Any trans person who suffers actual gender dysphoria would only be triggered by these decisions. We WANT to look like non-transgender people. We WANT to look like anyone else...blending into the crowd of the gender we feel we are. Anything less makes most of us extremely uncomfortable much of the time.
This is it right here; I always thought this was the main point of transitioning, because you felt like you were the opposite gender. So by that logic the assumption should be if a male wants to transition to a female, then they want to transition to appearing like a female, not a trans woman. And if you're going to transition, you would keep in mind that yes, societies have certain perceptions of what a woman typically looks like and certain mannerisms they may have because a lot of those things are associated with natural feminine energy. It doesn't mean women have no masculine energy or that there aren't women who have a large amount of masculine energy, but they are the exceptions to those natural tendencies.
Some of the loony so-called progressives seem to want to force those case exceptions as the natural aim for most who are transitioning, and that's an insult to them and I'd assume a lot of non-trans people, too. If someone wants to transition from male to female, or female to male, then by all means they should be allowed to do so, as long as it's their choice. But I and a lot of other people have ideas of what the average woman looks like, the average mannerisms they have, natural tendencies in terms of social and maternal skills the average man doesn't have, etc. etc. And the same goes with common perceptions on the average guy.
Those average perceptions are healthy for the long-term sustenance of a society, and even if someone transitioning may not biologically be that of which they're transitioning to, as long as are wanting to fit within those general expectations, it should be fine. And these are very broad things I'm speaking of here, nothing that would prevent a person from expressing their own individuality whatsoever.
Sadly some far-left "progressives" seemingly want to shun the natural female form in its entirety, and don't seem to realize how much that messes things up for male-to-female trans people.
I’m only taking about TLOU. The first game clearly explored political topics.
Politics is pervasive, as they dictate pretty much all of our daily lives. People only complain about politics when a topic or statement they don’t resonate with is explored.
Nope, miss me with that. There is a very select group of people who a definition of "politics" which is VASTLY different to the majority of the regular population's definition of "politics". Now, these days it may seem the former's definition holds given all the infusion of political bodies, think-tanks, bodies etc into entertainment (we can just call this propaganda because that's basically what it is), but it doesn't change the fact that politics as the way we see it in today's environment, is not inherent to entertainment as a whole.
Also there's a ton of conflation by those select cliques of people as to what is considered political, as they've retroactively designated many philosophical and idealistic concepts (which maybe had slight political musings into them but of a different time and era) as fitting the mold of what they consider to be political in current-year.
TLOU was called the “Citezen Kain of gaming”
No way you can argue the first game was devoid of politics.
A lot of the stuff people refer to when they compare something to be a Citizen Kane equivalent is more to do with storytelling techniques and devices the work uses within its medium to tell a story/narrative effectively and, supposedly, in ways other work before it has not managed to do.
TBH I always felt that designation a bit much high praise for TLOU, because you can certainly point to survival-horror games with more engaging stories, or 3rd-person action/adventure games with better gunplay, gameplay loops, mechanics etc. Granted, it's also about a "whole great the sum of its parts" kind of deal, can't necessarily take all the elements in isolation from one another.
As I said above. Western media has pandered to a certain demographic since the beginning. And some artists have decided to purposely fight against that reality.
Look I don't want to get into the whole percentages BS (because some people use it as a means of asking why certain people should even be in a story, when that's something they don't hold against, say, dragons or gremlins, neither of which exist whatsoever in the real world), but you're dealing with a country that's 60+ % white. Most of the people in these positions are white, and it's just going to naturally gravitate that way...
...and
...because that hasn't stopped me from enjoying plenty of media that had no minorities or LGBT people in it, or only had a small handful. My favorite war film of all time is Come and See, a Russian film. Not a single non-white in there, doesn't matter. One of my favorite cyberpunk films is Tetsuo; 100% Japanese cast, not even a white person in there, let alone another minority. Doesn't matter, movie is still all kinds of awesome.
I may not be white, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy works with a majority or exclusively-white cast. I may not be gay, but two of Gregg Araki's movies (Doom Generation and Mysterious Skin) are among my (vast) stable of damn good movies. It also means I can still appreciate stuff that might be majority-minority without needing to somehow claim it's a sin when something comes out with few or no minorities in it. I can go from watching Squeeze or Juice, to something like Gattaca and maybe watch something like Pulp Fiction after that. Just treating them as three awesome flicks, I don't need some sudden influx of a bunch of white people in Juice, or a bunch of black people in Gattaca, to even consider enjoying those movies.
Would be no reason to pander to LGBT if they weren’t being under/misrepresented in the first place.
In what, exactly? Because there's actually tons of media with LGBT people in them AND creating them, some of it quite good in fact. I mentioned Gregg Araki movies earlier, and you've got other movies like Dandy Dust too. Fun movies, very LGBT-focused at that. There's been quite a lot of LGBT themes and characters in games; you can even go back to the '90s and find games with gay characters in them like Phantasmagoria 2 (and the gay guy there is actually one of the best characters in the whole game, probably the most fleshed out too).
To me all this stuff about under/misrepresentation just seems to be due to people feeling they don't have "the big one". It doesn't matter to them if they can get all of that in arguably more creative, albeit smaller and less-mainstream, works. No, it ONLY matters if they get the big representation in the SUPER-mainstream stuff. Which, more often than not, tends to be the safest, least creatively engaging work out there (doesn't mean it can't be entertaining, of course).
Only reason you say the story is “compromised” is cause you don’t agree with the themes within it.
No, because too many hack creators these days actually DO compromise a story's natural integrity for a forced political narrative, and they have a big tendency to do so when making a work revolving around some minority group. Actually just having minorities in a work would be no problem if said work didn't do so at the expense of putting down "the privileged", but with these hacks, they can't seemingly lift EVERYONE up.
Nope, in order to lift up Group A, they have to put down Group B. It's all very intentional in these types of works, and it's called divide-and-conquer.
An LGBT story is just as valid as your everyday “white guys shoots brown faces and gets the girl” story.
Depends on if the groups involved just happen to incidentally be those things and such things aren't literally defining their existence in the score of a fictional piece of work.
If it doesn't, then no, I don't see the problem. If it does, then yes, it's a BIG problem. And that would go towards BOTH of your examples.
