, even if it isn't completely nessicary, I don't want to mills and boons that shit but a little sex is nice

so to answer you're question

[b/]it depends?[/b] maybe its true but we never actually see it, maybe its all down to subtext, maybe we get a kiss, maybe we get some full on zero-g lesbian sex (I mean commander shepard can get it on with a space alien can't he?)

so [b/]it just depends,[/b] really on the whim of the writers, maybe they have legit reasons for keeping it down to subtext and that's fine..I mean Xena was from the 90's

what offended me was the arrogance in which you seemed to dictate weather or not discriminations still existed, what is or isn't pandering and I'm getting vibes of it in regards to what is/isn't acceptable

 

[DC_78]

Quoting multiple sub quotes turned this into a FUBAR post. Please forgive the formatting.

so all those hetero sex scenes in mvoies...the ones that aren't essential....they're ok...but as for the gays we can't have that?

you know what? I like sex, a little but of sex in my fiction can be nice, even if it isn't completely nessicary, I don't want to mills and boons that shit but a little sex is nice

so to answer you're question

[b/]it depends?[/b] maybe its true but we never actually see it, maybe its all down to subtext, maybe we get a kiss, maybe we get some full on zero-g lesbian sex (I mean commander shepard can get it on with a space alien can't he?)

so [b/]it just depends,[/b] really on the whim of the writers, maybe they have legit reasons for keeping it down to subtext and that's fine..I mean Xena was from the 90's

what offended me was the arrogance in which you seemed to dictate weather or not discriminations still existed, what is or isn't pandering and I'm getting vibes of it in regards to what is/isn't acceptable

Now do not put words into my mouth, okay?

Again I am not dictating anything. My opinions are based on my personal experience living in the Midwest. In fact near my neighborhood, I could take you bar hopping in St. Louis. We have a lovely area called the Grove that caters to LGBTQ and inclusive bars and restaurants. Wonderful neighborhood, wonderful people.

Now back on topic. I fail to see how pandering to the market is a bad thing? That is how you sell something in large numbers. That is how the artist eats. That is how a sequel gets made that can take more risks. Pandering to a minority might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but does not even guarantee that the artist will at the least break even.

I think you are equating infallible with fair in the market. A passion project can break out and make back gang busters on an investment. But it is not a safe or even wise investment. The market wants a safe investment with a guaranteed return. That is why passion projects are so rare in any consumer driven media.

Please quote the entire sentence next time if you wish to rebut an argument. If they are meant to BE tokenism then why should they get a sub-plot? Again my views on pandering for pandering sake are already established. I dislike it. That does not mean I want it done away with. I just find it jarring and clumsy.

did it though? cause I don't know about anyone else but this was one of the few times I (and a considerable number of girls in the boarding school I lived at at the time) sat down to watch that shit, now at the time it was probably for thr wrong reasons...but we watched

and if its driven by homophobia that doesn't make it ok....home and away (the sitcom in question) lives in its own sanitised version of reality, a gay couple would not actually be a big deal

So maybe they were trying to branch into a new audience. Did you respond? Did you write a letter or send an email to let the producers or network know that the gay relationship interested you? Did you put forth the effort to influence the market?

No homophobia is never okay. Maybe the main audience of Home & Away just were not interested or could not connect to the story as presented? It would make for an interesting case study perhaps?

 

[Vault101]

Now do not put words into my mouth, okay?

Again I am not dictating anything. My opinions are based on my personal experience living in the Midwest. In fact near my neighborhood, I could take you bar hopping in St. Louis. We have a lovely area called the Grove that caters to LGBTQ and inclusive bars and restaurants. Wonderful neighborhood, wonderful people.

so discrimination doesn't exist because you don't see it? come the hell on

[quote/]Now back on topic. I fail to see how pandering to the market is a bad thing? That is how you sell something in large numbers. That is how the artist eats. That is how a sequel gets made that can take more risks. Pandering to a minority might make you feel warm and fuzzy, but does not even guarantee that the artist will at the least break even.[/quote]
I don't get it

you defend artistic integrity for this (irrational) fear that something might get diversified for the sake of it...yet artistic interigry goes out the window when it comes to the market?

YES the market is a thing YES you have to take thease things into account

but doggedly following the market at the expense of "artistic integrity" will not always guarantee you will sell, and [b/]reasonable[/b][footnote/]if we have to be palatable to the masses[/footnote] variation does not garuntee a flop

if Women in lead roles were box office poison then Gravity, Frozen and the Hunger games would not have done so well

 

[DC_78]

so discrimination doesn't exist because you don't see it? come the hell on I don't get it

you defend artistic integrity for this (irrational) fear that something might get diversified for the sake of it...yet artistic integrity goes out the window when it comes to the market?

YES the market is a thing YES you have to take these things into account

but doggedly following the market at the expense of "artistic integrity" will not always guarantee you will sell, and [b/]reasonable[/b][footnote/]if we have to be palatable to the masses[/footnote] variation does not guarantee a flop

if Women in lead roles were box office poison then Gravity, Frozen and the Hunger games would not have done so well

No I am saying that the free market is not mean to any group because it is unfair. Every industry has plenty of research into what demographics will buy X and what each demographic will not buy. So if it can get enough LGBTQ folks along with the primary target demographics to buy "Hetero Alien Zombie Pirate Smasher 14" then it is golden. Just like if they can get enough cis white males like me to buy Gone Home then Gone Home is golden. Sometimes that means minority representation, but a lot of times it just means a good story or gameplay. Or at least it used to.

Now I am glad Gone Home is there, but I doubt anyone would argue it has a small niche. And that is okay because that is how the market diversifies, adapts, and innovates. All good things which help the artist in the long run. Look at Jazz music in the 20's, which eventually became Rock and Roll and Hip Hop. That is what the market does on its own when a minority enter it to produce content to represent themselves. No one forced it. No one had a checklist to go down. Organic social normalization is what everyone should aspire to. Then when the artist adds a off beat character no one raises a fuss and starts a social media campaign.

but doggedly following the market at the expense of "artistic integrity" will not always guarantee you will sell, and reasonable[1] variation does not guarantee a flop

Doggedly following the market like in every sequel over the past twenty years? Should I start the list now? I could probably have it done in a week.

And you jumped topics into women? How did we get there? Women are not a minority, they are 50% of the population. That is like me jumping to saying "look those last Will Smith and Tom Cruise movies tanked. Guess men are done being lead actors."

And Frozen? That is a Disney princess movie. When is the last time a Disney princess movie tanked at the box office?

My points are: The market works. Artist that want to ride the market should be allowed to without folks judging their art on some moral grounds or trying to alter it. Artists that want to buck the market can and I encourage it. But they have to be allowed to fail or succeed within the market. If you want to influence the market consume the stuff you like and don't consume the stuff you don't. That is how we innovate and adapt the market. That is how as a society we get to the equality I think we all want. That way eventually Sarah the lesbian Space Marine will get made and no one will bat an eye when she zero-g shags Becky on screen. Okay?

 

[Robert B. Marks]

It really depends on the story.

I am very much for diversity. I am very much against tokenism. Let me provide a racial example.

There was a British series called Merlin, which cast a black actress as Guinevere. Now, the actress was great, and since Guenevere is supposed to be exotic and beautiful, a black Guenevere can really knock this out of the park. But, it didn't - and it didn't because the fact that she was black should have meant something in the narrative, but it didn't. Nobody gave her uncomfortable stares, nobody treated her as exotic, none of the things that she should have faced as a visible minority in a time when there really were none in that setting occurred. So, she became a token minority.

On the other hand, look at Copper and The Knick - there are black characters there, but the fact that they are black means a LOT in the narrative. In Copper, the fact that the doctor is black means that every time he does an autopsy, the main characters have to hide the source. In The Knick, the black doctor has to face some truly disgusting racism.

Then, if you take something set in England today, race means fairly little, so the fact that somebody is black (or brown, etc.) shouldn't really mean anything to the narrative.

Take that to sexuality, and the same principles apply. If you have a setting wherein somebody's sexuality should matter, then in the narrative it needs to be addressed. On the other hand, if it's a setting and story where sexuality shouldn't matter (such as, say, Torchwood), then it's just part of the background of the character.

All that said, as TVTropes sometimes likes to say, sometimes anvils need to be dropped. There's a great moment in Starship Troopers (the book), where you find out at the very end that Rico is a Filipino. Sometimes the point about diversity needs to be driven home, and that character who you assumed to be heterosexual turns out in the end to be gay (and speaking as somebody who has met my share of gay people, a lot of them do not set off a "gay-dar" - they're just like everybody else, except they have different romantic inclinations).

But, it all depends on the story and the context.

 

[QuicklyAcross]

To me it seems pointless in a non-narritive/non-storydriven setting and game.
If it holds on mechanical function other than trivia or fun fact then it really shouldnt be adressed if it has no impact on the gameplay or even in the world itself.

 

[happyninja42]

I think we need more of both. There's nothing particularly wrong with using a character's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender orientation, etc. as a main point in the narrative as long as it fits the narrative. There is value in that as those stories as not told often enough and are stories that should be told. That said, there is also value in simply having more variety in the backgrounds of narratives. This also pushes things forwards in showing simply that diversity is "normal" and is everywhere in a way that doesn't call attention to itself. This is one of the reasons why I would like to see more diverse videogame characters even when their gender/race/etc. doesn't have any impact on the narrative.

I agree. If emphasizing a single trait about a character is part of the narrative, then that's fine. But if it's simply a characteristic of the character, and isn't integral to the narrative, then don't put a spotlight on it. You can illustrate it sure, I mean make it apparent to the audience, but you don't have to overdo it.

John Scalzi's book "Lock-In" is a pretty good example of how I think this stuff should be done when it's not integral to the narrative. He mentions it in a casual, offhand way, and then moves on with the story. Some characters were introduced as obviously being gay, but it was in a way that was so casual as to be unobtrusive. And another character, who's ethnicity was previously undescribed, had it mentioned in a way that if you didn't pay attention, you might miss it. Actually when I first heard it in the audiobook I was like "wait..so that means he's...oh, ok." And I thought back and realized that it hadn't been brought up at any point previously in the story, and it didn't matter at all. The lack of ethnic classification effected the narrative in no way. It was actually kind of cool to see it done so well in a published work.

But yeah, don't shove the character's one trait (whatever it might be) down my throat unless there is a reason for it in the story. Please just make good, fleshed out, 3 dimensional characters with believable motivations for their actions. Do that, and I'll be a happy camper with pretty much any kind of character you show me.

 

[hermes]

Personally, I would like it to be addressed somehow. It makes it more grounded. It doesn't have to be hammered down every single time the character is on screen, but it would be a waste if its not used at all. For example, there has been some talk (at the time) about the Human Torch being recasted as an African American. Which shouldn't be a big deal, except for the fact he is still the brother of blond model-looking Sue Storm. I think its interesting if they are portrait as half brothers, or one of them being adopted, but I would find the change glaring if they do nothing with it... If they walk around being introduced as siblings and no body bats an eye, it would be a missed opportunity for some character interaction.

I know its weird to find this off-putting in a movie about a man made of rocks, but if the movie was to be set in the modern world (instead of a future setting, for example), it would be as weird as having Borat (in thong) walking among them and everybody being nonchalant about it.

In other words, yes... I think if its part of the identity of the character, it should be included on the narrative somehow. It doesn't have to be hammered down, or turn into its only defining characteristic; but it should not a blind spot from the real world either...

 

[Thaluikhain]

Why not that kid in those ads that ask why not both?

Why shouldn't diversity be, you know, diverse? Stick different people in in lots of different ways (er, no pun intended!)

I have to wonder.

If you were to go about your normal day, doing the things as you do - getting ready for work, hit the grocery store, maybe see a movie after dinner and so on - but every day, you have a random person come up to you and soliloquise about how they are gay. Would that serve any purpose for function to your day other than confirming that "Yes, gay people exist"?

Because that is what this sort of requirement-of-mention feels like it would be to me. We know gay people exist, trans people, and everyone else. We don't need a daily reminder for that to continue to be true. I don't see how games should be different.

We are bombarded with reminders that cishet people exist all the time, though.

To an extent, you could fix things by removing all sexuality from a game. That's a lot of work though, nobody has a BF or GF, nobody ever mentions more than one parent, etc. Very difficult if there is any characterisation. Works with, say, Doom, though. Now, if you've only got a limited number of people whose sexuality comes up, then if they are all straight it's not such a big deal. When you've got zillions and zillions and they are all straight, then one has to ask why your escapist fantasy is so heteronormative. If you are going to a Star Trek type Utopia, they one really has to ask.

...

Having said that, sticking someone in who isn't the default of white, cishet etc, doesn't just happen. The default is very strong. You can put another straight character in without thinking about it, but putting someone gay in, in most cases, that's a deliberate and conscious act. It's an issue.

 

[Areloch]

I have to wonder.

If you were to go about your normal day, doing the things as you do - getting ready for work, hit the grocery store, maybe see a movie after dinner and so on - but every day, you have a random person come up to you and soliloquise about how they are gay. Would that serve any purpose for function to your day other than confirming that "Yes, gay people exist"?

Because that is what this sort of requirement-of-mention feels like it would be to me. We know gay people exist, trans people, and everyone else. We don't need a daily reminder for that to continue to be true. I don't see how games should be different.

We are bombarded with reminders that cishet people exist all the time, though.

To an extent, you could fix things by removing all sexuality from a game. That's a lot of work though, nobody has a BF or GF, nobody ever mentions more than one parent, etc. Very difficult if there is any characterisation. Works with, say, Doom, though. Now, if you've only got a limited number of people whose sexuality comes up, then if they are all straight it's not such a big deal. When you've got zillions and zillions and they are all straight, then one has to ask why your escapist fantasy is so heteronormative. If you are going to a Star Trek type Utopia, they one really has to ask.

...

Having said that, sticking someone in who isn't the default of white, cishet etc, doesn't just happen. The default is very strong. You can put another straight character in without thinking about it, but putting someone gay in, in most cases, that's a deliberate and conscious act. It's an issue.

I feel you may miss my point.

In essence, why does everyone assume that every single character in every single game is straight, and that unless explicitly told so, none of them could be gay, or trans or what have you? That strikes me as something somewhat insulting at breadth if you context it to real people: "Gay people don't exist unless I have daily confirmation they continue to".

You don't need to be told every day that random people you meet on the street may be gay, or trans or what have you. However, because it's irrelevant to your day-to-day doings as WELL as theirs, it isn't brought up.

Having said that, I think it would be good to see more games that emphasize character drama that have characters like this. They would provide very unique insights to explore. However, requiring X number of random characters in games to at some point in the experience arbitrarily affirm that they are gay seems patronizing to both sides.

 

[Gamerpalooza]

It should be up to the writer and director how they want to touch the subject if they even want to.

It should be a non issue for us consumers. If we like the character or story for what they are that is entirely up to us at an individual level.

IMHO this is the best way to allow freedom of creativity while allowing diversity to be touched and praised based on execution.