Support NeoGAF

[A Link to the Past]

Why is this thread such a disaster. Homophobes, y'all lost the culture war. Eat my ass





















oop that was a bit aggressive

tut tut

 

[MUnited83]

It is a debate where one side inherently starts with a disadvantage, especially when we have so little information that being on that side essentially means that you don't want LGBT people in games.



Can't be that the people opposed to this are just really, really bad at debating this argument and tend to say things that make them look really bad, like joking about killing gay people

Just ignore them, he's always pulling shit like this

Is "gamergate" just the catch all for "person who takes a stance I don't agree with?"

 

[SapphiCine]

its going to be Legend Emily

queen of bisexuality

You mean empress. Unless the Empire of the Isles collapses.

 

[mooksoup]

LGBT people should only criticize representation during ASMRs.

i laughed at this, but on second thought i'm into this idea. I want all ideas discussed this way. I want the US presidential debates done this way. let's make all arguments more sensual.

 

[bunkitz]

Cool. This is great news. I have no doubt that Arkane will be able to handle this properly and not make this feel forced.

I wonder if one of them is Emily, though.

 

[Kilau]

I resent that!

Apologies, the thread made an unexpected left hand turn a few pages back and I couldn't resist.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Just ignore them, he's always pulling shit like this

Hahaha

Really? I really hope they come back to this thread, because I want to see them acknowledge that they defended a known GamerGater from being accused of being a GamerGater.

Maybe the reason why they're so constantly shot down in these discussions is because they forgot that you have to know what you're talking about to be a part of it?

 

[mikefrails]

Just ignore them, he's always pulling shit like this

This is what I mean.

 

[cityhunter]

First of all, I wasn't talking about you, it was a general you, I should have specified

and I suppose you mean to say people are indifferent about LGBT representation, which is fair I guess, just that they shouldn't call themselves supporters when things get too difficult for them.

There's a difference between two guys kissing vs two guys get in your face and start making out. That's what I'm saying. Just like that whole militant atheist thing before. You get to the point where it's from voicing and making themselves heard to getting shouted down. That's what causes some of the backlash like someone apparently joked about the achievement thing, which I assume it's some kinda kill count achievement. Since I didn't play the first one.

 

[A Link to the Past]

This is what I mean.

Uh, okay lol. How mean, what that person should have said is "RX-78-2 is such a great poster." Not point out that you lack the foresight to enter discussions only when you are able to participate in them.

There's a difference between two guys kissing vs two guys get in your face and start making out. That's what I'm saying. Just like that whole militant atheist thing before. You get to the point where it's from voicing and making themselves heard to getting shouted down. That's what causes some of the backlash like someone apparently joked about the achievement thing, which I assume it's some kinda kill count achievement. Since I didn't play the first one.

What games do that? Have two guys get in your face and start making out? If anything, many of the recent depictions of LGBT people have been super subtle to avoid complaining about it.

 

[Aquillion]

What is it about LGBTQ representation threads in any piece of media that brings out the assholes?

Some of this piece is helpful.

Part of it is just homophobia, but I don't think that that's all of it.

Another part is that talking about representation carries an implicit (or, sometimes, explicit and specific) critique of the way things are now. And this tends to bother people who are fine with the way things are now -- people who honestly, truly don't care about LGBTQ issues one way or the other, or who don't think about it and don't want to think about it; but who naturally have an investment in the status quo by virtue of liking things how they are. Having people talk about how they'd like something different feels inherently threatening to them.

And it bothers them until, in some cases, it makes them start to become hostile to any sort of discussion of that nature -- they start to parse it through a hostile lens, interpreting criticism as vilification, objections as outrage, and any attempt to challenge the status quo as as an agenda-driven power-play.

Compounding this is the fact that most people like to think of themselves as rational, reasonable, morally-upright, ethical people; so when they others talking about LBGTQ representation, even if it starts out as something they're indifferent to, that indifference starts to become hard to sustain. They either have to admit to themselves that they don't care about something that's legitimately important to many other people (which is, I should stress, fine as long as you're not actively getting in the way, but can be hard for certain kinds of people to admit); or they have to come up with a way to dismiss those LBGTQ concerns, to say that they're invalid or that the people concerned with them are immoral or unethical somehow, etc.

A compounding factor is that I think that a lot of the people who protest come from a sort of culture where... they tend to view a lot of social interactions purely through the lens of power-dynamics, basically. So they see someone saying "we want more LBGTQ representation", and they read it as a power-play, as a cynical attempt to force other people to do something as part of a sinister agenda. To people like that, simply saying "all right, I don't care about this but it's obviously important to them" is surrendering.

This process turns an initial seed of "I'm vaguely sympathetic, but I wish they'd stop talking about it because I don't really care" into "screw them, I'm gonna come up with a reason to shut them down", which manifests in the kind of comments we've seen in the thread.

Well... whether you parse that as homophobia or not is up to you. But I think that that's why you see people defending the status quo the way they do, especially for people who suffer from a chronic inability to back down and a deep-set need to feel that they're at the moral center of the universe or to constantly assert that they have a total rational command of all possible fields of interest.

 

[mikefrails]

Uh, okay lol. How mean, what that person should have said is "RX-78-2 is such a great poster." Not point out that you lack the foresight to enter discussions only when you are able to participate in them.

Attempting to smear someone who is staunchly for the same things you are is immature and comes off as hostile.

The attitude from both sides in these discussions is disgusting. Are you attempting to change minds this way, or just tar and feather everyone including your own?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Just ignore them, he's always pulling shit like this

Oh it's that guy. Hahahaha

 

[A Link to the Past]

Attempting to smear someone who is staunchly for the same things you are is immature and comes off as hostile.

The attitude from both sides in these discussions is disgusting. Are you attempting to change minds this way, or just tar and feather everyone including your own?

You're so staunch that you have literally made no posts in this thread suggesting that the inclusion of more LGBT characters is a positive thing. Your whole argument was that LGBT characters can't be shoehorned into games (which requires that you assume shoehorning in this case based on a single word) and that LGBT people should write LGBT characters.

The fact that you consider yourself "in the middle" amuses me greatly.

 

[cityhunter]

Uh, okay lol. How mean, what that person should have said is "RX-78-2 is such a great poster." Not point out that you lack the foresight to enter discussions only when you are able to participate in them.



What games do that? Have two guys get in your face and start making out? If anything, many of the recent depictions of LGBT people have been super subtle to avoid complaining about it.

No, I didn't say that a game does that. Sorry if you misinterpret. If you want to carry this conversation further. PM me.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

This is good to hear.

 

[A Link to the Past]

No, I didn't say that a game does that. Sorry if you misinterpret. If you want to carry this conversation further. PM me.

I am not really interested in a PM conversation, I want to just note that if that is your concern, you are concerned about a fearmongering tactic. An idea invented not out of legitimate worry, but invented in order to make the inclusion of more LGBT characters in media seem like it has a greater negative side to it than it actually does.

Instead of worrying that it may happen (if I worried about every "maybe", I'd never stop worrying), I'll just be pleased that we are getting quality LGBT characters in media more so than ever.

 

[mikefrails]

You're so staunch that you have literally made no posts in this thread suggesting that the inclusion of more LGBT characters is a positive thing. Your whole argument was that LGBT characters can't be shoehorned into games (which requires that you assume shoehorning in this case based on a single word) and that LGBT people should write LGBT characters.

The fact that you consider yourself "in the middle" amuses me greatly.

You're just lying now.

Why are you being so pedantic?

Let me put it like this. As a black person, I don't want someone who doesn't understand the black experience writing characters about black people. Now, I don't know how these writers relate to LGBT people but I hope they have actual members of that community giving them insight so the characters come out unique and inspiring for everyone, especially other LGBT people.



Looked them up, good stuff. The writing is clearly in good hands so there's no need to worry.

Now get lost. You're proving yourself to be just as much of a knucklehead as the people you're against.

 

[MUnited83]

This is what I mean.

That you jump into conversations without knowing anything and that you always seem up to defend a certain type of people, under the guise of "you're just mad they have a different opinion"?

Attempting to smear someone who is staunchly for the same things you are is immature and comes off as hostile.

The attitude from both sides in these discussions is disgusting. Are you attempting to change minds this way, or just tar and feather everyone including your own?

Ah, the "both sides are the same " argument, i was thinking when that would come up.

 

[A Link to the Past]

You're just lying now.



Now get lost. You're proving yourself to be just as much as a knucklehead as the people you're against.

This post isn't nearly as "on my side" as you like to think it is. It's furtherance of the fearmongering of "what if this just makes bad LGBT characters?" that you expressed earlier. There is as much of an issue of Harvey Smith getting an LGBT character wrong as there is an issue that Martin Scorsese might not write his aviator the best way, or that Quentin Tarantino might do a bad cowboy.

 

[mikefrails]

This post isn't nearly as "on my side" as you like to think it is. It's furtherance of the fearmongering of "what if this just makes bad LGBT characters?" that you expressed earlier. There is as much of an issue of Harvey Smith getting an LGBT character wrong as there is an issue that Martin Scorsese might not write his aviator the best way, or that Quentin Tarantino might do a bad cowboy.

Friend, it's a discussion. You're not going to like everything being said and you're not always going to be right.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Friend, it's a discussion. You're not going to like everything being said and you're not always going to be right.

And a discussion may just involve one side that has really bad points and is consistently wrong due simply to the nature of the discussion. That is the nature of discussions. Debate about Twilight Princess? Both sides have a leg to stand on. Debate about LGBT representation? One side is inevitably going to have to make a stronger argument than normal.

So no, this does not serve as an example of "being on my side." You immediately came into this thread to discuss the idea of pressure put on designers, a thread about a person who has never expressed that they feel pressured to include LGBT characters. You have been using problematic language and ideas through the whole thread, so perhaps you thought that you were "on my side", but in actuality your contributions have been entirely expressing ideas I do not agree with, and posts that are meant to further those ideas.

 

[Aquillion]

Attempting to smear someone who is staunchly for the same things you are is immature and comes off as hostile.

The attitude from both sides in these discussions is disgusting. Are you attempting to change minds this way, or just tar and feather everyone including your own?

Oh man, I'm so glad we have you here to tell us the best tone to take when discussing LBGTQ issues! We almost ruined LBTGQ advocacy forever by tarring and feathering one of our own.

Hey, everyone! Robot-dude says we need to be more polite and less hostile, all right? Tell the core LBTGQ council to make a note about it. And he said both sides were disgusting, so send a note to the Core Homophobia Hive-Mind to modulate their tone a bit, too.

Alright thank you, dude-with-robot-name. Your timely intervention has been a boon to internet discussions of political topics everywhere.

EDIT:

Friend, it's a discussion. You're not going to like everything being said and you're not always going to be right.

Wait, hold on, Robot-Dude!

I do not think you are actually their friend. You should be careful about these things to avoid coming off as unduly hostile! We're trying to avoid that hostility now, remember. I am sensing perhaps a vibe of slight hostility from the way you're dismissing their comment, too? Remember, you are One of Us, so the message we sent to the LBGTQ advocacy hivemind about toning down our hostility should have reached you by now. Hasn't it?

 

[Kinsei]

Just a tasteless bit of sarcasm, i just don't see why sexual orientation should matter to the player, i'm going to be assassinating/doing whatever regardless of a sexual preference. I feel like this is just being thrown in to create some sort of false sense of progressiveness in representation and diversity.

Just sarcasm? Yeah, whatever you say.

Friend, it's a discussion. You're not going to like everything being said and you're not always going to be right.

That goes both ways.

 

[Rayis]

Some of this piece is helpful.

Part of it is just homophobia, but I don't think that that's all of it.

Another part is that talking about representation carries an implicit (or, sometimes, explicit and specific) critique of the way things are now. And this tends to bother people who are fine with the way things are now -- people who honestly, truly don't care about LGBTQ issues one way or the other, or who don't think about it and don't want to think about it; but who naturally have an investment in the status quo by virtue of liking things how they are. Having people talk about how they'd like something different feels inherently threatening to them.

And it bothers them until, in some cases, it makes them start to become hostile to any sort of discussion of that nature -- they start to parse it through a hostile lens, interpreting criticism as vilification, objections as outrage, and any attempt to challenge the status quo as as an agenda-driven power-play.

Compounding this is the fact that most people like to think of themselves as rational, reasonable, morally-upright, ethical people; so when they others talking about LBGTQ representation, even if it starts out as something they're indifferent to, that indifference starts to become hard to sustain. They either have to admit to themselves that they don't care about something that's legitimately important to many other people (which is, I should stress, fine as long as you're not actively getting in the way, but can be hard for certain kinds of people to admit); or they have to come up with a way to dismiss those LBGTQ concerns, to say that they're invalid or that the people concerned with them are immoral or unethical somehow, etc.

A compounding factor is that I think that a lot of the people who protest come from a sort of culture where... they tend to view a lot of social interactions purely through the lens of power-dynamics, basically. So they see someone saying "we want more LBGTQ representation", and they read it as a power-play, as a cynical attempt to force other people to do something as part of a sinister agenda. To people like that, simply saying "all right, I don't care about this but it's obviously important to them" is surrendering.

This process turns an initial seed of "I'm vaguely sympathetic, but I wish they'd stop talking about it because I don't really care" into "screw them, I'm gonna come up with a reason to shut them down", which manifests in the kind of comments we've seen in the thread.

Well... whether you parse that as homophobia or not is up to you. But I think that that's why you see people defending the status quo the way they do, especially for people who suffer from a chronic inability to back down and a deep-set need to feel that they're at the moral center of the universe or to constantly assert that they have a total rational command of all possible fields of interest.

Thanks for this post, you explained it beautifully, this is a depressingly common attitude I've noticed, especially on the internet.

It ties with the whole "I don't support quotas for minorities because we're all equal and should be judged equally" which ignores the reality of things that we've not reached equality and are NOT judged equally by others.

There are biases in us that we need to acknowledge if our end goal is to make the world a better place, and that type of self-introspection can be uncomfortable for a lot of us.

I think the ones who get to me the most are the ones who argue that equality will never be reached and we shouldn't do anything about it, that's a mentality which actively hinders progress.

 

[Satch]

is her name emily or elizabeth im having a crisis rn

 

[Kinsei]

is her name emily or elizabeth im having a crisis rn

Emily Kaldwin

 

[User 73706]

is her name emily or elizabeth im having a crisis rn

Emily Elizabeth Gaydishonored, Esquire

 

[RedFury]

What's the context of the tweet? Did the developers say they would have LGBT characters, and if so what's the point? I think there are two sides to the coin and people are being unreasonable. There are those that believe they are "shoehorned". If the developers brought it up I'd have to say it is pandering (like I said I don't know the context). The sexually orientation of a character/person should not matter to anyone so why raise attention? Then there are those that want representation in the industry, but is this really how you want it? People are asking for a well written character but if your publicly stating "hey we have a LGBT character!" you already fucked up. The characters orientation should never have been mentioned a person (character in this case) are what they are and nothing more. I don't know it's difficult to articulate what I feel on the matter. The fact that we have to celebrate a gay lead in anything is telling about our culture/society...we fucked up, things should NOT be this way.

 

[Kinsei]

What's the context of the tweet? Did the developers say they would have LGBT characters, and if so what's the point? I think there are two sides to the coin and people are being unreasonable. There are those that believe they are "shoehorned". If the developers brought it up I'd have to say it is pandering (like I said I don't know the context). The sexually orientation of a character/person should not matter to anyone so why raise attention? Then there are those that want representation in the industry, but is this really how you want it? People are asking for a well written character but if your publicly stating "hey we have a LGBT character!" you already fucked up. The characters orientation should never have been mentioned a person (character in this case) are what they are and nothing more. I don't know it's difficult to articulate what I feel on the matter. The fact that we have to celebrate a gay lead in anything is telling about our culture/society...we fucked up, things should NOT be this way.

The context is right there in the OP. Someone asked if there were any gay characters in the game and the developers said yes.

 

[BigDes]

The tweet is right there in the op. Come on.

 

[A Link to the Past]

What's the context of the tweet? Did the developers say they would have LGBT characters, and if so what's the point? I think there are two sides to the coin and people are being unreasonable. There are those that believe they are "shoehorned". If the developers brought it up I'd have to say it is pandering (like I said I don't know the context). The sexually orientation of a character/person should not matter to anyone so why raise attention? Then there are those that want representation in the industry, but is this really how you want it? People are asking for a well written character but if your publicly stating "hey we have a LGBT character!" you already fucked up. The characters orientation should never have been mentioned a person (character in this case) are what they are and nothing more. I don't know it's difficult to articulate what I feel on the matter. The fact that we have to celebrate a gay lead in anything is telling about our culture/society...we fucked up, things should NOT be this way.

I agree, we should not live in a society where we need to celebrate a gay lead.

The solution is not to complain about pandering and how it shouldn't be a big deal. The solution should be to fix society so that gay leads are normal. Doing the former only perpetuates the problem.

EDIT: Also, I think the user is talking about the context that led to the original tweet to Harvey to be made.

 

[RedFury]

The tweet is right there in the op. Come on.

The context is right there in the OP. Someone asked if there were any gay characters in the game and the developers said yes.

No, he is asking if the gay/bi character is of a prominent role correct? I assume that an LGBT character would have to announced for someone to ask if they are a lead.

The solution is not to complain about pandering and how it shouldn't be a big deal. The solution should be to fix society so that gay leads are normal. Doing the former only perpetuates the problem.

I agree it's a societal issue but I disagree in the method in which [I'm only assuming] they took. The subject is touchy I see (understandably so) for some so I'll use an example that is personal to me. I'm Hispanic, and if there was a game out there saying "hey we have a Hispanic character in our game, not only is he/she in it they are the main character...buy our game you hispanics". Which I feel this boils down to, would I buy the game? Yeah probably (there is proof of that in this very thread) but it's pretty damn disgusting in my opinion. Outside looking in it makes my blood boil. It's making money off of current social issues that bothers me. Again I agree with you but this isn't the way to deal with the issue.

 

[broscientific]

The sexually orientation of a character/person should not matter to anyone so why raise attention? Then there are those that want representation in the industry, but is this really how you want it? People are asking for a well written character but if your publicly stating "hey we have a LGBT character!" you already fucked up. The characters orientation should never have been mentioned a person (character in this case) are what they are and nothing more. I don't know it's difficult to articulate what I feel on the matter. The fact that we have to celebrate a gay lead in anything is telling about our culture/society...we fucked up, things should NOT be this way.

Saying that a character's orientation shouldn't be mentioned because it doesn't matter sure is a nice, noble opinion, but the fact is that characters are implicitly straight, just as most people assume anyone whose orientation isn't mentioned is straight. You say that just having a character make an offhand remark is a "shoehorned" to garner attention and for a developer to say "look how progressive we are". Do you genuinely think they are acting maliciously and including a gay character just for the attention? Or more likely, maybe its because yes, they genuinely do want to increase representation for a marginalized group.

You say that people shouldn't care about a character's sexual orientation but do you know exactly who cares - people who are gay who would like to see a part of their identity acknowledged by video games, or hell, any media. It doesn't matter if that character's sexuality isn't a major part of their character, or important to their plot or story. Not every single thing about a character necessarily has to serve the narrative.

 

[RedFury]

Saying that a character's orientation shouldn't be mentioned because it doesn't matter sure is a nice, noble opinion, but the fact is that characters are implicitly straight, just as most people assume anyone whose orientation isn't mentioned is straight. You say that just having a character make an offhand remark is a "shoehorned" to garner attention and for a developer to say "look how progressive we are". Do you genuinely think they are acting maliciously and including a gay character just for the attention? Or more likely, maybe its because yes, they genuinely do want to increase representation for a marginalized group.

You say that people shouldn't care about a character's sexual orientation but do you know exactly who cares - people who are gay who would like to see a part of their identity acknowledged by video games, or hell, any media. It doesn't matter if that character's sexuality isn't a major part of their character, or important to their plot or story. Not every single thing about a character necessarily has to serve the narrative.

Posted edit above. I agree, where my issue lies is how this is being handled like mentioned above. Again this is under the assumption the developers brought the attention to themselves by stating it. If this isn't the case then I really have no argument.

 

[Not]

Rockin'

 

[broscientific]

I'm Hispanic, and if there was a game out there saying "hey we have a Hispanic character in our game, not only is he/she in it they are the main character...buy our game you hispanics". Which I feel this boils down to, would I buy the game? Yeah probably (there is proof of that in this very thread) but it's pretty damn disgusting in my opinion. Outside looking in it make my blood boil. It's making money off of current social issues that bothers me. Again I agree with you but this isn't the way to deal with the issue.

Can I ask why you feel that this is a marketing ploy?
Specifically, the dev's tweet was in response to a fan asking a question, so I'm not sure why you would have that opinion in this particular case

More in general, I agree, it would be particularly slimy for a developer to set a character's race, sex, sexuality, etc. based on attracting a particular group of people to buy the game, I don't see why you should assume that is what's happening whenever one of those characters is introduced. Maybe I'm being misguidedly optimistic about their intentions, but if you consider that most development teams are large groups of people which likely contain LGBT people as well as people of many different races with liberal social views, I don't know how you can assume they are shoehorning something in for sales.

 

[theecakee]

Just a tasteless bit of sarcasm, i just don't see why sexual orientation should matter to the player, i'm going to be assassinating/doing whatever regardless of a sexual preference. I feel like this is just being thrown in to create some sort of false sense of progressiveness in representation and diversity.

That's not tasteless sarcasm that's just fucking sick, only a week after Orlando and you joke about killing gay people. Wouldn't even be a funny joke if Orlando didn't happen.

But let me guess, its PC culture and everyone else being the problem.

 

[Granadier]

Emily Elizabeth Gaydishonored, Esquire

 

[Kinsei]

No, he is asking if the gay/bi character is of a prominent role correct? I assume that an LGBT character would have to announced for someone to ask if they are a lead.

It was first announced that there would be LGBT people in the game in an interview when Harvey Smith was asked about Emily's sexuality. https://youtu.be/eCSpa3TSD9I?t=33m5s

 

[Monocle]

Some of this piece is helpful.

Part of it is just homophobia, but I don't think that that's all of it.

Another part is that talking about representation carries an implicit (or, sometimes, explicit and specific) critique of the way things are now. And this tends to bother people who are fine with the way things are now -- people who honestly, truly don't care about LGBTQ issues one way or the other, or who don't think about it and don't want to think about it; but who naturally have an investment in the status quo by virtue of liking things how they are. Having people talk about how they'd like something different feels inherently threatening to them.

And it bothers them until, in some cases, it makes them start to become hostile to any sort of discussion of that nature -- they start to parse it through a hostile lens, interpreting criticism as vilification, objections as outrage, and any attempt to challenge the status quo as as an agenda-driven power-play.

Compounding this is the fact that most people like to think of themselves as rational, reasonable, morally-upright, ethical people; so when they others talking about LBGTQ representation, even if it starts out as something they're indifferent to, that indifference starts to become hard to sustain. They either have to admit to themselves that they don't care about something that's legitimately important to many other people (which is, I should stress, fine as long as you're not actively getting in the way, but can be hard for certain kinds of people to admit); or they have to come up with a way to dismiss those LBGTQ concerns, to say that they're invalid or that the people concerned with them are immoral or unethical somehow, etc.

A compounding factor is that I think that a lot of the people who protest come from a sort of culture where... they tend to view a lot of social interactions purely through the lens of power-dynamics, basically. So they see someone saying "we want more LBGTQ representation", and they read it as a power-play, as a cynical attempt to force other people to do something as part of a sinister agenda. To people like that, simply saying "all right, I don't care about this but it's obviously important to them" is surrendering.

This process turns an initial seed of "I'm vaguely sympathetic, but I wish they'd stop talking about it because I don't really care" into "screw them, I'm gonna come up with a reason to shut them down", which manifests in the kind of comments we've seen in the thread.

Well... whether you parse that as homophobia or not is up to you. But I think that that's why you see people defending the status quo the way they do, especially for people who suffer from a chronic inability to back down and a deep-set need to feel that they're at the moral center of the universe or to constantly assert that they have a total rational command of all possible fields of interest.

Insightful post.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

What speed bump? Bigotry?

I honestly want to ask people what the fuck they think the gay/feminist agenda is.

Then when they tell me, I want to ask them why they think people would act that way.

And then I'm gonna keep going until it boils down to simply "I don't like that person".

 

[RedFury]

Can I ask why you feel that this is a marketing ploy?
Specifically, the dev's tweet was in response to a fan asking a question, so I'm not sure why you would have that opinion in this particular case

More in general, I agree, it would be particularly slimy for a developer to set a character's race, sex, sexuality, etc. based on attracting a particular group of people to buy the game, I don't see why you should assume that is what's happening whenever one of those characters is introduced. Maybe I'm being misguidedly optimistic about their intentions, but if you consider that most development teams are large groups of people which likely contain LGBT people as well as people of many different races with liberal social views, I don't know how you can assume they are shoehorning something in for sales.

Like I said we only have the tweet asking if the gay/bi character is a lead, meaning they some how knew there was a gay/bi character in said game. It would have to have come from someone close to the game to know something like that correct? Nothing should have been said. I'm not of the sentiment it was shoehorned just stating that no matter how well developed the character if you go to social media (which I feel is the new back of the box summary for games) to say you have an LGBT character it may come off as so to some (*cough* B.Rodriguez *cough*). My issue is if you made the effort to have a good thought out character why CATEGORIZE them with a single facet of their personality. Human is human, good character or not orientation is only one of those facets. I would like to have just played the game said damn Elizabeth is a fucking bad ass and nothing more. I'm also a bit cynical, having waited tables (in a very fancy restaurant) to put myself through college you meet a lot of ignorant people. I had a table make me feel less than human because the color of my skin. What hurt me most was they tipped really well. It wasn't because they were sorry because it was clear they meant what they said, they were just adhering to social norms. They had more respect to the social norms of the establishment than they did me.

It was first announced that there would be LGBT people in the game in an interview when Harvey Smith was asked about Emily's sexuality. https://youtu.be/eCSpa3TSD9I?t=33m5s

Ahh, ok thank you. Yeah I don't see anything wrong with this. Actually...I like what he had to say on the matter. This should be in OP.

 

[WhereAreMahDragonz]

its going to be Legend Emily

queen of bisexuality


EDIT: why did i call her emily... her name is elizabeth... i guess im a fake stan

EDIT: omg her name is emily i was right the first time... some of the people in this thread tricked me

As a bisexual named Emily, I am here for this

 

[NumberThree]

LGBT, or as it is referred to as in the game's world, dishonored straight.

 

[A Link to the Past]

It should also be noted that jumping to the conclusion that "LGBT character in video game" is a cheap marketing ploy, dishonest, pandering, whatever, that makes it more difficult for LGBT presence in games. If anything comes of such criticism, it will be them not trying, not them improving - because improvement is actively happening as a result of demands for more LGBT representation. I would sooner chalk up "we have LGBT characters in our game" to being a middle finger to people who do not or would not approve, or as an appreciated show of support. Yes, there can be bad stuff, but I'll take bad if it means I'll also get good. Before the rare case of pandering to LGBT people came along, all we got were roles that suggested LGBT people to be comic relief, villains, or perverts (sometimes all of those things).

 

[Messofanego]

Seems? No they are. With mod support. Tends to push people that supported them initially away as they get more aggressive.

Love that jump to conclusion you made there. It's all or nothing. Stop or full throttle. Without causing to think for one second. Keep it up.

Cityhunter, tell us how you really feel that initial LGBT supporters are being pushed away because of how the tone of discussions occurs.

There's a difference between two guys kissing vs two guys get in your face and start making out. That's what I'm saying. Just like that whole militant atheist thing before. You get to the point where it's from voicing and making themselves heard to getting shouted down. That's what causes some of the backlash like someone apparently joked about the achievement thing, which I assume it's some kinda kill count achievement. Since I didn't play the first one.

Ah, so we're at the "shoving it down our throats" part of discussion. Classic. Why do people who've been discriminated for ages sometimes get a bit uppity, amirite?

Who even ever does this lmao? "Yo that cityhunter over there, let's make out furiously in front of him/her instead of at a distance where he/she would be comfortable at viewing our public display of affection!"

 

[A Link to the Past]

It's really quite amazing how uninformed (or how deceptive) some people are when they're taking arguments from the homophobic hate group playbook.

 

[knighthonor]

just curious, but isnt it ban-able offense to talk against anything LBGT?

If so, I dont see how we can have a discussion on this topic if we all have to pretty much agree on this situation.

 

[MulderYuffie]

yay hope there are some hotties in it!