If you want to introduce more diverse characters into mainstream gaming, don’t do it at the expense of fan favourites. Because then fans will not only hate the character but more damaging is connecting the dots of hate and characters diversity together. Going forward any sequel with a diverse new character will be met with animosity not because of their identity but because their entrance means replacing one that people spent years investing in.

That’s the problem in a nutshell. Not homophobia or hating women.

But can you recall ever seeing the same kind of reaction when fan favorites are replaced by non "diverse" characters?  For example, when Snake was replaced by Raiden people were upset, but it wasn't met with this kind of reaction.  When Dante was replaced by Nero for half of Devil May Cry 4, the reaction was not all that extreme.  

If it is solely about replacing older characters, we should expect the same general level of outrage whenever an old character is replaced.  But, that's not what we see.  I'm sure part of the reaction is because of displacing beloved characters, but that doesn't explain it all.

Raiden, and Dante didn't brutally murder the people they were replacing.

That is a valid criticism of the story.  I was on the fence about playing TLOU and the spoilers definitely made me not want to.  I have no interest in playing through one game as these characters, and then killing them in the next.  And some people have focused on that element, which is understandable.

A lot of other people have specifically harped on the fact that Abby is not traditionally feminine.  And that raises some serious flags as to what their real issue is.  

I don't think that video game is free of political messaging.  I think there are tons of political decisions in gaming.  For example, the creator of missile command has discussed how he intentionally made the game about defending bases rather than having the player use missiles offensively.  That's a political statement even in that simple Atari era game.

And there are political messages in pretty much every story driven game.  FF7 for instance is very pro-heterosexual (aside from that obvious sexual tension between Cloud and Barett).  That's a political message... but since it's a message that nearly everyone agrees with nobody takes much issue.

People mainly take an issue when it's a political message they happen to not agree with.  And I'm sure a lot of people are going to say they just don't want any controversy... But it kind of seems like the people who don't want controversy are also the ones most involved in the arguing. So I kind of wonder.

Well now you have to think about degrees. Some political messages aren’t subjects of controversy in video games. A simple game about firing missiles isn’t cause for outrage. Just protest the real thing. Military interventionism is not up there on the list of outrage as other things like say race and religion. 

Your FF7 message is simply demographics. It’s not pushing hetero agendas it’s a game made by Japanese developers who recognize certain realities. That the vast majority of the human population is straight. There would be an issue if it made being gay problematic by comparison...but we all know that’s not the case. I wouldn’t call Japanese people an overly sexist and racist bunch....remember the Resident Evil 5 controversy? Since when do Japanese people exhibit white supremacy? Chris Redfield is a fan favourite and the game took place in Africa. People look for problems that aren’t there. 

Just like western society is mostly comprised of Christians. Not just white people but Hispanics who are just as devout. A big chunk of western society is also conservative. Again not just Christians but the millions of the growing Muslim population. So when you make anti religious messages and overly left leaning messages in western catered games of course you will get blowback....know your demographics. 

Or in LOU2s case one may argue Joel was killed off because ND politics dictate that gaming needs less straight white males. That’s real ramifications of injecting a political bias into video games...causing a fan favourite to die because of the color of his skin. And having you play as his killer...how does ND expect people to get on board with this? 

Final point and I want to make perfectly clear I’m talking about stats. There is little fruit in making a political statement that appeals to a statistical minority while potentially pissing off the majority of the fanbase. It ignores the stats in favour of personal virtue signalling. ND literally put their agenda ahead of fans and profits. Sony won’t be happy about this. 

You said there were other factors at play then gamers merely wanting to keep their fan favourites, hope this answers the question. Any actual racists, sexists and homophobes joining in on the conversation are a vocal minority. Their views are deplorable but they do not define nor represent the concerns of the majority.

In that particular game though the designer chose to make the gameplay that way for a particular reason.  He particular designed the gameplay that way because he didn't want to portray aggression in a positive light, and instead wanted to portray defensive action as a virtue.  Isn't that a political statement that the designer was making?

Likewise, I think there is a statement (not necessarily an agenda) being made whenever a heterosexual couple is portrayed.  When heterosexuals are portrayed in a positive light, that reflects what how the developers feel about heterosexual romance.  I'm not saying Square went into this with a purpose of WE MUST CONVERT THE HETEROPHOBIC or anything else, but the way they design the story is reflective of their views.  Just happens to be a view that basically nobody disagrees with.  

To use another example, a commercial in the US was deemed "controversial" because it featured two dads.  It doesn't make a big deal out of it, just two dads getting their kids to eat Cheerios.  Is this a "pro-homosexual" agenda?  If so, why wouldn't a commercial with a heterosexual couple, be "pro-heterosexual" agenda?

There's a joke that I'm probably not telling right.  Two fish are in the water.  One of them says "how's the water today"?  The other says, "What the fuck is water?"

In the same way, we are surrounded by political messages in pretty much any story telling medium.  What is portrayed as positive or negative reflects the developer's positions. But when the message is one that is universally accepted and not questioned, we tend not to question it.  It's only when the particular political message is one people disagree with that it gets noticed.  

Well... have you played Resident Evil 5?  Cause when I played through the game at first I was thinking "why would people have a problem with this?  Of course zombies will be black in Africa."  And then when I got to the part where I'm fighting literal spear chuckers, living in huts, dressed in tribal garb I'm like... "Oh... ok.  I kind of get it."

This...

Is quite different than this...

And... I don't think those kind of pre-contact tribes are very common in Africa anymore.  I'm not going to assume intentions, but it was a poor choice.

As for FF7, I'm not saying anything about homosexuality.  I'm not saying they're putting it down by focusing on heterosexual relationships, just that portraying heterosexual relations positively, is a pro-heterosexual relationship message.

To think of it another way, let's turn to FF8.  In the beginning we have Squall who is a withdrawn sullen lad.  His relationship with Rinoa makes him open up and is portrayed as a very positive thing.

The message is basically that love is great and desirable. Find your manic pixie dreamgirl.   That's a position that the developers are espousing.

Alternatively, they could have had Rinoa completely fuck Squall's live up, they could have had them wind up in an incredibly abusive relationship, they could have had Squall reject her and instead use his solitude to become an even better SEED person.

FF8 could have had an anti-relationship message.  Instead they have a pro-relationship message.  That's as much of the developers expressing their opinion about how the world should be as it is when two gay characters are portrayed positively in a game.    So, I'd call that a political message.  

As for the rest, you're kind of just making assumptions on what Naughty Dog's motivations are.  You are assuming that they killed of Joel specifically to include a non-white character, and I think that's incredibly unlikely.  If they wanted you to play as a non-white character, they could have accomplished that easily without killing anyone.  And that would probably make more sense, cause I would imagine they don't expect everyone to love this new character.

Basically correlation does not imply causation.  You're saying the conversation went like this: "Well our main priority is to include a "diverse character".  Therefore, let's kill Joel."  How do you know that the conversation didn't go like... "We want to make this story about someone taking revenge on Joel for the horrible things he did.  Oh, and why not make this new character "diverse"?  Couldn't the desire to include more "diverse" characters and the decision to kill Joel have been completely independent?

She's not the leak footage clearly shows that, people are jumping to conclusion and pasting together a narrative that's not even hinted at it. We played as joel for 3/4 of game, we now will play as Abby for 1/2 of game... why do people think ND can't build that character up to be someone we care about. When Joel almost died in the first game that was half way... ask you're self did you care about him them? Well that's the same amount time we will get with Abby.

For Re5 the point was that people were reading into something that wasn’t there because again I wouldnt call Japanese people racist against Africans. It’s just video game design and the lore explained why they reverted to ancestral behaviour. 

Cant speak on Ff8 but I’ll again bring up degrees. Political messages about relationships or anti relationships do not register on the same level as say religion or identity politics. Some subjects are more hot button and others aren’t worth the controversy. 

Did you not see the interviews making the rounds? Everything I said is public record of interviews I read, mostly concerning Neil Druckman the director of the game. Some form of actual ties with Anita S (Feminist Frequency). He went on record saying white males in games are the “default” and he had to rethink portrayals in his projects going forward. That’s a heavy implication Joel’s death was a narrative decision by the company and the plot written around it. 

I get your position of the possibility of plausible deniability. However the personal politics of ND, which again is a quick google search away, is making your scenario increasingly unlikely. The sequel is playing as 2 strong women, which in itself isn’t a problem. It becomes a problem when a fan favourite is squeezed out (Joel) to make way for this form of game they want to create.

Playing as Joel was also a power fantasy for many male fans of the game, and they will be pissed to have him go out unceremoniously because ND has decided to go a different direction. Like I said, know your demographic. 

The thing with RE5 shows a similar problem from the other end.

It's perfectly justifiable to point out that the portrayal of some Africans as literal spear chuckers is problematic in the context of Western culture.  Asserting that there is a particular agenda about that, ie racism, is not justifiable without particular evidence.

At the same time, blaming a particular narrative choice on an agenda is similarly not justifiable without evidence. I don't think what you've provided counts.  There is just a huge leap between "we have to re-think portrayals" and "we have to kill the white man".  I'm not denying that they wanted to add more "diverse" characters cause they clearly did.  But there were many other ways to get there.  Developers wanting to add more "diverse" characters isn't going to lead to a virtual genocide of white male protagonists.  

Your response to FF8 is pretty much my point.  There are political statements all around.  But the only ones that are problematic are the ones that are "controversial".  So, let's say that Abby was actually a trans character as people initially suspected.  What makes this a "controversial" issue, aside from the fact that people don't approve of gender non-conforming people? Without that being at the core, it's just another political statement that would just be like "relationships are good" that would just blow right by without anyone caring.