Preferential treatment? Who? I KNOW you are not infering minorities. If we focus on just video games - black characters are rare. Black characters in leading roles are even more rare. Gay characters? even more rare then the already rare black characters. I have brought this up before; most of the coolest and endering black characters come from Japan! Strange that country renowned for its melting pots of culture, is lagging behind an country known for its isolation.  

Wait. Are comparing apples to oranges right now? TLOUs premise has established that society itself has collapsed. People are trying to get by in quarantine zones that are probably the worst shit holes that you can imagine. Remember, TLOU had people eating rats. Vanity is out of the question at this point.

Not gonna say Uncharted is outlandish but it sticks to the premise it has built. Nathan Drake and his obsession over history ,artifacts and his thirst for thrills propels him to hunt for treasures. Armed organizations are after it as well who are equally as hungry as he is. Guns are on the table. You do the math. It's fair game.

So I don't really get what the hell you're trying to say at this point. Suspension of disbelief? There's a boundary to that one by the way. A story needs to be consistent with how it depicts its set pieces.

The fact that people even think females, POC or LGBTQ+ characters need to be written in situationally is a huge part of the problem. You're going to run into a lot of people who are not straight white males in life and spoilers, there is not some well reasoned lore-heavy justification for it. They are just people. In the same way you don't think people who are gay shouldn't be put up on a pedestal, diverse characters also shouldn't have unreasonable expectations for why they exist in fictional works in the first place. Not wanting companies to pander to certain demographics is equally silly because it's a neverending loop of paranoia. The reality is that if companies are currently pandering now by making diverse casts, then they were probably pandering before when most characters were heterosexual masculine males. It's not like companies just learned that they can pander with characters in the last 10 years. Blaming companies for pandering for the sake of money, is perhaps one of the most useless time-wasting practices of all time, and it's particularly egregious when it's for including diverse casts. 

Ultimate, the problem is always writing. Concepts are just that, concepts. Execution is everything. And it's a problem when the first thing people blame for bad writing is a diverse cast or the very idea of diversity in a work. Maybe you could argue that writers who "force diversity" are just bad writers, but like, it's not as if most people complaining about forced diversity are going out of their way to experience diverse works that are highly beloved, or works they might like. To give credit you did mention writing, but again, if someone makes a gay one-dimensional character, and someone makes a one-dimensional heterosexual character, there is really no difference in quality. Maybe you can't be a bit mad if the gay character is used as a marketing stunt, but ultimately it is a fruitless effort and should be talked about separately from the quality of the writing, which would be the actual problem. Otherwise it just comes off as pettiness. 

Even if this part of your post was just worded poorly and it's not what you intended, I've seen these arguments purposely made so many times that I feel it needs to be said in this thread. If it doesn't apply to you feel free to ignore it, but it probably applies to a lot of people on this site, whether they want to admit it or not. 

No no no. You missed my point.

I have always found it incredibly unbelievable that Nathan Drake, 1 man, is capable of killing an entire militia (this includes choppers) with no obvious form of military training(even if he did ... 1 man??), but we have several users in this thread mentioning that Nadine, trained black woman, beat both Nate and another character up at the same time as if that is unbelievable..... I am reading that correctly?

Why are we over assessing the possibility of Abby. We are very picky and choosey when we want the realistic card. Not to mention, there is this attitude that in a world where survival is a everyday struggle, people cant find time enjoy themselves. You say vanity should be out of the question but Doesn't Ellie have a tattoo? 

About nakedness and the hypocrisy of possible censoring:

I am simply opening the door for to express your view. As now the only agreeable case is ethic groups in locations where it historically it does not make sense. When you leave your house do you regularly see Black people? Asians? Mexicans? If the answer is yes, then how can they forced? I would consider diversity to be the default! I find it more forced that we still have games with 90% of the cast being white.

A lot of the shit in this thread reeks of bigotry masked behind the "its not realistic card" while ignoring it elsewhere. You previous post sounds like someone totally detached from real current day day events.

Try to be open to think about what others say without focussing on the scoring they give.

I don't give a shit what ND does or does not do in their games. I'm able to look past political points that I disagree with (I am a hardcore libertarian, so I'd have a hard time enjoying entertainment if I couldn't look past politics) to enjoy the underlying product. I don't think it is possible for humans to not put their biases whatever they make. And, humans make video games. So, it is what it is.

It's threads like these that get me banned from places like this, becuase it's so very hard to not just come in here and rant about how terrible some people are for having clearly gross and frankly abhorrent beliefs.

An opinion is that Marvel is better than DC.
A political view is that it's important to offer social services to less fortunate people at the cost of higher taxes.

But this? this thread and the critique lobbed at naughty Dog for their inclusion in The Last of Us part II? That's just thinly veiled bigotry and intolerance. If the lot of you could accept that this isn't about politics but your own discomfort with having something you disagree with given more representation, we'd make a whole lot more progress on the matter. If you could accept that inclusion is not an agenda and it's not being 'shoved in your face' and that it's just another means to express art and write stories with more nuanced characters, then we could actually move forward and maybe understand wHY you feel that way.

But as long as people are convinced that any inclusion of black, female, lesbian, transgender, or any other minorities is just a political agenda (or keep pushing that narrative), we'll never be able to have a discussion about it. Gay people exist. Transgender people exist. Minorities exist. If more pieces of media include them, it's just a matter of adjusting to the reality of the world around us. STOP ACTING LIKE INCLUSION IS EXCLUSION. It's not the same thing. Inclusion is something that should be normalized, not ostracized; the more regressive people get about it, the worse things are going to get.

So hurry up and come to terms with the reality that some people are just bigots. This isn't a hill worth dying on, inclusion is not done at the expense of you weak-minded white males, and that having non-traditional heroes and characters isn't an affront to your snowflake sensibilities.

I shouldn't have to repeat this to a bunch of adults. You're not 12 years old anymore and you shouldn't be shriveling up at the thought of some transgender or lesbian person being in a major blockbuster game just becuase you're not comfortable with homosexuality or transgenderism. Grow up, seriously. Oh, and don't even bother trying to justify it with some bullshit excuse about how 'oh but they went too far' or conjuring up some other justification for your ignorance. It's no different than hypermasculine, heteronormative media, it's just on the other side of the spectrum and that scares you for whatever childish reason.

From all I’ve been reading and watching, the game has a variety of representation. It is done in a way that those aren’t the vocal point. They are all just people with their own issues and personalities. I can get behind this aspect. Equality is how it should be done. Minorities or whoever identities shouldn’t be elevated above others “to compensate for any real world injustices”, just treat people like people. For this aspect I think ND did a good job.

What bothers me in regards to the politics of ND on LOU2 is that they are pushing the “white straight male bad” and “desexualized strong women characters”. Neil has gone on record during interviews in years prior to the game releasing so no spoilers here. I feel it’s wrong to have more inclusivity at the cost of existing elements people have an attachment with. Have new characters that don’t interfere with what fans hold sacred and you will have no problems!

As for the women aspect I see no reason to make women less attractive or make them flat chested to what....not offend women that are sensitive about their image? You can make a woman have nice features and breasts without exploiting them. Ronda Rousey is a great example of a strong woman who also pulls off being feminine, yet ND thinks this would degrade women? Abby strikes me as a shoehorned character that’s meant to do and represent everything a strong man can do. I say there’s no shame in being feminine (Ellie is a great example of this).