Quantcast
LGBT+ characters in video games

Forums - Gaming Discussion - LGBT+ characters in video games

1. Good- Bioware games; Bad- TLOU 2

2. I'd say there are just enough right now. 

3. Pretty well I'd say, especially among indies. 

4. Negatory



Around the Network
finalrpgfantasy said:
LuccaCardoso1 said:

Hey, I'm going to write an article on LGBT+ characters in video games, and I need some help. Can you help me remember some of them?

1) What do you think are some good and bad examples of LGTB+ representation in video games?

2) How do you feel about the quantity of LGBT+ characters in video games? Do you think there should be more, less or do you think there's enough?

3) Do you think that, in general, LGBT+ characters are well represented in games?

4) Are you LGBT+? (feel free to not answer this question if you don't feel comfortable)

1)  Bill from TLOU - The hints were subtle and he wasn't a stereotypical character.  I didn't even know he was gay until my second playthrough (Yeah, I'm clueless).  

2) I think there should be more, but it shouldn't feel forced.  

3)  Mixed.  A character's sexuality shouldn't be main focus of it.  Vivster summarized this "Just creating LGBT characters without making headlines beforehand and just let people find out themselves when they consume the media."  

4)  I'm gay.

Yep, gay magazine and the talk about the friend that left were either very open telling if you were getting collectibles or subtle telling. Either way, it was well done (almost everyone have once in a while seem porny, and in a post-apocalypse world without much humans to interact I think it would be a well desired item).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

LuccaCardoso1 said:

Hey, I'm going to write an article on LGBT+ characters in video games, and I need some help. Can you help me remember some of them?

1) What do you think are some good and bad examples of LGTB+ representation in video games?

2) How do you feel about the quantity of LGBT+ characters in video games? Do you think there should be more, less or do you think there's enough?

3) Do you think that, in general, LGBT+ characters are well represented in games?

4) Are you LGBT+? (feel free to not answer this question if you don't feel comfortable)

1) Butterfly Soup, Gone Home, and TLOU's Left Behind DLC are wonderful examples of coming-of-age games and DLC packages that narratively revolve around lesbian characters! Tracer from Overwatch is another lesbian character with what I'd consider an excellent character arc, but games could stand to represent adult lesbians more in general, I think, as I can't think of any that actually center adult lesbian characters. Although they're not really bad, I've found the lesbian character relationships in BioWare's titles to feel a little more half-hearted.

2) Out of a library of more than 1,600 games that I own, so far 2 revolve narratively around lesbian characters, and they're both relatively obscure indie titles. What do you think?

3) I don't see so many bad representations and total exclusions. The main issue in this connection for me is just that there aren't many such characters in video games at all. It would be great if lesbian characters could at least be measured as a percentage of the total. I think the general culture of the world prefers both male-centric stories and heterosexual relationships.

4) I'm probably the only lesbian here.



JRPGfan said:

The thing is if say 5% of the population is in a same sex relation ship, do you think 5% representation amoung games would be enough?

And what % do you think its at right now?

"Mario has Princess Peach"  common that barely counts as a relationship, cant see how thats +1 for the straight's out there.

Also  be honest, if  you where designing a super hero, for a comic (book or tv) would you make one thats appealing for 95% of the market,
or one for the 5%?

Like I feel LGBT wants more representation that it probably deserves.
These corporations are just out to make money, not to step on anyones toes. 

I never said that LGBT representation is accurate to the numbers in our population. Nor did I say that it SHOULD be. I don't really care for quotas. However, I do see something wrong with the 95% being upset if more than 5% of the fictional realm is represented by the minority population. Even if they are being represented by 80% of the characters in media, why would you consider it "unfair" for LGBT to get more representation than what's in the population? Why care so much when the vast majority still caters to that 95% group. The majority will always find a character to identify with (which is why representation is important). The "overrepresented" minority still may not.

I was just stating that the people who are making a big deal about sexuality being represented in fictional characters do so basically when a non-hetero group is represented. We've always had romances. And yes, Mario kissing Peach shows a hetero normative relationship, but I was kinda joking. Still I can pull a bunch of other characters out that definitely fit the mold and nobody got in a tizzy over them. Heck, where are people that aren't moms or republican legislators crying foul over nude prostitutes in GTA or sexual mini-games in franchises like the God of War or the Witcher? The people on this very forum aren't claiming those games are pushing a straight agenda even though the sexuality and sexual explicitness is way more in your face than Ellie making out with a girl during a dance.

The reason you hear headlines about gay characters is because the majority is not used to seeing these types of characters. But the scenarios are the same (if not LESS in your face). We've seen straight characters kiss, have sex, court each other, etc. etc. People will only claim LGBT agenda is throwing it in your face, because they aren't accustomed to seeing it with LGBT characters, but the actions aren't any different than what's been going on with straight characters for decades.

However, going back to what you are talking about with the 5%, there is a silver lining with over-representing these and other minority populations. The majority groups get desensitized over time to what they subconsciously recognize as "the other" because they see them enough. Then we don't have people crying foul over two girls making it out and calling it an "agenda."



vivster said:

Sexuality isn't a character trait. People just link arbitrary behaviors to certain genders and sexualities. Who you want to fuck does not define character. As you said, there is no reason to point out what sexuality someone has. If they have relation with a person of the same sex then they're gay, big whoop. Why make a big deal out of it?

No one needs to declare the sexuality of any character because it simply does not matter. If you want to have romance in your story then by all means do it, people will figure out pretty quickly by themselves what sexual orientation someone has. But boldly proclaiming that a character has a certain sexuality even though we know next to nothing about him is just exploitation. It shouldn't matter what sexuality a characters have or how many LGBT characters there are. It's simply irrelevant.

Know the first rule of story telling? Show, don't tell.

But who are you claiming is telling and not showing? Naughty Dog for showing two girls kiss when we see way more explicit things between straight characters all the time in media? Was there a section in that or any of the examples you can think of where the trailer or the game itself showed the character making a big deal about his/her sexuality or wearing some rainbow flag and marching in a parade for a mini-game?

I really don't see these character's actions as anything different than what has been done with straight characters. They aren't outing themselves in these games. They are just behaving like any person would. If they are gay, they show sexual interest in the same gender just like if they are straight they show that interest in the opposite.

And does sexuality not need to be declared only if the character isn't straight? Because I didn't hear any of these characters say in a trailer "Hey, I'm here and I'm queer," just like I didn't hear Geralt say "I am a man-whore" even though he's bed countless women (and without the need for protection because he's immune to disease, the lucky dude, but I digress).

Why are we still talking about this if sexuality isn't important and why do so many people only feel its worth talking about when sexuality is not represented in by what they consider normal?

As for the media or interviews highlighting that these characters exist, why is that an agenda and why do you not want to hear about it? It's news because it's rare. Imagine if people said, "who cares about race" when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in sports. To many people, it was newsworthy, because it was unprecedented and definitely out of the norm.

In a few decades, nobody is going to say "wow, we have a gay character in a game" in the same way that nobody says, "wow, a black guy is a professional athlete!" But until that time comes, people on both sides are going to make a deal about it, and I think that's an appropriate response.



Around the Network
Mar1217 said:
vivster said:

Why Oxymoron? You can be sexually attracted to a lot of things. Why would you think that sexuality is limited to humans and human genders?

Cuz if you read the "+" definition, you'll see it only including sexuality from human-to-human perspective.

The rest has nothing to do with it or is at least something completly different from the definition.

He's actually not wrong though. Even if it's pretty ludicrous.

danasider said:

In a few decades, nobody is going to say "wow, we have a gay character in a game" in the same way that nobody says, "wow, a black guy is a professional athlete!" But until that time comes, people on both sides are going to make a deal about it, and I think that's an appropriate response.

You aren't wrong. Sadly.
It would be great if people stopped nitpicking at small descriptors.

Sexuality is but a minor characteristic of an individual, not the entire individual itself.