Support NeoGAF

[Woopah]

It's not morally wrong for an author to deviate from the norm, but it is an active decision to deviate nonetheless. In the context of heterosexuality, what is the purpose to deviate other than "because gay?"

It doesn't need one. "Because gay" is just as acceptable as "because straight".

In Ocarina of Time, Nintendo made the active decision to make Link left handed. In Half Life, Valve make the activie decision to make Gordon white and make Alyx mixed race.

The justification for these traits is "because that's what they are". And there's nothing wrong with that.

Doesn't matter that there are way more right handed people than left handed people, or way more white people than Afro-Asian people.

Do left-handers demand representation? Do authors actively decide to centralize focus on left-handedness? Heterosexuality is generally an unstated aspect of a character much like their handedness.

Which is why I think the "statedness"of homosexuality should be the same as heterosexuality. Sometimes it's a big part of the character, and sometimes it's not.

Yes. If your story is set in feudal Japan, being Japanese is the default, and being African is a deviation. Does a character being an African require a narrative purpose? Yes.

Let's take the Nioh franchise as an example then. What narrative purpose do you require from Team Ninja for them to include characters from Africa and Europe in their game? Can't the purpose just be "because that's where their from"?

Now make those characters homosexual. If the story is not about homosexuality or sexuality at all, what narrative purpose does it serve to include or highlight their homosexuality?

It doesn't need to. Ghost of Tsushima features instances of both heterosexuality and homosexuality that doesn't serve a purpose to the main story. Does that mean those characters should lack sexuality instead? I don't think so.

If homosexuality requires focus it must possess a narrative function. What would the justification be other than "because gay?"

I don't believe it does require focus. Homosexuality should get the same focus as heterosexuality.

The novelty of it being a homosexual relationship is what garnered that episode its praise. You couldn't apply the same novelty effect to the episode if it were a heterosexual couple. It would be seen for what it is: run-of-the-mill filler. The lack of narrative substance is self-evident.

I agree that these things shouldn't be treated as novel or praiseworthy. Developers should treat all sexuality the same.

A man who is deeply into cars or comic books is far different from a man with a fursona. Seeing Bill walking around in a full bear fursuit would feel forced. Seeing Bill's collection of Savage Starlight wouldn't.

I don't think it would work with him wearing it during combat. But there being photos in the house of him in the past wearing a furry suit would work fine.

Appreciate the detail of the reply

 

[Demigod Mac]

Overwatch is a completely mixed bag on this issue, but they handled Soldier 76's situation well. It's a small matter-of-fact note on his backstory and they don't make a bigger deal of it than it needs to be.

 

[Robot Carnival]

does the Fallout TV show counts? the person who's a good friend with Maximus is trans I guess but they never really dig into that. he's just a friend and did his part in progressing the story and his sexual orientation was never really a focus as it doesn't matter.

 

[realcool]

It doesn't need one. "Because gay" is just as acceptable as "because straight".

They're not interchangeable. They're not equivalent. A heterosexual character is a blank canvas. No statement is being made. I don't believe the same can be said for a homosexual character. If the intent is to manufacture interchangeability, the author makes a social statement.

In Ocarina of Time, Nintendo made the active decision to make Link left handed. In Half Life, Valve make the activie decision to make Gordon white and make Alyx mixed race.

The justification for these traits is "because that's what they are". And there's nothing wrong with that.

Doesn't matter that there are way more right handed people than left handed people, or way more white people than Afro-Asian people.

Not all traits are equal. They differ in significance and interpretation. Depicting a homosexual character deviates from the norm in a way that other traits often don't. As would race and biological sex. Certain traits can raise questions about the author's motive. If the purpose is only to say, "They are homosexual because they just are," then the author's intent is for interchangeability. Representation for representation's sake. If they're easily interchangeable then it is not narratively relevant but an expression of the author's personal beliefs.

Which is why I think the "statedness"of homosexuality should be the same as heterosexuality. Sometimes it's a big part of the character, and sometimes it's not.

The issue is that it can't be. To attempt is to normalize. To normalize is to erase the distinction and impose a viewpoint that ignores the reality of the inherent differences.

Let's take the Nioh franchise as an example then. What narrative purpose do you require from Team Ninja for them to include characters from Africa and Europe in their game? Can't the purpose just be "because that's where their from".

I'm sorry I don't know the context or the narrative.

It doesn't need to. Ghost of Tsushima features heterosexuality and homosexuality that doesn't serve a purpose to the main story.

Ghost of Tsushima doesn't "feature" heterosexuality in the same way that it presents homosexuality. Homosexual characters and relationships are specifically highlighted and receive a level of attention and framing that heterosexual ones don't. If homosexuality could've just as easily not existed in the game and had no effect on the narrative, then its inclusion is to present the author's personal views.

Does that mean those characters should lack sexuality instead? I don't think so.

Ghost of Yotai is right around the corner—plenty of subject matter.

I don't believe it does require focus. Homosexuality should get the same focus as heterosexuality.

I agree that these things shouldn't be treated as novel or praiseworthy. Developers should treat all sexuality the same.

I wouldn't expect them to be treated the same. Because they're not the same.

I don't think it would work with him wearing it during combat. But there being photos in the house of him in the past wearing a furry suit would work fine.

The symbolism would've at least held together what little ambiguity it had left.

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

It's simple, don't make a gay character unless there's some story behind it. Labeling a character just as "gay" to me means pandering to this loud minority. If there is no backstory than it's just a man. Not every heterosexual character has a family or wife/girlfriend. It's just a random grunt. So what's the point of having a gay character and just say all he is is gay. Whats the point besides saying hey guys we are LGBT friendly, buy our game. He even has a rainbow flag...has no partner, doesn't make out, he is just GAY. Lol so fucking stupid.

 

[Zacfoldor]

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and they just blurt out in front of the whole room "I fuck."

That's exactly as appropriate as telling me one of my toons is gay in a videogame.

Next tell me how you pick your nose, or your ass cleaning process after a shit.

 

[Madserb2023]

The reason why they can't do it well in the West is because the whole personality is always based around the fact the character is gay. The character doesn't just happen to be gay, the entire reason for the character is to be gay. Could you imagine Leon in Resi 4 being gay and just telling Ashley constantly how he is gay, and why he doesn't like someone because he is so gay. It would grate on even gay people. I didn't even know my manager was gay until I saw them with their partner.

 

[Idleyes]

I thought that until I became a parent and realized how much any decent parent wants their kids to be proud of and take ownership of the sacrifices they make for them. Why would the Founders be any different?

Are you a father?

What are you talking about? I agreed that America doesn't owe anyone shit. Now you're asking if I'm a father? The fuck? You see the Founders as your parents or something? I hate to break it to you, but they aren't your parents bruh.

 

[Heimdall_Xtreme]

About Catherine. I don't like how they went about it in that games Full Body version. Rin was very preachy at one point in the game and other than that, the character can be very easily ignored to the point that the character just leaves the story without any real notice. I always felt that Rin should have just been honest up front about what they were about instead of having the bombshell dropped on him a 3rd of the way through. I felt that Erica was a much more interesting character and that character's backstory hints at why she has not told Toby yet.

What they did in Catherine with Rin was very interesting and positively attracted attention.

 

[Woopah]

They're not interchangeable. They're not equivalent. A heterosexual character is a blank canvas. No statement is being made. I don't believe the same can be said for a homosexual character. If the intent is to manufacture interchangeability, the author makes a social statement.


Not all traits are equal. They differ in significance and interpretation. Depicting a homosexual character deviates from the norm in a way that other traits often don't. As would race and biological sex. Certain traits can raise questions about the author's motive. If the purpose is only to say, "They are homosexual because they just are," then the author's intent is for interchangeability. Representation for representation's sake. If they're easily interchangeable then it is not narratively relevant but an expression of the author's personal beliefs.


The issue is that it can't be. To attempt is to normalize. To normalize is to erase the distinction and impose a viewpoint that ignores the reality of the inherent differences.


I'm sorry I don't know the context or the narrative.


Ghost of Tsushima doesn't "feature" heterosexuality in the same way that it presents homosexuality. Homosexual characters and relationships are specifically highlighted and receive a level of attention and framing that heterosexual ones don't. If homosexuality could've just as easily not existed in the game and had no effect on the narrative, then its inclusion is to present the author's personal views.

I think this is the crux of the argument.

Different sexualities are interchangeable in that they all exist. Some people are straight, some are bisexual, some gay. Being gay or straight is just as interchangeable as being left handed or right handed.

Characters of any of these kinds can be blank canvases, because their sexuality doesn't have to impact any other aspect of their personalities.

There's nothing to be "manufactured" because that's the how the world is. Being gay is not a political action.

Take Mass Effect for example, where players can choose the sexuality of the protagonist. If player chooses to make the character gay, does that make the political? Of course not.

I'm sorry I don't know the context or the narrative

The context is what you described, a game set in feudal Japan that includes a character from Africa.

You not knowing the narrative actually works quite well. What sort of narrative purpose would be acceptable for you to be okay with Team Ninja putting a black person in their video game?

 

[KURDISTAN YPG]

i mean nobody cares to be honest, only way is to make original game based on gay character and go on it with it, i think most people just get pissed at developers for forcing on it legacy games

 

[Crystal Winters]

i mean nobody cares to be honest, only way is to make original game based on gay character and go on it with it, i think most people just get pissed at developers for forcing on it legacy games

I wonder. If SE posted that Tifa was Bisexual, would it cause big negative stir online? or would this be one of those cases where it is ok because Tifa is hot? I can see people being pissed for different reasons. Era would hate it for the same reason: She's hot and also "male gaze." some people would hate it because they hate the idea of any character being gay, no matter how good or ugly looking they are. Us cultured women and men who are down for rule 34 would be pretty happy though because now all that fanart and fanfiction is canon.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

And I’ve never even seen a trans in real life

I have a trans woman as a roommate she would probably break a lot of stereotypes here that people believe in.

For one, she actually looks like a woman and not just a guy in drag.

She's not a groomer and she actually finds pedophiles pretty disgusting.

The only stereotype is that she is pretty far to the left. She's a self-admitted radical leftist but I guess that's not surprising.

Before her, I did meet another attractive trans woman when I went to the premiere of The Force Awakens.

 

[Fess]

I have a trans woman as a roommate she would probably break a lot of stereotypes here that people believe in.

For one, she actually looks like a woman and not just a guy in drag.

She's not a groomer and she actually finds pedophiles pretty disgusting.

The only stereotype is that she is pretty far to the left. She's a self-admitted radical leftist but I guess that's not surprising.

Before her, I did meet another attractive trans woman when I went to the premiere of The Force Awakens.

No idea what the stereotype is tbh or if what I’ve seen is just internet humor and memes like the ”It’s ma’am!” video. But going from man to woman must be harder than woman to man anyhow so props to that person you know for not looking manly.

 

[realcool]

I think this is the crux of the argument.

Different sexualities are interchangeable in that they all exist. Some people are straight, some are bisexual, some gay. Being gay or straight is just as interchangeable as being left handed or right handed.

You're listing differences, saying "See? They're the same thing." I disagree.

Characters of any of these kinds can be blank canvases, because their sexuality doesn't have to impact any other aspect of their personalities.

My theory is that it is nearly impossible to create a homosexual character whose sexuality can be written to be as invisible, unstated, and irrelevant as a heterosexual character without their homosexuality being made known to the audience. Almost paradoxical.

There's nothing to be "manufactured" because that's the how the world is. Being gay is not a political action.

Being homosexual is not a political action. An author choosing to make a character homosexual can be.

Some comedians get laughs and some comedians get applause. If they're getting laughs, they're being funny. If they're getting applause, they're being agreed with, and at that moment they're no longer a comedian standing on stage, they're a man standing on a soapbox.

Take Mass Effect for example, where players can choose the sexuality of the protagonist. If player chooses to make the character gay, does that make the political? Of course not.

What about the mastectomy scars in Dragon Age: The Veilguard? Another Bioware game.

The context is what you described, a game set in feudal Japan that includes a character from Africa.

You not knowing the narrative actually works quite well. What sort of narrative purpose would be acceptable for you to be okay with Team Ninja putting a black person in their video game?

The example I used was Assassin's Creed Shadows. While a historical figure can lend itself toward a narrative purpose, it's fair to criticize the authenticity of the author's intent.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

My theory is that it is nearly impossible to create a homosexual character whose sexuality can be written to be as invisible, unstated, and irrelevant as a heterosexual character without their homosexuality being made known to the audience.

This is some mind bending shit. “without their homosexuality being known to the audience”. Yes, if you don’t mention it you don’t know if they are gay. Or straight. Or trans.

Here, I will help you. Tasteful CIS character dialogue:

CIS: Wouldn’t want my girl to hear that, eh?

Tasteful gay character dialogue;

Gay: Wouldn’t want my boyfriend to hear that, eh?

Tasteful trans character dialogue:

Trans: Wouldn’t want my girlfriend/boyfriend to hear about that, eh?

Here is an example of cringe CIS character dialogue if we take Veilguard as an example:

Cringe: Have you looked at the girls here? Those hips, those breasts - makes you want to just smash on them with the D, innit?

 

[realcool]

This is some mind bending shit. “without their homosexuality being known to the audience”. Yes, if you don’t mention it you don’t know if they are gay. Or straight. Or trans.

Wrong. One of those things is the audience's assumption. They're not interchangeable.

Here, I will help you. Tasteful CIS character dialogue:

CIS: Wouldn’t want my girl to hear that, eh?

Tasteful gay character dialogue;

Gay: Wouldn’t want my boyfriend to hear that, eh?

Tasteful trans character dialogue:

Trans: Wouldn’t want my girlfriend/boyfriend to hear about that, eh?

Here is an example of cringe CIS character dialogue if we take Veilguard as an example:

Cringe: Have you looked at the girls here? Those hips, those breasts - makes you want to just smash on them with the D, innit?

These are all examples of referential dialogue. This bolsters my argument.