Forums - General Discussion - The LGBT thread (Revisited)

Snoorlax said:
JWeinCom said:

A quick google search confirms there was at least some reasonable level of outrage over Ellie being a lesbian.  Less than there is now, but that's likely due to the fact that homosexuality is far more accepted these days than being trans or some sort of gender non-conforming person.  Which I would say is at least partially due to how homosexuals have been portrayed in the media.  

There are also plenty of times that a franchise introduces a new character to focus on at the expense of the old.  I've never really seen this responded to with anything other than mild to moderate annoyance.

But the main problem is still something you're not getting.  You keep insisting that there has to be some special reason for a character to be "diverse".  

You wouldn't say "don't make a character white unless it adds to the story or character development".  

You wouldn't say "don't make a character black unless it adds to the story or character development".  

You wouldn't say "don't make a character Asian unless it adds to the story or character development".  

You wouldn't say "don't make a character blonde unless it adds to the story or character development".  

You wouldn't say "don't make a character straight unless it adds to the story or character development".  

You wouldn't say "don't make a character short unless it adds to the story or character development".  

Yet when it comes to this circumstance where someone is defying gender norms, either through their sexuality or the way the present themselves, there needs to be a special reason.  A character can't just be trans because that character happens to be trans.  What is the reason that there needs to be this special requirement?  I'm open to suggestions but the only logical reason I can think of is that people just don't like that group of people.

Sorry but im really feeling you're just reaching here.

Yes, there will always be a minority against gay portrayals in videogames and whatever else but lets not act as if The Last Of Us got bad scores, gamers stopped playing it, put the game down and pissed on it just because of homosexual representation.

Plenty of times, but this is a case where most fans feel it's not done right and they have every right to express their opinions about it.

I don't insist we need a special reason for gay characters, because again Ellie didn't have any reasons, she just happened to kiss another girl and yeah we got the message cool. I insist that we don't need existing franchises to make "awareness" a major point of the game applied to them in an unneccesary manner. Cause we all know racism exists, would i like the game if it centered around racism? Replace Ellie and Joel with Black or Latino characters instead? Not at all i'm sure most people wouldn't cause that's not what they bought the game for, they developed with these two characters, don't throw them away because of modern day politics.

BTW you apparently keep insisting that gamers are anti- LGTB and are the sole reason for there not being enough diversity in gaming. The only reason heterosexuality is viewed as the norm, as you said, in gaming is because most gamers are heterosexual white males, that's their target audience. I don't think it's because of their "closed minded nature" that LGBT, women and minorities aren't as represented as cisgendered white males in gaming. It's because these Game Studios only care about making a profit, notice how they want gamers to be more "open minded" about content they're not neccessarily looking for in their favorite games.

Honestly, if gamers Choose not to buy a game for it not being to their liking, wheter they're closed minded or not, they have every right not to support it and should not have to be attacked and accused for any isms or phobes for it.

You literally said that characters should not be diverse unless "it adds to the story to character development".  Do you apply the same standard for instance to white characters?  Should a character only be white if it adds to the story or character development?  If not, then yes, you are insisting that there needs to be a special reason for characters to be diverse.  

The rest of the post is a strawman.  As I never said gamers "are anti-LGTB and are the sole reason for there not being enough diversity in gaming", or anything like that, I'm not going to defend a point I never made.

I also never said a person couldn't refuse to buy a game for whatever reason they want.  But if those reasons are based on bias, they should be called out as such. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 01 May 2020

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:

If Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 before he could fully climb mount olympus to take his revenge in order for a female to take his place then people being upset about that would not assumingly be sexist.

By that same logic though, if Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 so that another male character could take his place then there wouldn't be any accusations of pushing an agenda, it'd just be seen as a stupid plot twist.



Snoorlax said:

No they take an immensely popular game and basically say FU to the fans of the original

This is a phobic reaction.  Given that Ellie was known as a lesbian from the first game, what exactly is unexpected here?  She's still a lesbian but now she's of age. 

Seems like the only thing that changed was her age.  Are they mad she's not 14 anymore? No.

Snoorlax said:

I'm fairly certain most gamers have a problem with the direction the second game has taken

And what direction is that?  Did the series suddenly become a homosexual relationship simulator? 

Snoorlax said:

In the second game Ellie and Joel are being thrown to the side for a new character nobody knows anything about, other than that she's out for revenge and happens to be LGBT and comes really out of nowhere. Fans just don't like the way this is going

Sequels never introduce new characters?  Never leave behind old ones?

No, seems like phobics simply don't like the expansion of the homosexual content. Change those circumstances to something else and I bet you they wouldn't be complaining like they are now.

Snoorlax said:

it feels like we need to be lectured on acceptance when nobody had a problem with Ellie being gay.

If you feel like you're being lectured, that's your own fault.  That's you. You are being the problem. If there is something that needs to be accepted, it's this.

To the privileged, equality feels like oppression.

Oh, and if nobody had a problem with her being gay then, they sure as hell do now.

Snoorlax said:

Add, diversity if it adds to the story to character development, not for the sake of being "aware"

But....she was already known to be a lesbian.  What diversity is being added that wasn't already there?

Further, if a game starred a group of black, lesbian, atheist cannibals and in the sequel a cis-white, male Christian character joined the group....would you complain just as much about forced diversity? Or would you have ignored the series to begin with because it didn't represent you?

Last edited by SpokenTruth - on 01 May 2020

Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

OlfinBedwere said:
Immersiveunreality said:

If Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 before he could fully climb mount olympus to take his revenge in order for a female to take his place then people being upset about that would not assumingly be sexist.

By that same logic though, if Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 so that another male character could take his place then there wouldn't be any accusations of pushing an agenda, it'd just be seen as a stupid plot twist.

Yeah, this is similar to the situation in MGS2.  When that came out, there were a lot of people (justifiably I think) upset that they wound up playing as Raiden and not Snake.  Yet nobody accused them of pushing a pro ninja agenda or anything like that.



OlfinBedwere said:
Immersiveunreality said:

If Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 before he could fully climb mount olympus to take his revenge in order for a female to take his place then people being upset about that would not assumingly be sexist.

By that same logic though, if Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 so that another male character could take his place then there wouldn't be any accusations of pushing an agenda, it'd just be seen as a stupid plot twist.

It is because people try to find reason why such a change is made.



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:

Pfew this thread has become a bit tense.

I do not really think we have a lot of transphobes in this community but people are just afraid that well known characters that have build a this IP get shoved to the side in order to push a political agenda, and certain information on the background of Naughty dogs vice president and complains of the devs seems to partly point in that direction.

If Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 before he could fully climb mount olympus to take his revenge in order for a female to take his place then people being upset about that would not assumingly be sexist.

I think you might be wrong there. I think there are a lot of them, but they're subtle about it and not blatantly shitty about it. If they weren't transphobic, they wouldn't be using these games and these arguments against trans inclusion. they're masking their bigotry with the call to 'not be political'.



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II

JWeinCom said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Pfew this thread has become a bit tense.

I do not really think we have a lot of transphobes in this community but people are just afraid that well known characters that have build a this IP get shoved to the side in order to push a political agenda, and certain information on the background of Naughty dogs vice president and complains of the devs seems to partly point in that direction.

If Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 before he could fully climb mount olympus to take his revenge in order for a female to take his place then people being upset about that would not assumingly be sexist.

https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2019/02/18/naughty-dog-the-last-of-us-part-2-playstation-4-fan-art-agenda/

This is apparently what counts as "pushing an agenda".

If he posted fanart of someone "shipping" two heterosexual characters who were never explicitly romantic in the series, do you think there would have been similar outrage?

There would be an outrage but very possible not similar yet there would still be outrage for pushing an agenda,you do not need to assumingly think the worst of people that do not like this direction as it has mostly nothing to do with any dislikes against certain groups of people but the fear that a story might suffer under unneeded inclusiveness.



Runa216 said:
Immersiveunreality said:

Pfew this thread has become a bit tense.

I do not really think we have a lot of transphobes in this community but people are just afraid that well known characters that have build a this IP get shoved to the side in order to push a political agenda, and certain information on the background of Naughty dogs vice president and complains of the devs seems to partly point in that direction.

If Kratos got slaughtered in GOW3 before he could fully climb mount olympus to take his revenge in order for a female to take his place then people being upset about that would not assumingly be sexist.

I think you might be wrong there. I think there are a lot of them, but they're subtle about it and not blatantly shitty about it. If they weren't transphobic, they wouldn't be using these games and these arguments against trans inclusion. they're masking their bigotry with the call to 'not be political'.

People are not as bad as you think,what you see behind their mask might just be your own negative view on a certain amount of the population.

They arent using the games as arguments against any inclusion but they just want a game to focus on the game itself first and when it has a great story it can has as many inclusion as is needed.



Immersiveunreality said:
Runa216 said:

I think you might be wrong there. I think there are a lot of them, but they're subtle about it and not blatantly shitty about it. If they weren't transphobic, they wouldn't be using these games and these arguments against trans inclusion. they're masking their bigotry with the call to 'not be political'.

People are not as bad as you think,what you see behind their mask might just be your own negative view on a certain amount of the population.

They arent using the games as arguments against any inclusion but they just want a game to focus on the game itself first and when it has a great story it can has as many inclusion that is needed.

So tell us, when was the last time Naughty Dog put out a bad game or a game that didn't have a great story?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

You know what? I think more companies DO need to come out and say 'yeah, we do have a political agenda, and that agenda is to normalize typically marginalized groups. we feel that everyone deserves respect. our 'agenda' is that nobody deserves hatred, and I don't see how anyone could feel that's a bad thing.'

I just wanna see the inevitable meltdown by all the folks who subconsciously are bigoted and just don't know it yet. Because, like, last I checked the entirety of the gaming masses have been clamouring for gaming to be seen as an art form, so I'm pretty sure that opens up all developers and creators to have whatever artistic vision they want. If I want to write a book featuring fantasy lesbians teaming up to take on the world, I can do that because I think that it's important to represent every sexuality and gender and ideal. some might hate it for pandering (to a group that is still a minority and has been historically treated poorly), but I just say it's the story I wanna tell. why is it any different for game devs?

Honestly, the whole argument is stupid. It's absolutely stupid, and it's disgusting and immature and pathetic. and I hate having to walk on eggshells any time the discussion is brought up because the reality is that, if you're arguing that any gay/lesbian/trans/nonbinary/etc representation is a political message and that's somehow a bad thing, you're a bigot. If you're saying something along the lines of 'I don't have a problem with representation as long as it's done a certain way or not done a different way', then you're a bigot AND you're stupid because you're trying to control how others make art, how others live, and how others represent themselves.

You might not even know you're being bigoted. you might genuinely feel justified in your rules and regulations and perception, but the reality is that you are bigoted. You are. IT's not even a discussion or debate anymore. Either you need to be informed of this bigotry so you can reflect upon yourself and change your behaviour, or you need to be called out on it so you can be shamed into changing or growing up or whatever. Either way, this behaviour needs to be addressed, it needs to be dealt with.

And no, being uncomfortable around something that you are unfamiliar with is NOT the same as outwardly crying about it and whining about it. I was uncomfortable around trans people for the longest time, feeling that they 'needed to be clear' or have a different designation (you're not male, you're TRANS MALE' or whatever.) Then I grew up and realized that what someone else does, how someone else presents themselves, and how someone else lives their life is...

none

of

my

fucking

business.

None. The only time it becomes ANY of my business is if it affects me (Like, if I was dating them or whatever.) A trans person does not need to adhere to the expectations or rules or regulations of anyone that isn't going to be fishing around in their pants. Once I realized that, I quickly realized how many of these 'micro-aggressions' were outright bigoted and oppressive. They may not be as bad as 'tranny fags can rot in hell' or whatever, but it's still a small way to exert control over someone else for being different by shaming them into behaviour YOU deem appropriate. That's not cool. that's why it's called a 'micro-aggression', and the anti-SJWs out there have demonized the term despite it being remarkably poignant and effective. Hell, they demonized the term SJW by using it as a pejorative against anyone who...you know...believes even minorities deserve respect and representation.

Game devs are and should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want. If they want a trans drag queen lesbian asexual alien fucker in their game, that's their right. It's also your right to not like that. but don't pretend you're in the right if you raise a fuss about it and certainly don't act innocent if you're actively campaigning to force them to change their artistic vision because their lesbian character offended your pathetic snowflake sensibility.



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 6 this generation: 
Bloodborne, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice, God of War, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III, Red Dead Redemption II