By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
TheLastStarFighter on 14 March 2014
Edit Thread
PullusPardus said:
TheLastStarFighter said:


b) relatability. When a story is told, interactive or not, you enjoy the story by imagining to some extent that you are in the situation yourself. You save the day, you get the girl...whatever it is. You are the hero. The difference between being attracted to a man or a woman is a pretty big difference to most people. So having a gay hero saving or wooing a man breaks the immersion to most straight men. Romancing a man is simply not interesting to them, so the story becomes uninteresting. This makes it a challenge to write a story when you need to make money and you are going to lose a large portion of your potential audience.

I never found immersion to be a good thing really, if you create a character to channel the viewer or reader through them you'll be creating a mary sue, I find being a viewer watching characters interact with each other from a third person point of view to be better than immersion, you want to be with these characters, not be them, only games can do this with games like Mass Effect or walking dead, because you get to choose your own reaction to things.

sure not everything has to be realistic , dramatizied characters are all fun, but the topic is how gay characters should be "presented" realistically.

No, the topic is not how they should be presented realistically (most of us already know that typical presentations of gay humans are not realistic in most media), but rather that they should be presented realistically, and hopefully more often.  I'm presenting challenges to both - especially in film.  Games present a media option where a character can be either non-specific sexually (hell, even Mario could be gay) or that the experience can be tailored to a gaymer.