Heteronormativity is the standard because heterosexuality is the norm. The percentage of people in the United States that identify as LGBT is less than 5%. That doesn't mean that gays don't deserve representation any more or less than any other minority group, it just means that if you pull a random person off of the street there is an over 95% chance that they will be straight. If you were betting money you'd pick hetero every time.
I know, that's very literally what I'm saying. Believe it or not, I'm somewhat ok with it.
If you don't feel that modern game developers are doing a particular group of people justice regarding representation (and considering how few games that have gay male protagonists have been mentioned in this thread so far you are probably on to something), the good news is that it has never been easier to learn how to make your own game. You won't have some publisher demanding you make changes to appeal to that 95%, you won't have to settle for limiting your LGBT inclusion to lesbians (the "safe gay" choice when it comes to media), you can make a game where a gay man is the protagonist and no one can stop you.
FYI "If gay people want gay characters they should learn to make their own games" is INCREDIBLY offensive.
The Last Remnant 100% has a gay male protagonist, though the English localization heavily changed the dialog down from how overt and obvious it was in the Japanese version (though all the visual examples are still there).
Holy crap, for real? This is one of my favourite games but this is the first I've ever heard of this.
Did you miss the long looks at each other multiple times through the game?
David giving Rush flowers?
Rush getting jealous when David hints at affection with anyone else?
In the Japanese version, Rush comes back at the end because 'David is waiting for him' which is one of the many line changes in the English version.
Though yeah, nothing is above heavy subtext contrasting to say, SaGa Frontier (1) and Asellus' open harem as an example for the older games in the series.
The Last Remnant 100% has a gay male protagonist, though the English localization heavily changed the dialog down from how overt and obvious it was in the Japanese version (though all the visual examples are still there).
Holy crap, for real? This is one of my favourite games but this is the first I've ever heard of this.
Did you miss the long looks at each other multiple times through the game?
David giving Rush flowers?
Rush getting jealous when David hits at affection with anyone else?
In the Japanese version, Rush comes back at tue end because 'David is waiting for him' which is one of the many line changes in the English version.
Though yeah, nothing is above heavy subtext contrasting to say, SaGa Frontier (1) and Asellus' open harem as an example for the older games in the series.
I did! I missed all of that! Blast and damnation!!!
See?!?! See?!?! It can be blatant as all hell and even GAY folks will miss this shit because IT'S NEVER THERE. So even when it is we don't even see it!
If you don't feel that modern game developers are doing a particular group of people justice regarding representation (and considering how few games that have gay male protagonists have been mentioned in this thread so far you are probably on to something), the good news is that it has never been easier to learn how to make your own game. You won't have some publisher demanding you make changes to appeal to that 95%, you won't have to settle for limiting your LGBT inclusion to lesbians (the "safe gay" choice when it comes to media), you can make a game where a gay man is the protagonist and no one can stop you.
FYI "If gay people want gay characters they should learn to make their own games" is INCREDIBLY offensive.
When he says "the good news is that it has never been easier to learn how to make your own game," I think there's an implied bad news that there's little other productive recourse. I mean, when the options are "get started on learning how to make your own game" and "raise enough objections and apply enough pressure online until someone makes a game for me," the first seems more healthy. By contrast, what else would you have others say? "Yeah, it sucks and it's too bad that we can't really do anything about it?" Or say nothing at all, to avoid giving offense when none was intended?
It's not a stance advocating that other devs shouldn't make more games to represent LGBT, rather it's recognizing an unfortunate situation and saying that if you want to see change, it's easier than ever to enact it, and in doing so to make sure it's done right.
I would hope that if a developer was looking to start making a game with gay protagonists, actual gay people would be consulted at some point anyway, so getting a gay person involved in game creation who might not otherwise have been is an ideal result regardless.
There's also a depressing chance that inclusion in mainstream games will get more rare with the constant current roaming internet outrage mobs.
If a minority character has a single character flaw (or percieved flaw) a vocal minority calls for blood. So why take the risk of inclusion when it's gonna lead to massive internet outrage when there was good intentions at the start?
I think international markets are more of a concern to investors greenlighting projects than internet mobs. Like Overwatch has fully gay characters but they won't tell you in game, so they can avoid localizing the ancillary media for those regions.
If a minority character has a single character flaw (or percieved flaw) a vocal minority calls for blood. So why take the risk of inclusion when it's gonna lead to massive internet outrage when there was good intentions at the start?
This right here is what kills me. And it's not even really specifically targeted at minorities any more. It's literally everyone. They can't have flaws or someone will get pissed about it and write a biopic on how it's destroying the sanctity of <insert random whatever>.
There's also a depressing chance that inclusion in mainstream games will get more rare with the constant current roaming internet outrage mobs.
If a minority character has a single character flaw (or percieved flaw) a vocal minority calls for blood. So why take the risk of inclusion when it's gonna lead to massive internet outrage when there was good intentions at the start?
That is barely a real concern, and more often than not just an excuse to not bother or dismiss people who are annoyed at nonrepresentation as unpleasable cranks, to be honest. Everything you do will piss off someone, the question is who, and how many.
In general, I've found that the simplest trick is, do not have a single character in your entire work that represents everyone who is not an hetero dude. You'd think this should be blindingly fucking obvious, but apparently you have to point out to people that it's easier to not accidentally give your narrative a "collective = trait" subtext is to simply have more than one person from said collective and have them be meaningfully different.
If you don't feel that modern game developers are doing a particular group of people justice regarding representation (and considering how few games that have gay male protagonists have been mentioned in this thread so far you are probably on to something), the good news is that it has never been easier to learn how to make your own game. You won't have some publisher demanding you make changes to appeal to that 95%, you won't have to settle for limiting your LGBT inclusion to lesbians (the "safe gay" choice when it comes to media), you can make a game where a gay man is the protagonist and no one can stop you.
FYI "If gay people want gay characters they should learn to make their own games" is INCREDIBLY offensive.
And if they do go and make their own games, they get attacked for being SJWs shoving their politics down gamer's throats.
Oh I’m aware of what dark primus was saying. If we ignore the overwhelming heterocentrism that has been present in video games since they got started telling stories, then they aren’t heterosexual at all.
I am not really sure how a knight rescuing a damsel in distress is not a heterosexual story! It’s like the archetypal version of that story, and it seems kind of obtuse to just ignore all the implications that come with it.
You interpret these stories as having hetero implications because of the culture you grew up in. it does not make the story inherently hetero.
Think of it this way:
Game A: Link has a childhood friend named Saria. They seem pretty close. When he leaves, she gives him an ocarina and says "when you play my ocarina, I hope you will think of me and come back to the forest to visit."
Game B: Link has a childhood friend named Sario. They seem pretty close. When he leaves, he gives him an ocarina and says "when you play my ocarina, I hope you will think of me and come back to the forest to visit."
Script is identical between the two games, only the character model and pronouns are swapped out.
If you interpret game A as Link having a budding young love interest and now she's heartbroken and may never love again, but you interpret game B as Link being best buds with some dude and they just hung out and partied and his bro's gonna platonically miss him...that's on you and the culture you were raised in.
Because if they're identical other than gender, they're communicating the exact same thing: someone is going to miss Link, and gives him a gift as he leaves. The story you build up around it in your mind is what you bring to it.
it's also the culture the video games grew up in, and video games trade heavily in cultural norms. The game does not exist in a cultural vacuum, and it's pretty difficult for me to interpret any of the games I mentioned as completely devoid of the narrative bsjezz mentioned, that marriage and love was a reward for rescue. I would also be surprised if peach/mario link/zelda were left out of 'greatest video game romances' listicles, since that's how most people view them rather than playing through all those games and thinking 'well they never explicitly declared their love'
heterosexuality is the cultural default. Even to me! If someone is not outwardly queer looking, I often assume they're straight (which is sometimes incorrect). that's why just swapping the genders and changing nothing else about the story doesn't make it into a queer story. because heterosexuality is assumed, an explicit gay narrative is needed. Otherwise you get the JK Rowling effect and it completely defeats the purpose of adding a queer narrative to your story.
I disagree that a (male) knight saving a (female) damsel in distress is inherently a heterosexual story - it would be an inherently patriarchal story, but that's a different kettle of fish.
Saving someone of the opposite sex, or teaming up with them to fight the forces of darkness... does not mean you are romantically interested in them.
aside from the narrative matter that most 'damsels' were literal princesses and the reward for their rescue was marriage...
The classic fairytale "Poor man rescues a princess and marries her, becomes rich" is a stereotype, sure, but there are also numerous fairytales where a poor woman does something and woos a prince, marries him, and becomes rich. Many story archetypes stem from fairytales, and the "Poor person manages to find love and money" story resonated because a lot of people were poor and marriage could be their only real shot at upward mobility.
Oh come on. Heteronormativity is the flavor of the day and we all know it. Unless you specify, ESPECIALLY in major commercial nerd brands, for males heterosexuality is the standard. THAT'S why it's not specified in-game, because it already constantly is in every other way shape and form.
Heteronormativity is the standard because heterosexuality is the norm. The percentage of people in the United States that identify as LGBT is less than 5%. That doesn't mean that gays don't deserve representation any more or less than any other minority group, it just means that if you pull a random person off of the street there is an over 95% chance that they will be straight. If you were betting money you'd pick hetero every time.
If you don't feel that modern game developers are doing a particular group of people justice regarding representation (and considering how few games that have gay male protagonists have been mentioned in this thread so far you are probably on to something), the good news is that it has never been easier to learn how to make your own game. You won't have some publisher demanding you make changes to appeal to that 95%, you won't have to settle for limiting your LGBT inclusion to lesbians (the "safe gay" choice when it comes to media), you can make a game where a gay man is the protagonist and no one can stop you.
yikes! I don't think you would get much traction if you made the same argument for the underrepresentation of black characters in video games
telling a minority to make their own content is not super helpful if they have traditionally been excluded from having a voice or presence in the places that create that content. See also: women in video games (who make up over half the population!) , people of color in television, etc.
When people making a statement like "but 95% of folks aren't LGBT!" as an excuse for the dearth of LGBT characters that are well-written and not treated as a punching bag/punchline, what I hear is "I don't think people care about stories if the characters aren't exactly like them."
Which is a wild and shitty take on many levels. Part of what's great about story-telling is being able to read about someone who is different than you, and finding commonalities between them and you. It's how we build complex and layered worldviews and build empathy.
Also, if it's so important that characters be exactly like the audience, then isn't it pretty shitty of us to exclude folks who aren't exactly like the majority from all these stories? They deserve to have characters they can relate to as well, even if they don't make up a majority or plurality of our population.
And it's boring to have a cookie-cutter protagonist in every single game. I could go on.
Oh I’m aware of what dark primus was saying. If we ignore the overwhelming heterocentrism that has been present in video games since they got started telling stories, then they aren’t heterosexual at all.
I am not really sure how a knight rescuing a damsel in distress is not a heterosexual story! It’s like the archetypal version of that story, and it seems kind of obtuse to just ignore all the implications that come with it.
You interpret these stories as having hetero implications because of the culture you grew up in. it does not make the story inherently hetero.
Think of it this way:
Game A: Link has a childhood friend named Saria. They seem pretty close. When he leaves, she gives him an ocarina and says "when you play my ocarina, I hope you will think of me and come back to the forest to visit."
Game B: Link has a childhood friend named Sario. They seem pretty close. When he leaves, he gives him an ocarina and says "when you play my ocarina, I hope you will think of me and come back to the forest to visit."
Script is identical between the two games, only the character model and pronouns are swapped out.
If you interpret game A as Link having a budding young love interest and now she's heartbroken and may never love again, but you interpret game B as Link being best buds with some dude and they just hung out and partied and his bro's gonna platonically miss him...that's on you and the culture you were raised in.
Because if they're identical other than gender, they're communicating the exact same thing: someone is going to miss Link, and gives him a gift as he leaves. The story you build up around it in your mind is what you bring to it.
it's also the culture the video games grew up in, and video games trade heavily in cultural norms. The game does not exist in a cultural vacuum, and it's pretty difficult for me to interpret any of the games I mentioned as completely devoid of the narrative bsjezz mentioned, that marriage and love was a reward for rescue. I would also be surprised if peach/mario link/zelda were left out of 'greatest video game romances' listicles, since that's how most people view them rather than playing through all those games and thinking 'well they never explicitly declared their love'
heterosexuality is the cultural default. Even to me! If someone is not outwardly queer looking, I often assume they're straight (which is sometimes incorrect). that's why just swapping the genders and changing nothing else about the story doesn't make it into a queer story. because heterosexuality is assumed, an explicit gay narrative is needed. Otherwise you get the JK Rowling effect and it completely defeats the purpose of adding a queer narrative to your story.
A 2013 opinion piece on a random site that didn't even have the cachet to generate a single comment doesn't exactly inspire agreement that those pairings are all "greatest romances." I would say the article is wrong on most fronts. It says things like "their love has remained constant" without providing even the smallest bit of evidence of love (of which the games generally contain little to none).
As a side note, I couldn't help but notice the button at the bottom of their page as a quick indicator of what the site is, or was, at that point in time:
Sorry if I don't take their lists very seriously.
There simply is not enough characterization in most of these games to say that the characters are "obviously" in love, and I think it does a disservice to the importance of having stories where two characters aren't necessarily an item. Stories need to be allowed to have male and female characters who are simply friends, and male/male characters who are more than friends. Every kind of pairing needs to be able to exist. It's reductive to say "hey, there's a guy and a girl on screen, you know they're banging ha ha."
But you point out [Pearl and marina] are probably girlfriends or on the way to such, and everyone is like "no they're just friends, they haven't kissed on screen". Meanwhile a dude and a girl grab each other's hand for a moment to cross a risky bridge and that's basically marriage. It's goddamn exhausting is what it is.
It is exhausting. And it doesn't have to be that way. It starts with taking a closer look at what is actually being represented, without bringing that cultural baggage into it.
telling a minority to make their own content is not super helpful if they have traditionally been excluded from having a voice or presence in the places that create that content. See also: women in video games (who make up over half the population!) , people of color in television, etc.
The difference in this case is the lack of barriers to entry. Traditionally there have been problems with companies refusing to hire or work with minorities; there was a time when saying "make your own games" was laughable, since you needed a computer priced out of consumer range, you needed industry connections and tens of thousands of dollar dev kits, and you needed arcane knowledge of inscrutable CPU opcodes. Now, tons of people are making their own solo projects and seeing great success with them.
There's a fairly clear indication of lesbian romance in Undertale. A game headed up by Toby Fox, with only a couple other primary contributors. 5 million or more in sales, seen by tons of people. Not only was he not rejected from Steam for featuring non-normative themes, but he was also sought out by Sony and Nintendo to bring his game to their platforms. If there ever was a time, it would be now.
Master Chief could be gay but you'd never know because interpersonal relationships aren't the focus. Who the chief likes to fuck doesn't really change the mission nor does it really alter the game at all because he's a murderous robot of a person. My guardian in destiny could be gay, straight or whatever, it doesn't change the mission and the mission is murdering everything they see and lots of dancing.
Apparently that tea drinking fuck in the EDZ church is gay, but I never knew because all he does is recite the same goddamn lines over and over "I CAN SET MY WATCH TO THESE RANDOM TAKEN APPEARANCES! OH NO, SPILLED THE TEA!". Given that, I'd be concerned with hamfisted attempts at inclusion that are either done after the fact and add nothing to the character (hey, we never said it before but X character was gay!), or are done just so poorly as to be offensive like the trans character in that last Baldur's Gate expac...who introduces themselves to you and then states they're trans the minute they meet you. Did they even do a smidgen of research? Or were they just to proud of their inclusiveness to actually write a proper character?
I suppose Bioware has gotten better at it, kind of, in that the entire cast isn't playersexual - that they're gay straight or robosexual - whatever is needed to let the player rub against them like a pair of plastic dolls in underwear that never comes off.
This is not about whether Mario and Peach are just friends or not. That's one small part of the greater discussion, which is that it's reductive (and even a little juvenile) to assume that every time a guy and a girl are on screen together, they must be banging. If you're as exhausted by these assumptions as everyone else, change starts with you. Others writing clickbait articles with tautologies about how any two characters are in love because of course they're in love does not affect whether you need to accept that judgement at face value.
This isn't even to say that any given game pairing aren't a couple. This isn't about specific characters, it's about the broader concept.
The question you originally replied to was "why is it that Zelda would have to be male for Link to be gay?" Or following that, "why is it you're so sure that Master Chief isn't gay?"
Your response seems to boil down along the lines of "because everyone assumes so." And to that I say, fuck those people. They don't get to dictate these things. A lot of them are picking up signals that aren't even there, or missing signs that could even indicate the opposite.
When people making a statement like "but 95% of folks aren't LGBT!" as an excuse for the dearth of LGBT characters that are well-written and not treated as a punching bag/punchline, what I hear is "I don't think people care about stories if the characters aren't exactly like them."
Which is a wild and shitty take on many levels. Part of what's great about story-telling is being able to read about someone who is different than you, and finding commonalities between them and you. It's how we build complex and layered worldviews and build empathy.
Also, if it's so important that characters be exactly like the audience, then isn't it pretty shitty of us to exclude folks who aren't exactly like the majority from all these stories? They deserve to have characters they can relate to as well, even if they don't make up a majority or plurality of our population.
And it's boring to have a cookie-cutter protagonist in every single game. I could go on.
Hearing (part of) the path through life for a Japanese lesbian comic book artist with an eating disorder was fascinating in large part because of how exotic her experiences were to anything I was even aware of.
I’m not saying it’s ‘hard’, but sexuality does tend to take a back seat because it’s awkward to place in the flow of a game. To include sexuality (I’m thinking Life is Strange’s romance) is to make the experience somewhat about it. If the action stopped in a Resident Evil game for Chris to say he’s gay, and so is Wesker, but not with each other, I’d find it odd.*
I think a huge cast is the best way to include characters that are simply gay. I never made it because I can’t code for chips but I once planned out a vertical shooter (you know, spaceship shoots hordes of enemies up the screen) where your ship needed a pilot, gunner and engineer to function drawn from a roster of hundreds, and I was gonna make a ton of them non-normative for kicks.
That said, when sexuality is included, such as ‘romance options’, put everything in. Give me all the options.
Last thought of the day, I’m glad the-hero-saves-the-princess story has been dying out, and I don’t even want Mario to do it at this point. Shack Peach up with Daisy, let Mario be a strong independent man who don’t need no woman, and let Luigi be a bisexual player.
Heteronormativity is the standard because heterosexuality is the norm. The percentage of people in the United States that identify as LGBT is less than 5%. That doesn't mean that gays don't deserve representation any more or less than any other minority group, it just means that if you pull a random person off of the street there is an over 95% chance that they will be straight. If you were betting money you'd pick hetero every time.
I know, that's very literally what I'm saying. Believe it or not, I'm somewhat ok with it.
If you don't feel that modern game developers are doing a particular group of people justice regarding representation (and considering how few games that have gay male protagonists have been mentioned in this thread so far you are probably on to something), the good news is that it has never been easier to learn how to make your own game. You won't have some publisher demanding you make changes to appeal to that 95%, you won't have to settle for limiting your LGBT inclusion to lesbians (the "safe gay" choice when it comes to media), you can make a game where a gay man is the protagonist and no one can stop you.
FYI "If gay people want gay characters they should learn to make their own games" is INCREDIBLY offensive.
The videogame industry does not owe you inclusion. That might not be what you want to hear, but it's the truth. If you are unhappy with the videogame industry lagging behind modern culture with regard to representation, and I offer a suggestion that would let you personally be an agent for change to help the industry catch up, and you tell me it is "INCREDIBLY offensive", than that tells me that you're not actually looking for a solution.
You'll have considerably better luck doing that than trying to convince a modern game developer (likely comprised mostly by straight people) to risk millions of dollars developing a game starring a protagonist they do not identify with that is targeting a market that has not established itself. Look at the situation less from a cultural standpoint, and more from an economic one - It won't feel any better to you, but it will start to make more sense.
telling a minority to make their own content is not super helpful if they have traditionally been excluded from having a voice or presence in the places that create that content. See also: women in video games (who make up over half the population!) , people of color in television, etc.
It's a good thing that it's easier than ever to break into the places that create that content. Valve doesn't make you include a 23andMe report when you decide to sell a game on Steam, and your home office doesn't have a glass ceiling. You can identify as any traditionally underrepresented person, and you can make a game that explores any traditionally underrepresented theme that you want, and literally no one can stop you.
If a minority character has a single character flaw (or percieved flaw) a vocal minority calls for blood. So why take the risk of inclusion when it's gonna lead to massive internet outrage when there was good intentions at the start?
This right here is what kills me. And it's not even really specifically targeted at minorities any more. It's literally everyone. They can't have flaws or someone will get pissed about it and write a biopic on how it's destroying the sanctity of <insert random whatever>.
I've decided that Mario and Sonic are gay buddies. There is no obvious romance, but you have to read between the lines.
They compete in Olympic games every 2 years. That's literally shit like Yuri!!! On Ice. They were once enemies who spurred each other to do better, but now they're on the same platforms, having become best friends and inviting their closest circles to play along.
I've decided that Mario and Sonic are gay buddies. There is no obvious romance, but you have to read between the lines.
They compete in Olympic games every 2 years. That's literally shit like Yuri!!! On Ice. They were once enemies who spurred each other to do better, but now they're on the same platforms, having become best friends and inviting their closest circles to play along.
Reads gay as a rainbow unicorn to me.
That is ridiculous.
Because Sonic clearly married everyone's Original Character Do Not Steal at the end of Forces.
There's also a depressing chance that inclusion in mainstream games will get more rare with the constant current roaming internet outrage mobs.
If a minority character has a single character flaw (or percieved flaw) a vocal minority calls for blood. So why take the risk of inclusion when it's gonna lead to massive internet outrage when there was good intentions at the start?
Yeah, that's definitely something I'm worried about, too. We've seen it a lot with the ridiculous YA twitter stuff getting publishers to cancel books. It particularly scares away indie developers (and new writers) who are already doing something relatively high-risk. (Also scary for established people--why risk your career just for this?)
FYI "If gay people want gay characters they should learn to make their own games" is INCREDIBLY offensive.
I wouldn't say it's offensive, just unhelpful. I mean, I can't personally solve all the world's problems. If I had any artistic ability or had enough money to hire some people who do, I'd be happy to make my own game. But I don't.
If you interpret game A as Link having a budding young love interest and now she's heartbroken and may never love again, but you interpret game B as Link being best buds with some dude and they just hung out and partied and his bro's gonna platonically miss him...that's on you and the culture you were raised in.
That's... that's just not how language works at all. Most communication is contextual, particularly in writing. That's the difference between good engaging writing, and terrible cringy writing.
For example, in Avatar: The Last Airbender, Toph is stubborn and hard to move -- just like rock. Aang is flighty and easy to move -- like air. Zuko is hot-tempered and hard to control -- like fire. Etc. Everyone in that show exhibits characteristics of their element, and this is done in a way that accommodates lots of different personalities (e.g., Bumi and his neutral Jing).
We don't need to be told any of this. We don't even need to consciously realize it. But this context is purposeful and informs the story. We know how to understand characters and their motivations by using this analogy, without ever having to be told how they think, what they think, or how they feel. Toph never needs to say "I am stubborn therefore I think X." That would be bad writing. This has nothing to do with """culture""" or any nonsense like that. It's language.
Compare this to Andromeda's super-cringy "LOOK AT ME I'M TRANS" crap.
Also, a bunch of others in the thread have mentioned that big companies don't want to have gay characters because of foreign markets, or thinking it won't sell, or something like that. I don't think that's true. Publishers (like most companies) are very cautious about anything that deviates from products that have sold super-well, even in trivial ways. Google image search "every movie poster is the same." They even use the same color schemes.
If movie companies aren't willing to sell a big-budget movie that's guaranteed to make billions with a poster with a slightly different color scheme, gay characters are out of the question. But that's not due to any bigotry or non-progressiveness or malfesense, they are just not good at taking risks.
If movie companies aren't willing to sell a big-budget movie that's guaranteed to make billions with a poster with a slightly different color scheme, gay characters are out of the question. But that's not due to any bigotry or non-progressiveness or malfesense, they are just not good at taking risks.
No, uh, a studio's unwillingness to fund films that don't have straight white protagonists IS because of bigotry.
You don't get to participate in systemic discrimination, only to get a free pass from calling it discrimination because you tell us "it's just good business."
If movie companies aren't willing to sell a big-budget movie that's guaranteed to make billions with a poster with a slightly different color scheme, gay characters are out of the question. But that's not due to any bigotry or non-progressiveness or malfesense, they are just not good at taking risks.
No, uh, a studio's unwillingness to fund films that don't have straight white protagonists IS because of bigotry.
You don't get to participate in systemic discrimination, only to get a free pass from calling it discrimination because you tell us "it's just good business."
I think you're talking about the practical result of the act while sorcelators was focusing on the intent behind it. Those things don't necessarily align.
If movie companies aren't willing to sell a big-budget movie that's guaranteed to make billions with a poster with a slightly different color scheme, gay characters are out of the question. But that's not due to any bigotry or non-progressiveness or malfesense, they are just not good at taking risks.
No, uh, a studio's unwillingness to fund films that don't have straight white protagonists IS because of bigotry.
You don't get to participate in systemic discrimination, only to get a free pass from calling it discrimination because you tell us "it's just good business."
I think you're talking about the practical result of the act while sorcelators was focusing on the intent behind it. Those things don't necessarily align.
One does not have to have a conscious intent to be bigoted in order to behave in a bigoted manner or perform bigoted actions.
It's just the "How could what I have done been racist, I'm not a racist!" excuse.
The only color Hollywood gives a shit about is green, bigotry has nothing to do with it.
Over the years, Hollywood has shown zero complaints about fitting in equal measures greed, racism, sexism, and classism.
Saying they're not racist because all they want is money is silly, when until recently there hadn't been a female or POC lead in a Marvel film because of Ike Perlmutter.
jungleroomx on
+15
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Also I feel like saying that Hollywood is greed and not bigotry requires you to have lived under a rock during the entire Weinstein debacle.
If movie companies aren't willing to sell a big-budget movie that's guaranteed to make billions with a poster with a slightly different color scheme, gay characters are out of the question. But that's not due to any bigotry or non-progressiveness or malfesense, they are just not good at taking risks.
No, uh, a studio's unwillingness to fund films that don't have straight white protagonists IS because of bigotry.
You don't get to participate in systemic discrimination, only to get a free pass from calling it discrimination because you tell us "it's just good business."
I think you're talking about the practical result of the act while sorcelators was focusing on the intent behind it. Those things don't necessarily align.
One does not have to have a conscious intent to be bigoted in order to behave in a bigoted manner or perform bigoted actions.
It's just the "How could what I have done been racist, I'm not a racist!" excuse.
That would be why I said those things don't necessarily align. We agree here.
Also I feel like saying that Hollywood is greed and not bigotry requires you to have lived under a rock during the entire Weinstein debacle.
Also, executives are people, and people are not actually the perfect money-making spherical cows people paint them as. Execs are as vulnerable to biases and being pigheaded as anyone else - more, really, because most execs have enough clout and get enough chances that they never have to actually learn from their mistakes.
There's an old joke that goes roughly like this:
Action movie starring male actor doesn't sell for shit
Execs: "Man, people clearly don't want to watch movies with this actor" Action movie starring female actor doesn't sell for shit
Execs: "Man, people clearly don't want to watch movies with female actors"
...and it's not a lot less true than it was fifteen years ago.
The only color Hollywood gives a shit about is green, bigotry has nothing to do with it.
Making the decision to not even risk "offending" bigots because you want their money is not a neutral action.
That's not what they're doing, that's not what's going on, and that's specifically not what I said. They are not worried about offending people, movies offend people all the time, and any publicity is good publicity. They do not want to change things--even as small as the color schemes they use in posters--because they do not know what the effects of that change will be.
Calling people who are trying to make prudent, reasonable business decisions "bigots" is childish, unhelpful, stupid, and only serves to diminish the people who are affected by actual, real-life bigotry. They are not comparable, they are not the same thing, and it is deeply myopic, unsympathetic, and offensive to actual victims of bigotry.
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
The only color Hollywood gives a shit about is green, bigotry has nothing to do with it.
Making the decision to not even risk "offending" bigots because you want their money is not a neutral action.
That's not what they're doing, that's not what's going on, and that's specifically not what I said. They are not worried about offending people, movies offend people all the time, and any publicity is good publicity. They do not want to change things--even as small as the color schemes they use in posters--because they do not know what the effects of that change will be.
Calling people who are trying to make prudent, reasonable business decisions "bigots" is childish, unhelpful, stupid, and only serves to diminish the people who are affected by actual, real-life bigotry. They are not comparable, they are not the same thing, and it is deeply myopic, unsympathetic, and offensive to actual victims of bigotry.
You mean like all those women that have come out about how they were victims of bigotry by Hollywood execs? Also, sexual assault and rape? Is that childish, too?
The international movie audience is super racist. I don't know if you've been paying attention to the film industry for the past few years, but every studio is bending over backwards to attract a Chinese audience (a country with 1.5 billion people), and Chinese moviegoers like White actors. Remember when Black Panther came out in China and hey waaaaait a minute, I thought we were talking about gay men in videogames
What would be considered appropriately non romantic yet signifying being gay?
That's not really snark, I'm just trying to think of a way in which you could write a gay character, signify that character is gay to the audience but not make it a thematic element in the story without romance.
I think the Tracer comic series for Overwatch was pretty good, but it ended up being a romance. Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex, so unless you stereotype the shit out of a character to make them "obviously" gay which would be kind of offensive, I don't see how it's possible without extraordinary effort.
The entire cast of Call of Duty could be gay. There's nothing about the game to indicate otherwise.
The "man rescuing the damsel in distress" thing has been a story beat tied directly to heterosexual love for literally thousands of years. It's so ingrained as a storytelling trope that the times when one of the characters is gay, or even merely romantically disinterested, it's often a punchline that plays off of the fact that everyone knows how the story traditionally goes. I think it's unfair to ask audiences to blame their own biases when they assume that, for example, Mario is straight. His actions are a totally unchallenged callback to one of the most enduring straight plot elements in all of the western literary canon. Devoid of all other context, asking someone to not take the damsel-in-distress trope at face value here is to ask them to ignore how storytelling works. I think it's unhelpful to claim otherwise when someone is looking for gay protagonists.
I mean, the "damsel in distress" plot itself is part of the systemic patriarchal culture we get indoctrinated in. The gender politics at play are directly related to the discussion at hand. Remember how for decades gay folk were punchlines directly tied to gender stereotyped behavior?
The only color Hollywood gives a shit about is green, bigotry has nothing to do with it.
Making the decision to not even risk "offending" bigots because you want their money is not a neutral action.
That's not what they're doing, that's not what's going on, and that's specifically not what I said. They are not worried about offending people, movies offend people all the time, and any publicity is good publicity. They do not want to change things--even as small as the color schemes they use in posters--because they do not know what the effects of that change will be.
Calling people who are trying to make prudent, reasonable business decisions "bigots" is childish, unhelpful, stupid, and only serves to diminish the people who are affected by actual, real-life bigotry. They are not comparable, they are not the same thing, and it is deeply myopic, unsympathetic, and offensive to actual victims of bigotry.
You mean like all those women that have come out about how they were victims of bigotry by Hollywood execs? Also, sexual assault and rape? Is that childish, too?
This whole "it's just business" excuse is just like a Black Friday TV from a brand I've never heard of: I'm not buying it.
Also, the developers of Horizon: Zero Dawn have talked about how Sony was extremely nervous and hesitant to push Horizon Zero Dawn with a female main protagonist because they were worried "gamers" wouldn't want to play as a female. Guerilla Games stuck to their guns and convinced Sony to give it a shot, and boom, its the fifth most sold PS4 game. And it was almost changed heavily because execs were hesitant to allow you to play as a young woman.
Posts
I know, that's very literally what I'm saying. Believe it or not, I'm somewhat ok with it.
FYI "If gay people want gay characters they should learn to make their own games" is INCREDIBLY offensive.
Did you miss the long looks at each other multiple times through the game?
David giving Rush flowers?
Rush getting jealous when David hints at affection with anyone else?
In the Japanese version, Rush comes back at the end because 'David is waiting for him' which is one of the many line changes in the English version.
Though yeah, nothing is above heavy subtext contrasting to say, SaGa Frontier (1) and Asellus' open harem as an example for the older games in the series.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
I did! I missed all of that! Blast and damnation!!!
See?!?! See?!?! It can be blatant as all hell and even GAY folks will miss this shit because IT'S NEVER THERE. So even when it is we don't even see it!
When he says "the good news is that it has never been easier to learn how to make your own game," I think there's an implied bad news that there's little other productive recourse. I mean, when the options are "get started on learning how to make your own game" and "raise enough objections and apply enough pressure online until someone makes a game for me," the first seems more healthy. By contrast, what else would you have others say? "Yeah, it sucks and it's too bad that we can't really do anything about it?" Or say nothing at all, to avoid giving offense when none was intended?
It's not a stance advocating that other devs shouldn't make more games to represent LGBT, rather it's recognizing an unfortunate situation and saying that if you want to see change, it's easier than ever to enact it, and in doing so to make sure it's done right.
I would hope that if a developer was looking to start making a game with gay protagonists, actual gay people would be consulted at some point anyway, so getting a gay person involved in game creation who might not otherwise have been is an ideal result regardless.
If a minority character has a single character flaw (or percieved flaw) a vocal minority calls for blood. So why take the risk of inclusion when it's gonna lead to massive internet outrage when there was good intentions at the start?
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
This right here is what kills me. And it's not even really specifically targeted at minorities any more. It's literally everyone. They can't have flaws or someone will get pissed about it and write a biopic on how it's destroying the sanctity of <insert random whatever>.
That is barely a real concern, and more often than not just an excuse to not bother or dismiss people who are annoyed at nonrepresentation as unpleasable cranks, to be honest. Everything you do will piss off someone, the question is who, and how many.
In general, I've found that the simplest trick is, do not have a single character in your entire work that represents everyone who is not an hetero dude. You'd think this should be blindingly fucking obvious, but apparently you have to point out to people that it's easier to not accidentally give your narrative a "collective = trait" subtext is to simply have more than one person from said collective and have them be meaningfully different.
And if they do go and make their own games, they get attacked for being SJWs shoving their politics down gamer's throats.
it's also the culture the video games grew up in, and video games trade heavily in cultural norms. The game does not exist in a cultural vacuum, and it's pretty difficult for me to interpret any of the games I mentioned as completely devoid of the narrative bsjezz mentioned, that marriage and love was a reward for rescue. I would also be surprised if peach/mario link/zelda were left out of 'greatest video game romances' listicles, since that's how most people view them rather than playing through all those games and thinking 'well they never explicitly declared their love'
I mean check this out! https://thefw.com/best-video-game-couples/
They're all straight as eff even if they're not all human.
heterosexuality is the cultural default. Even to me! If someone is not outwardly queer looking, I often assume they're straight (which is sometimes incorrect). that's why just swapping the genders and changing nothing else about the story doesn't make it into a queer story. because heterosexuality is assumed, an explicit gay narrative is needed. Otherwise you get the JK Rowling effect and it completely defeats the purpose of adding a queer narrative to your story.
yikes! I don't think you would get much traction if you made the same argument for the underrepresentation of black characters in video games
telling a minority to make their own content is not super helpful if they have traditionally been excluded from having a voice or presence in the places that create that content. See also: women in video games (who make up over half the population!) , people of color in television, etc.
Which is a wild and shitty take on many levels. Part of what's great about story-telling is being able to read about someone who is different than you, and finding commonalities between them and you. It's how we build complex and layered worldviews and build empathy.
Also, if it's so important that characters be exactly like the audience, then isn't it pretty shitty of us to exclude folks who aren't exactly like the majority from all these stories? They deserve to have characters they can relate to as well, even if they don't make up a majority or plurality of our population.
And it's boring to have a cookie-cutter protagonist in every single game. I could go on.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
A 2013 opinion piece on a random site that didn't even have the cachet to generate a single comment doesn't exactly inspire agreement that those pairings are all "greatest romances." I would say the article is wrong on most fronts. It says things like "their love has remained constant" without providing even the smallest bit of evidence of love (of which the games generally contain little to none).
Sorry if I don't take their lists very seriously.
There simply is not enough characterization in most of these games to say that the characters are "obviously" in love, and I think it does a disservice to the importance of having stories where two characters aren't necessarily an item. Stories need to be allowed to have male and female characters who are simply friends, and male/male characters who are more than friends. Every kind of pairing needs to be able to exist. It's reductive to say "hey, there's a guy and a girl on screen, you know they're banging ha ha."
To reiterate what Drascin said:
It is exhausting. And it doesn't have to be that way. It starts with taking a closer look at what is actually being represented, without bringing that cultural baggage into it.
The difference in this case is the lack of barriers to entry. Traditionally there have been problems with companies refusing to hire or work with minorities; there was a time when saying "make your own games" was laughable, since you needed a computer priced out of consumer range, you needed industry connections and tens of thousands of dollar dev kits, and you needed arcane knowledge of inscrutable CPU opcodes. Now, tons of people are making their own solo projects and seeing great success with them.
There's a fairly clear indication of lesbian romance in Undertale. A game headed up by Toby Fox, with only a couple other primary contributors. 5 million or more in sales, seen by tons of people. Not only was he not rejected from Steam for featuring non-normative themes, but he was also sought out by Sony and Nintendo to bring his game to their platforms. If there ever was a time, it would be now.
Apparently that tea drinking fuck in the EDZ church is gay, but I never knew because all he does is recite the same goddamn lines over and over "I CAN SET MY WATCH TO THESE RANDOM TAKEN APPEARANCES! OH NO, SPILLED THE TEA!". Given that, I'd be concerned with hamfisted attempts at inclusion that are either done after the fact and add nothing to the character (hey, we never said it before but X character was gay!), or are done just so poorly as to be offensive like the trans character in that last Baldur's Gate expac...who introduces themselves to you and then states they're trans the minute they meet you. Did they even do a smidgen of research? Or were they just to proud of their inclusiveness to actually write a proper character?
I suppose Bioware has gotten better at it, kind of, in that the entire cast isn't playersexual - that they're gay straight or robosexual - whatever is needed to let the player rub against them like a pair of plastic dolls in underwear that never comes off.
https://www.gamesradar.com/its-a-complicated-a-brief-history-of-mario-and-princess-peachs-on-off-romance/
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/what-to-play/video-games-greatest-love-stories-valentines-day/mario-and-peach-super-mario-bros/
https://www.theyoungfolks.com/video-games/129605/the-10-best-video-game-romances/
https://www.thegamer.com/super-mario-peach-relationship-tidbits/
https://blog.turtlebeach.com/best-couples-in-video-games/
https://fanfitgaming.com/top-10-video-game-romances/
If you think peach and mario are platonic besties, I and I think most people don't agree with you!
This isn't even to say that any given game pairing aren't a couple. This isn't about specific characters, it's about the broader concept.
The question you originally replied to was "why is it that Zelda would have to be male for Link to be gay?" Or following that, "why is it you're so sure that Master Chief isn't gay?"
Your response seems to boil down along the lines of "because everyone assumes so." And to that I say, fuck those people. They don't get to dictate these things. A lot of them are picking up signals that aren't even there, or missing signs that could even indicate the opposite.
It's not videogames but this post brought to mind one of the more interesting autobiographies I've read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lesbian_Experience_With_Loneliness
Hearing (part of) the path through life for a Japanese lesbian comic book artist with an eating disorder was fascinating in large part because of how exotic her experiences were to anything I was even aware of.
I think a huge cast is the best way to include characters that are simply gay. I never made it because I can’t code for chips but I once planned out a vertical shooter (you know, spaceship shoots hordes of enemies up the screen) where your ship needed a pilot, gunner and engineer to function drawn from a roster of hundreds, and I was gonna make a ton of them non-normative for kicks.
That said, when sexuality is included, such as ‘romance options’, put everything in. Give me all the options.
Last thought of the day, I’m glad the-hero-saves-the-princess story has been dying out, and I don’t even want Mario to do it at this point. Shack Peach up with Daisy, let Mario be a strong independent man who don’t need no woman, and let Luigi be a bisexual player.
*Thats canon though. I’ve decided.
The videogame industry does not owe you inclusion. That might not be what you want to hear, but it's the truth. If you are unhappy with the videogame industry lagging behind modern culture with regard to representation, and I offer a suggestion that would let you personally be an agent for change to help the industry catch up, and you tell me it is "INCREDIBLY offensive", than that tells me that you're not actually looking for a solution.
You'll have considerably better luck doing that than trying to convince a modern game developer (likely comprised mostly by straight people) to risk millions of dollars developing a game starring a protagonist they do not identify with that is targeting a market that has not established itself. Look at the situation less from a cultural standpoint, and more from an economic one - It won't feel any better to you, but it will start to make more sense.
It's a good thing that it's easier than ever to break into the places that create that content. Valve doesn't make you include a 23andMe report when you decide to sell a game on Steam, and your home office doesn't have a glass ceiling. You can identify as any traditionally underrepresented person, and you can make a game that explores any traditionally underrepresented theme that you want, and literally no one can stop you.
Who cares? A bunch of people get mad about your game? They weren't going to buy it anyway. Who cares? Look at it as free publicity.
Stop giving a shit about what Twitter thinks, you'll be happier.
The value of voicing desires online is to encourage creators to meet those desires. Being "owed" is irrelevant.
I think Mario has had just about enough of Peach and Bowser's shit.
They compete in Olympic games every 2 years. That's literally shit like Yuri!!! On Ice. They were once enemies who spurred each other to do better, but now they're on the same platforms, having become best friends and inviting their closest circles to play along.
Reads gay as a rainbow unicorn to me.
Steam: TheArcadeBear
That is ridiculous.
Because Sonic clearly married everyone's Original Character Do Not Steal at the end of Forces.
Yeah, that's definitely something I'm worried about, too. We've seen it a lot with the ridiculous YA twitter stuff getting publishers to cancel books. It particularly scares away indie developers (and new writers) who are already doing something relatively high-risk. (Also scary for established people--why risk your career just for this?)
I wouldn't say it's offensive, just unhelpful. I mean, I can't personally solve all the world's problems. If I had any artistic ability or had enough money to hire some people who do, I'd be happy to make my own game. But I don't.
That's... that's just not how language works at all. Most communication is contextual, particularly in writing. That's the difference between good engaging writing, and terrible cringy writing.
For example, in Avatar: The Last Airbender, Toph is stubborn and hard to move -- just like rock. Aang is flighty and easy to move -- like air. Zuko is hot-tempered and hard to control -- like fire. Etc. Everyone in that show exhibits characteristics of their element, and this is done in a way that accommodates lots of different personalities (e.g., Bumi and his neutral Jing).
We don't need to be told any of this. We don't even need to consciously realize it. But this context is purposeful and informs the story. We know how to understand characters and their motivations by using this analogy, without ever having to be told how they think, what they think, or how they feel. Toph never needs to say "I am stubborn therefore I think X." That would be bad writing. This has nothing to do with """culture""" or any nonsense like that. It's language.
Compare this to Andromeda's super-cringy "LOOK AT ME I'M TRANS" crap.
Also, a bunch of others in the thread have mentioned that big companies don't want to have gay characters because of foreign markets, or thinking it won't sell, or something like that. I don't think that's true. Publishers (like most companies) are very cautious about anything that deviates from products that have sold super-well, even in trivial ways. Google image search "every movie poster is the same." They even use the same color schemes.
If movie companies aren't willing to sell a big-budget movie that's guaranteed to make billions with a poster with a slightly different color scheme, gay characters are out of the question. But that's not due to any bigotry or non-progressiveness or malfesense, they are just not good at taking risks.
No, uh, a studio's unwillingness to fund films that don't have straight white protagonists IS because of bigotry.
You don't get to participate in systemic discrimination, only to get a free pass from calling it discrimination because you tell us "it's just good business."
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think you're talking about the practical result of the act while sorcelators was focusing on the intent behind it. Those things don't necessarily align.
One does not have to have a conscious intent to be bigoted in order to behave in a bigoted manner or perform bigoted actions.
It's just the "How could what I have done been racist, I'm not a racist!" excuse.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Over the years, Hollywood has shown zero complaints about fitting in equal measures greed, racism, sexism, and classism.
Saying they're not racist because all they want is money is silly, when until recently there hadn't been a female or POC lead in a Marvel film because of Ike Perlmutter.
Next you're going to tell me that video games aren't political.
Trying to make sure you don't step on the toes of the GG crowd is spineless appeasement.
Making the decision to not even risk "offending" bigots because you want their money is not a neutral action.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That would be why I said those things don't necessarily align. We agree here.
Also, executives are people, and people are not actually the perfect money-making spherical cows people paint them as. Execs are as vulnerable to biases and being pigheaded as anyone else - more, really, because most execs have enough clout and get enough chances that they never have to actually learn from their mistakes.
There's an old joke that goes roughly like this:
Action movie starring male actor doesn't sell for shit
Execs: "Man, people clearly don't want to watch movies with this actor"
Action movie starring female actor doesn't sell for shit
Execs: "Man, people clearly don't want to watch movies with female actors"
...and it's not a lot less true than it was fifteen years ago.
That's not what they're doing, that's not what's going on, and that's specifically not what I said. They are not worried about offending people, movies offend people all the time, and any publicity is good publicity. They do not want to change things--even as small as the color schemes they use in posters--because they do not know what the effects of that change will be.
Calling people who are trying to make prudent, reasonable business decisions "bigots" is childish, unhelpful, stupid, and only serves to diminish the people who are affected by actual, real-life bigotry. They are not comparable, they are not the same thing, and it is deeply myopic, unsympathetic, and offensive to actual victims of bigotry.
You mean like all those women that have come out about how they were victims of bigotry by Hollywood execs? Also, sexual assault and rape? Is that childish, too?
Here's some good stuff from a 2014 Sony data hack that has one of these "prudent, reasonable businesses decisions." I.E. an exec painting the entire international movie market as racist and therefore they should not cast Denzel Washington in ANYTHING moving forward.
This whole "it's just business" excuse is just like a Black Friday TV from a brand I've never heard of: I'm not buying it.
That's not really snark, I'm just trying to think of a way in which you could write a gay character, signify that character is gay to the audience but not make it a thematic element in the story without romance.
I think the Tracer comic series for Overwatch was pretty good, but it ended up being a romance. Homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex, so unless you stereotype the shit out of a character to make them "obviously" gay which would be kind of offensive, I don't see how it's possible without extraordinary effort.
The entire cast of Call of Duty could be gay. There's nothing about the game to indicate otherwise.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Also, the developers of Horizon: Zero Dawn have talked about how Sony was extremely nervous and hesitant to push Horizon Zero Dawn with a female main protagonist because they were worried "gamers" wouldn't want to play as a female. Guerilla Games stuck to their guns and convinced Sony to give it a shot, and boom, its the fifth most sold PS4 game. And it was almost changed heavily because execs were hesitant to allow you to play as a young woman.