Because it makes you win arguments and allows you to call other people biggots.

Women are generally physically inferior to men and therefore not as good of fighters, but it's not just that alone since they could still be used as meatshields and distractions at the very least. It's because they're the ones who bear children, making them inherently more valuable for survival. A woman can only have one baby at a time, but a single man could impregnate every women that exist, making them more expendable.

Dina and whatever her name is both went because they wanted to, selfishly putting their child in danger. They armed themselves with guns because they knew they'd have to fight which they did, and even if they are the best candidates under normal circumstances, they're not while pregnant, especially whats her name who looked like she could give birth at any moment.

I'm talking about why they decided to have pregnant women fighting in this game. Plenty of other ways to make Isaac ruthless and evil, though he didn't forcibly send out whatever her name is, again that was her choice.

That is what we call reaching. Both pregnant women in the game gone to battle because they disobeyed others mostly.

And yes Abby's friend was to far in the pregnancy to do the stunts she done, it is obtuse, but again on a post-apocalyptical world each person needs to fend for himself.

It's a post-apocalyptic world but society still exist within it. Both women come from organized groups with a large population compared to the 2 or 3 people per squad they send out. Could have easily sent another person instead, though in Dina's case the asshole hid the fact that she was preggers.

I'm not gonna say pregnant women in combat could never makes sense. If their settlement was being overrun and they were all about to die, then it would be understandable and show how desperate their situation is, but that's not the case here.

Seriously, preggers willingly fighting in war, how do you even have this thought? When I think of a pregnant women I think of family n love, but maybe I'm just a sexist misogynist lul.

I'm well aware not everyone cares about logic haha. Like I said it's just odd. The real world already doesn't send women to the front lines most of the time, so it's interesting that women are commonplace on the front lines in a post-apocalyptic setting where you'd think the survival of humanity would be a bit more pressing.

Perhaps if Dina got even a fraction of the development Joel got I'd think less of her actions, but sadly she didn't. She just turns into a hypocrite later. The idea of putting your child at risk to be with the one you love isn't an inherently bad concept I'll admit, but the execution needs to be real good to not end up making the character look bad.

You can say she's primarily a medic, but that's irrelevant to what she actually does, fighting on the front lines same as everyone else. Isaac did not make her do it, when you start the 10 hour stretch as Abby, she is told she didn't have to go if she didn't want to. I may not remember her name but I do remember that much.

From my perspective, I haven’t got too far in the game so far, but I think it’s easier for people to be ‘less bothered’ about it all if the characters are more well rounded. Most don’t seem to have a problem with Ellie being the lead character as it feels like a natural progression from the first game. Also her being a lesbian isn’t her defining character trait - in the first game it’s her immunity and in this one its her desire for revenge. Her character is more fleshed out. With Dina though, she doesn’t seem to do anything except be Ellie’s girlfriend. As I’ve said, I’m still not too far through the game so maybe that will change but so far I find her fairly boring. This makes it hard for anyone to connect with her, which doesn’t help other perceptions.

Sounds a little like a bad faith counter to me. Lot's of them going around lately though.

And yes, my post was partially vague as it goes much deeper, while making a few related and unrelated points, but is it poor etiquette or 'visionary artistic communication'?

If AAA games are automatically popular entertainment, then exotic cars are also automatically popular forms of travel/transportation.

I would never say exotic cars are a popular form of travel, based on their sales, compared to something like a Honda Civic.

I would never say TLOU(2) is popular entertainment, based on their sales, compared to something like Minecraft.

It depends on how you want to compare them, or just giving them labels without context.

Not really apple to apple.

AAA games aren't automatically popular because of the cost of production, but because they target mass market appeal (to pay for the cost of course is part of it), sure not all AAA games do that well in sales but they are designed for it. Exotic cars are designed to be limited in sales.

Minecraft is an odd title, there are very few titles that sell over 20M, so to say only over 20M is popular (or worse your case with Minecraft and 100M sales).

You are likely reaching with your comparison. You need to look at the industry, you have the best sellers, that on PS1 used to mean like over 100k sales and nowadays is over 1M. If you want to stretch it then perhaps 5M.

So it doesn't matter the reasonable metric you use, TLOU and TLOU2 are popular entertainment.

You know, disregarding the toxic discussion happening in this thread I have to ask: Why is it a bad thing to have an agenda? Most art does. Most artists have intentions when they create their art. If they choose to use their medium to help with trans/lesbian representation, I don't see how that's a bad thing at all. The only people who have a problem with that are bigots. If they choose to make a story about the nature of revenge and how it consumes you, then so be it. If they think that killing off a character makes sense in the context of the story, then that's their right as artists. IF they make you play as the bad guy/girl, then that's an interesting commentary on multiple viewpoints.

Getting angry about any of this shows more about the maturity of the lot of you than the quality of the game. You're perfectly entitled to be angry about these things, but just know that you don't get to also be pissed off when someone is critical of you in turn. Either criticism is allowed on both sides of the debate or it's not. You can't just cherry-pick what's convenient for you and get bent out of shape when something doesn't cater to your tastes.

And you really, really shouldn't be stirring up shit because a company has an agenda and is making moves to actively add inclusiveness in their stories. If you are, then it shows you're just not a good person and don't deserve to have your regressive, immature voice heard. I know that's not where this thread has been for most of its duration, but we all know damn well that like 90% of the hate this game gets is 'but lesbian! but (potential) trans woman! Bah! I hate it when companies try to push their SJW agenda!'

For me the only real issue with having an agenda is the same as being a fanboy or similar. Not being open with it or trying to deny you have.

If someone tell me he is a Xbox fanboy or an avocate for LGBTQI+ I'll take their opinion or facts at face value and may agree or not and will just discuss it. If a person say is neutral or similar but it is very clear that is a lie I know that the points are actually pretension so I can't take it at face value and have to double think on the intentions.