Liberalism should not be exploited to sell video games

Why make sexuality a paragon / renegade period? I'm trying to destroy the Reapers. Not play Dr. Phil. And since we're on the subject, what if homosexuality was the renegade option? Imagine the uproar on that one. Checkmate.

Games, and the people writing/talking about them, shouldn't have to avoid certain issues just because you don't want to have to deal with those issues.

Your problem with gay, racial, or other political issues in games, are your own problems. They are problems to you because you choose to make them problems for you.

If the guy sobbing over the audio tapes was talking about his wife, it wouldn't be a problem for you, would it? But it's his husband, and it makes you uncomfortable. Why does it make you uncomfortable? Can't gay people have relationships and emotions the same as other people? So a gay man can't grieve because you don't want to hear a man express feelings for another man.

It's rants like yours, TC, that compel devs and journalists to speak out and push the issues they feel strongly about in to their work. It has nothing to do with Liberalism. People are tired of being told that who they are, and what matters to them, is marginal; and that they should be silent and buried because it makes ignorant and overly-sensitive people uncomfortable.

Actually, if you go up a few posts, you'll see that I posted the entire interview. The article you posted only takes a few snippets of that interview. Either way, your "political correctness" argument makes no sense. If he was a straight white male making that argument, then you could argue that he might be trying to be "politically correct". But he's clearly a brown guy who wants better representation of his own people in games (i.e. something other than terrorists). That's like saying Anita Sarkeesian is being "politically correct" for wanting better representation of her own gender (i.e. something other than damsels-in-distress or busty sex-bombs). If "PC" means trying to avoid causing offence, then what they're doing is the complete opposite, since they've clearly offended a lot of fanboys...

Anyway, I think I might have misunderstood you slightly... It seems the main issue you might have is not what gender, race or orientation they may be (even if that is your main focus)... but simply whether or not they're "manly" or "badass" enough. In other words, the character archetype I was referring to above: "a straight white male with a rugged beard, buzz cut, muscular physique, and "badass" personality." Volgin fits all those characteristics other than being gay and clean-shaven, but otherwise he almost fits the archetype. On the other hand, Raiden was a straight white male, but failed to fit the desired fanboy archetype in every other way, so they despised him for it (until they changed him in MGS4).

I have no problem with gay video game characters as I have clearly explained in my first post you quoted and even gave relevant examples of gay video game characters I thought were well written.

What I do have a problem with is being force fed gay characters, or any other group of people simply for the sake of 'being different' or appealing to specific groups of people for 'cool points'. While things that should matter in video games are secondary.

Why not just make good video games with better gameplay, better writing, better QA testing before release instead of worrying about what specific group of people the game will appeal to? If the game is good, gamers of all color, gender, religion, sexuality will play it, period.

What right do you have to belittle and show no tolerance for those that do not think it is an appropriate place for it? There many that are getting tired of being yelled at by a minority that has no tolerance for the majority being and acting one way.

Can you think of any actual examples of this beyond Bioware's typical bad writing and game design.

"Why not just make good video games with better gameplay, better writing, better QA testing before release instead of worrying about what specific group of people the game will appeal to?"

I'm not seeing why games can't do both. Gay characters in video games are a lose/lose situation with people like you. If they're anything beyond a throwaway comment from a side character you're being "force fed", so we'll never get any gay characters in any meaningful capacity lest we never hear the end of the bitching.

Of course it shouldn't bother him that it seems dev´s are being forced to write/create in a certain way because otherwise they are not progressive enough or "liberal" enough.

Its strange that a community preaches tolerance but show so little tolerance for values that doesn't fit into their little idea of what makes the world a good place.

Also do he really want anyone to believe that developers avoids taking on ideas that fit into the story?

Still waiting on actual examples of this.

There is no way to win. If a game has no gay/multi-racial characters, it's inequality. If there is a gay character, it's a liberal agenda meant to make a statement. Let it lay.

Excellent post. Dudes who get uncomfortable/offended by the presence of gay characters are manchildren as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, the gaming community seems to be full of them.

*waits for somebody to whine about how I'm not being tolerant*

Liberals never said they were 100% tolerant. The whole "tolerance" thing is a dumb rightwing strawman designed to try and generate sympathy for their archaic and many times bigoted views. Its also used as a kind of "victim card" to distract from the fact that they don't really have any good arguments; it's much easier to bitch about not being "tolerated" than actually put forth something substantial. Really, the most anyone can hope to be is generally tolerant since there are views that simply don't deserve tolerance. Nobody needs to be tolerant of ugly values, liberal or not. Basically: you have the right to hold those values and express them, but there's nothing saying that anyone has to respect them.

If the guy sobbing over the audio tapes was talking about his wife, it wouldn't be a problem for you, would it? But it's his husband, and it makes you uncomfortable.

You can't force a representation of a majority so of course it wouldn't be strange or objectionable if it was a wife instead of a husband.

These are issues that you simply can't turn around and apply to a majority group like heterosexuals because their existence is the norm by default and so painting them in as a majority doesn't, in and of itself, make any point. Even if you wanted to make a pro-heterosexuality point using heterosexual characters would be a poor vehicle of choice; depicting homosexual characters poorly would be easier for the audience to follow.

Even in the highly metropolitan melting pot future that is the future depicted in Mass Effect (where ALIENS co-exist with a highly diverse humanity) homosexuality would still represent the same size (10ish%) of humanity, so it isn't like 'hey, this is just our depiction of the future'.

That is to say that adding a gay character is inherently loaded in the same way making your protagonist black or female (in a contemporary setting) is loaded; handle it badly (or in a contrived way) and you'd be better off not having included them at all.

I can't comment because I've not finished the series but I imagine most of the people who find it objectionable don't find it uncomfortable; they roll their eyes at it and tut 'Yeah, I see what you did there. *yawn*'

Was the point the developers were making really to simply express that 'look this person lost their loved one'? Or was it to express that 'look this gay person lost their loved one'?

Honestly, I don't know cos I haven't seen that part of the game.

That's quite an optimistic view, but based on the abundance of hostile attitudes I've seen regarding homosexuality in online gaming communities, I very much doubt that. There are many people who simply don't want to be confronted by homosexuality of any kind in their games and the whole "they're forcing it" spiel is a cover for that.

your post is laughable and fails to start at the beginning of this topic as stated by the op: forced liberal theology in games.

and, for your edification: being against public, open homosexuality is NOT "ignorance." that's a misuse of the term and typical of liberals when it comes to their pro-homosexuality.

as you can clearly see, the op doesn't feel "uncomfortable" about anything and, therefore, you'd be wise to not put those words in their mouth.

i'm about as anti- PUBLIC, POLITICIZED pro-homosexual as one can be. and, yet, terms like ignorant and uncomfortable are ridiculous and incorrect. they are catch phrases used by those without an understanding of the debate who use them like punchlines. as if their mere utterance proves a point.

learn to think critically before you turn a good thread bad about a subject that often turns ugly quickly by throwing around incorrect and attempted terms of belittlement and character defining.

I realise we're talking about opinions here, but this is a very hollow statement. Not only do you not elaborate on or support it, you also seem to be unaware of the fact that the things you don't like (regardless of how forced they are) might be important to others. What if I said: this game opened my mind, it gave me something to reflect on, so why shouldn't they do it again in another game? How is that less valid than what you're saying?

Also, how much of this

derives from actual statements made by people and how much of it is the result of your own interpretation of selective media coverage? I'm not saying it can only be one of those things; I'm just curious to see an estimation.

Again, I understand this is about opinions, but what value does this statement have if all I have to say to counter this is: I bought the product, enjoyed it and didn't feel ignored.

I think you're being selective here. You're disregarding all the support you get in this thread. I can be just as right when I say that I think every instance of homosexuality in a videogame is immediately dismissed as liberal propaganda and supporting this cause is immediately seen as pushing some agenda.

Yeah, because a sobbing, weak little man constantly relying on the support of his commander is a real service towards the gay community. It really promotes gay people, doesn't it? There, I turned the scene into a conservative conspiracy to discredit homosexuals by depicting them as emotional and dependant weaklings (they're pretty much females with a penis, muhaha). It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from, but I get the feeling you're trying too hard to present certain things as obvious, when they're really not that obvious if you look at them slightly differently.

This is an attitude I see on both sides in this discussion: the conviction that ideas and single truths are being forced on someone (for the wrong reasons). The only person responsible for that feeling is you. That Heir guy is just presenting a strong opinion and so are you. I don't feel like you're forcing your opinion on me. Neither do I feel Heir is doing that. We are in the comfortable position that our ideals and ideas aren't questioned very often (unless we look for it, even unintentionally by being a consumer) and that most of our opinions don't lead to prosecution and punishment. The media or videogames can't really force anything on you, they can only attempt to influence/affect you. You choose to play these games and as long as they sell sufficient numbers there's not a whole lot you can do about their content (which of course doesn't mean you can't criticise).

Besides, this is a relatively insignificant and peripheral issue blown out of proportion by media coverage and online comments. And I think it'll always remain in the periphery, because well, it's about minorities. It will never dominate the gaming industry, just like it isn't dominating the movie industry (even though it might seem it is dominating the press). But we are going to see more of it. It's part of a developing industry. And at first it'll probably feel forced in many cases, but at a certain point we'll start to ignore it, because it'll become more subtle, because it really doesn't happen that often and because we can't stay angry all the time. And really, there will always be a thousand other factors (including your own prejudices and preferences) that will mess up the writing in your eyes. I doubt Bioware would have added that backstory you preferred if the character hadn't been gay, so relating that to the current situation is stretching it a bit. I mean, I do hope you don't think the mourning widower story was constructed to specifically fit a gay character...

As far as I'm aware responding positively to relationship suggestions by any character in Mass Effect is considered paragon, while turning them down is considered renegade. You're a renegade, because you turn Cortez (or any other character) down, not because you choose to turn down a homosexual. Going for it is blue, not going for it is red. The only exception I know of is Jack, with whom you can have casual sex early on (which is considered renegade, because it SEEMS to imply that you're exploiting her troubled personality simply to have sex).

Well, that one isn't going to be answered. Some will say the former, others will say the latter. And as with all discussions on the internet, hardly anyone will really change their mind...

Long texts, yay!

@loafofgame:

some good points to consider and no doubt that a subject like this will take many different paths, lol.

however, this thread does originate from a bioware developers interview, which, is quite easy to understand.

though, like i said, i wasn't there during the interview so i will hold back a bit.

I think people use that example either to make people realise that they are in fact the majority and that there's no harm in sometimes being confronted with minority ideals, because most of the times things will turn out the way the majority wants it, or to show that the feeling of 'discomfort' and/or 'unnecessary overexposure' you sporadically have to deal with as the majority is something minorities have to deal with constantly (by which I do not wish to imply that all minorities should be as equally represented as the majority in all creative works; that wouldn't solve any problems either side might have).

I am aware of that. And well, judging by the GS article and the article it refers to I'm not saying there isn't clear intent, but I also wouldn't say the speech proves that these ideals are persistently and harmfully forced on gamers. That would be an exaggeration in my eyes. I also wouldn't say that the Mass Effect scene in question shows signs of explicitly promoting or supporting the gay community, other than the mere presence of a gay character (I have nuanced the paragon/renegade argument and the idea that this is a positive image of a gay character). To me it seems that the pushing of a gay agenda in that particular scene can only be indirectly derived through personal interpretation of media coverage, like Heir's speech, and the scene itself.

@loafofgame:

personally, i find that the interview proves beyond doubt, along, with blatant hypocrisy, that the guy wants to push pro-homosexual politics and is merely trying to disguise it behind terms like, stereotypes, creativity and progression.

Eh? So the constant hammering liberals do with being tolerant and accepting of all people is just BS? Because what you are saying is actually that "standard is good but double standard is double so good"

Also the idea that lets take conservative values are ugly is nothing but ignorance, yes some like racism is ugly and should be fought on every corner, but thats a whole different ballgame than having a gay character in a game or not making female leads.

After all gaming is for many people immersion and as they say "Birds of a feather flock together" so its a lot easier for a man to relate to a man and when the biggest market for gaming is men between 18-49

That's a different matter entirely. I'm concerned with people drawing conclusions from speeches like this and (arguably) using those conclusions to claim that certain scenes push an agenda in a very obvious manner (which is at least questionable) or to suggest that the blatant pushing of agendas is a common and harmful phenomenon that pervades the entire game industry (which is also at least questionable). I do not have a problem with people being concerned about issues like this (even if I might disagree with them on certain matters), but I do want to point out that this shouldn't be blown out of proportion.

Liberals never said they were 100% tolerant. The whole "tolerance" thing is a dumb rightwing strawman designed to try and generate sympathy for their archaic and many times bigoted views. Its also used as a kind of "victim card" to distract from the fact that they don't really have any good arguments; it's much easier to bitch about not being "tolerated" than actually put forth something substantial. Really, the most anyone can hope to be is generally tolerant since there are views that simply don't deserve tolerance. Nobody needs to be tolerant of ugly values, liberal or not. Basically: you have the right to hold those values and express them, but there's nothing saying that anyone has to respect them.

this has to be one of the most ridiculous comments I've read in some time and i wasn't going to do this, but, oh well: liberals, a misnomer in itself and better known as statists, have been known for decades to advocate and tout its position as being a "tolerant" one. this doesn't source from "dumb rightwing strawman." it's right out of the horses azz. (btw, thanx for joining the 95% category i mentioned earlier.)

to call "rightwing" views archaic and bigoted without any specific examples is worthless and doesn't have any intellectual benefits. to say that rightwingers use the victim card is a laughable notion in this day and age. what exactly would these "victim card" issues be? maybe, you're talking about me being a straight white male, lol. and, what exactly do rightwingers, your word not mine, bitch about not being tolerated about? again, some simple and specific examples would speed this idiocy along.

now, to your "don't really have any good arguments" foolishness. it's a funny position for you to take, since, your entire comment is void of one.

and, btw, what are these "ugly" liberal or rightwinger values you speak of?

I've see people of all color preach nonsense. The dude in the vid talks about 'stereotypical heterosexual white male Nathan Drakes and Booker Dewitt's' being the 'every man hero' and people being 'tired of playing the same thing'. Next sentence here it comes. Another 'I want to see more characters take on LGTBQ characteristics or women besides Lara Croft in AAA games' rant. He says people wants games that speak to them and fit them.

What if Bioware made an action / RPG game with a flamboyant, openly gay, Indian treasure hunter protagonist, raiding tombs and saving the day? Most popular gaming sites rate the game, 8 - 9 out of 10. One reviewer from a popular gaming site is brave enough to give an honest critique, pointing out pros and cons and scores the game a 5 out of 10. What if that reviewer clearly states in their review why they feel this game deserves a 5 out of 10? Maybe he thought the game's story or characters was poorly written, a cluttered menu system, dumb A.I. or the game's mechanics were glitchy.

Regardless of his explanations in his review, I guarantee you, members of the gay community and LGTQ supporters will protest and bash that website into oblivion. Demanding for a re review or the reviewer's termination. Youtube rants, the whole nine. Why? Many will feel this game reviewer is another 'homophobic', ignorant gamer who does embrace change and he should be terminated from employment on his website. About 2 weeks later, that website will issue a brief statement that the game reviewer has parted ways with the company.

It's a no-win situation. Any one who dislikes the game for whatever reason will be branded a 'homophobe'. Coming into any thing on some 'we feel left out' tip is not the way to go about getting undeserved recognition. You earn respect by showing and proving. When the creators of Gone Home wrote their story, they didn't preach sermons about gay rights. They just created a game and left it up to the players to enjoy and interpret the meaning for themselves.

The dude in the vid does what every single, pro homosexual, pro feminist activist does when they are pushing an agenda. They compare their struggles to every other group of people. He references his African American friend, how Latino Americans are misrepresented in games, how his own people, Indians, are always seen as terrorists in games. What does any of this have to do with simply making a good game?Devs can make the character whatever they want that character to be. We are living in times where quality trumps liberalism and ideology. No need to preach about reinventing the wheel. Just create the game you want to create.

@HipHopBeats: Wow HHB. You apparently stirred up the hive. Hee-Hee-Hee..

I think we would have accomplished more character and theme diversity if it wasn't for the commerical influence of the XBOX, EA's studio buyouts and Japanese gaming not being as active a competitor on the AAA this past gen. These things led to the aggressive cornering of the dude-bro market, where if that system was more about promoting all types of games and themes. Then the status quo and the alternative would be side-by-side in the community without harsh accusations of being 'regressive' on one end or 'too hipster' on the other.

In film fandom people can love both James Bond and Ellen Ripley without much contention.

Western game marketing is the most anyone could blame for pushback on character diversity in AAA, the 4th 5th and 6th gen did seem like it was heading in a direction of character variety before Master Chief, Price and McTavish made their commercial footprint. Interesting guys but maan were they oversold.

Your example makes no sense whatsoever. Can you give even one actual real-life example where anything of the sort ever happened? Has there ever been a "liberal" backlash against a critic for criticizing a game that happened to have a gay non-white protagonist? All you're doing is making up a false strawman, in this case 'straw liberals', and then making up all kind of negative assumptions about these 'straw liberals' that is entirely fictitious fantasy in your head, with no bearing on reality, or any actual real-life examples of any such thing ever happening.

On the other hand, there are plenty of actual real-life examples of the exact opposite: Whenever a woman (or gay) speaks up about sexism in the video game industry, or criticizes any video game for having misogynistic content, she puts herself at the actual risk of online harassment, bullying, petitions against her, calls for resignation, threats of violence, death threats, and rape threats. This isn't fictitious like the nonsensical example you're making up, but things that have actually happened in real life, against various different women (and gay). If it wasn't for the rampant misogyny in the online gaming community, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion in the first place, nor would we have so many people in the industry itself feel the need to come out and take a stand against it.

And finally, game designers can "preach" about whatever they want to preach about, and they can make whatever games they want to make, with whatever characters they want to have in them. Since that guy appears to be a senior designer of Mass Effect 3 & 4, then don't worry, there'll be plenty more "liberal" bias in Mass Effect... If you don't like it, then there's no need to keep "preaching" and whining about it online, but just vote with your dollars and don't buy those games. It really is as simple as that.

To be fair, Western developers are not entirely at fault here (we didn't even know what Master Chief looked like under the armour), but Japanese developers like Capcom and Konami are also to blame... Before the likes of Chris Redfield and Solid Snake, I don't remember the "straight white male with a rugged beard, buzz cut, muscular physique, and "badass" personality" character archetype being common at all, even in Western games. For example, in the two biggest Western game franchises of the 90's, Mortal Kombat had a Chinese protagonist, while Tomb Raider had a female protagonist. But in the 21st century, leading game characters are becoming increasingly homogeneous.

@loafofgame said:

I realise we're talking about opinions here, but this is a very hollow statement. Not only do you not elaborate on or support it, you also seem to be unaware of the fact that the things you don't like (regardless of how forced they are) might be important to others. What if I said: this game opened my mind, it gave me something to reflect on, so why shouldn't they do it again in another game? How is that less valid than what you're saying?

Your opinions are as much valid as mine and I can respect anyone's opinions who differs from mine. There are valid points to be considered from both sides of this debate. What I disapprove of is being labeled a 'homophobe' or ignorant because my views may differ from the majority. If you notice, I never labeled anyone who disagrees with in this thread anything. Yet I'm a 'homophobe' because I feel devs should focus on more important things like gameplay, proper QA testing, better writing, and stop with the season passes crap.

My 'hollow statement' is self explanatory. When I was a kid playing Metal Gear Solid 1 for the 1st time, my mind was blown. I thought 'whoa, this is better than most movies I've seen' back then. Kojima could have went the Rambo / Ikari Warriors route and simply had a soldier on a suicide mission to destroy a walking tank with nuclear missile. But the depth and political undertones in the story took the game to a whole new level for me.

The way people were debating about Joel and Ellie's plight long after finishing The Last Of Us or debating the breakdown of Bioshock Infinite's ending. This is what I mean by 'giving me something to reflect on'. How good of a story could you possibly write if your main focus is simply fulfilling a political agenda, attempting to relate a video game to one specific group of people with no clear view of where the story is headed?

If you start a story with intentions of writing a good story period, you can work in a male, gay protagonist or a female lead that makes sense in context to your story and with enough talent, the story will write itself. This is what made characters like Bill from The Last Of Us or Volgin from MGS 3 so good. Bill and Volgin weren't thrown in for shock value or fan service the way Cortez from Mass Effect 3 was.

@loafofgame said:

Also, how much of this

derives from actual statements made by people and how much of it is the result of your own interpretation of selective media coverage? I'm not saying it can only be one of those things; I'm just curious to see an estimation.

The Bioware dev in this video, specifically answers Sessler's question at 3:36 about players wanting to relate themselves to a game which makes sense. Then he critiques games like Uncharted and Tomb Raider for having stereotypical protagonists. The white, heterosexual male, the gun toting female heroine with cleavage, etc etc. Then Sessler chimes in about shareholders being leery to want to take chances investing in games with openly gay characters or female protagonists by themselves on the cover art.

Games like Uncharted and Tomb Raider were successful games in their own right. One inspired by the other. How are Nathan Drake and Lara Croft stereotypical protagonists? How does critiquing classic games solidify an agenda about pushing the boundaries? With funding sources like Kickstarter and indie companies, there's no reason NOT to be able to create the type of game you feel to make.

And if this isn't a cry for 'cool points', I don't know what is.

@loafofgame said:

Again, I understand this is about opinions, but what value does this statement have if all I have to say to counter this is: I bought the product, enjoyed it and didn't feel ignored.

Once again, if this isn't a cry for 'cool points', I don't know what is.

@loafofgame said:

I think you're being selective here. You're disregarding all the support you get in this thread. I can be just as right when I say that I think every instance of homosexuality in a videogame is immediately dismissed as liberal propaganda and supporting this cause is immediately seen as pushing some agenda.

People in this thread have already labeled me a homophobe when I have said nothing belittling about gay, male characters in video games. I even gave examples of male gay characters I thought were well written. Even if I did have a problem with it, why must I be labeled a homophobe? Why can't I be just a gamer with an opinion. Especially if I present my views in a respectful fashion.

@loafofgame said:

Yeah, because a sobbing, weak little man constantly relying on the support of his commander is a real service towards the gay community. It really promotes gay people, doesn't it? There, I turned the scene into a conservative conspiracy to discredit homosexuals by depicting them as emotional and dependant weaklings (they're pretty much females with a penis, muhaha). It's not that I don't understand where you're coming from, but I get the feeling you're trying too hard to present certain things as obvious, when they're really not that obvious if you look at them slightly differently.

Lol, I see your sarcasm but I never said homosexuas are emotional and dependent weaklings. There is nothing wrong with having gay romance options, but at times the whole romance vibe in Mass Effect 3 felt a tad overdone and an obvious fan service to members of the gay community who were upset about a lack of gay romance options. That's my subjective opinion. Keyword, subjective.

Even keeping Kaiden alive, as a male Shepard felt kind of weird with a couple of conversations. I understand the new gay romance options, but must every human being in the game suddenly now a potential bisexual?

If Bioware is on this political crusade to 'get homophobes to accept gays', why only paint half the picture? Why not have rejections from NPC's that tell Shepard in a polite way, 'I'm not gay'. The same way Samantha rejects heterosexual advances from male Shepard. The only conversations that didn't have bisexual undertones were from any human who was not a romance options and the alien species.

@loafofgame said:

This is an attitude I see on both sides in this discussion: the conviction that ideas and single truths are being forced on someone (for the wrong reasons). The only person responsible for that feeling is you. That Heir guy is just presenting a strong opinion and so are you. I don't feel like you're forcing your opinion on me. Neither do I feel Heir is doing that. We are in the comfortable position that our ideals and ideas aren't questioned very often (unless we look for it, even unintentionally by being a consumer) and that most of our opinions don't lead to prosecution and punishment. The media or videogames can't really force anything on you, they can only attempt to influence/affect you. You choose to play these games and as long as they sell sufficient numbers there's not a whole lot you can do about their content (which of course doesn't mean you can't criticise).

Besides, this is a relatively insignificant and peripheral issue blown out of proportion by media coverage and online comments. And I think it'll always remain in the periphery, because well, it's about minorities. It will never dominate the gaming industry, just like it isn't dominating the movie industry (even though it might seem it is dominating the press). But we are going to see more of it. It's part of a developing industry. And at first it'll probably feel forced in many cases, but at a certain point we'll start to ignore it, because it'll become more subtle, because it really doesn't happen that often and because we can't stay angry all the time. And really, there will always be a thousand other factors (including your own prejudices and preferences) that will mess up the writing in your eyes. I doubt Bioware would have added that backstory you preferred if the character hadn't been gay, so relating that to the current situation is stretching it a bit. I mean, I do hope you don't think the mourning widower story was constructed to specifically fit a gay character...

The only difference between my views and Heir's is that his views can be influenced on anyone who buys a Bioware game vs someone merely skimming through and completely disregarding my views online. People generally play video games to have fun and escape reality. Not saying reality cannot be recreated in a video game. But video games should not attempt to influence agendas or beliefs on unsuspecting players.

You say the media or video games cannot force ideology on you, but that is exactly what's happening everyday. Everytime you turn on the tv, radio or open a book, ideologies and beliefs are shoved in people's faces. Public marketing today as we know it was built on principals of convincing consumers why they NEED a companies product vs why they should PREFER a companies product. Look up Edaward Bernays and you will see what I mean.

Heir's suggestive ideology is no different. Why even mention 'stereotypical heterosexual male protagonists' unless Heir is on a self entitled crusade for the gay community to have more recognition in video games? Why does any one specific group of people deserve recognition over another? What makes the gay community so special that they deserve a spotlight over any other group of people?

We all plea for equality yet isolate ourselves from humanity on our own accord. We choose to label ourselves as belonging to a specific group instead of referring to ourselves as human beings. Which we all are at the end of the day. We all demand special treatment for no other reason than simply being different. It's okay to demand equality, as long as it's on ourr terms and it works for us as a specific group of people.

Everyone screams for equality, yet wears a label and demands preferential treatment to spotlight their differences. For example, it's cool for the gay community to have a gay day parade, marching up and down city streets, celebrating homosexuality. Yet if heterosexuals had a city parade celebrating heterosexuality, everyone would be in an uproar.

This is the flipside of exploiting liberalism. It's human nature to feel or identify with a specific group of people. It's even more cool when you can simply relate from personal experience. Heir is talking about creating protagonists based on based on race, gender and sexuality. How will this relate to anyone if their is no good story to go along with these characters?

I think most gamers would prefer the option to customize and role play their own story character versus playing a character specifically designed to 'relate' to specific group of people. There will be criticisms from both sides. Opposing minds who simply do not want to accept differentiation, along with members of that specific group who feel their group could have been represented in a less stereotypical fashion or whatever.

My point is it's a lose - lose situation for both Heir and his supporters. If Heir were to simply focus on makin better games and telling better stories, he could still express his views without force feeding propaganda. As for Cortez's character, any mourning widower constantly sobbing about the same thing would be annoying in my eyes. Whether he was a heterosexual male in a movie, video game or book. I do not think his story was speifically constructed to fit a gay character. But the homosexual angle was most likely a last minute curveball, similar to the star child crap with crazy endings. Cortez's story was simply a good plot device for Bioware to appeal to the fans from the gay community who were complaining about gay romances.

@loafofgame said:

As far as I'm aware responding positively to relationship suggestions by any character in Mass Effect is considered paragon, while turning them down is considered renegade. You're a renegade, because you turn Cortez (or any other character) down, not because you choose to turn down a homosexual. Going for it is blue, not going for it is red. The only exception I know of is Jack, with whom you can have casual sex early on (which is considered renegade, because it SEEMS to imply that you're exploiting her troubled personality simply to have sex).

I can see what you're saying but if I'm a heterosexual, why must I lose paragon points for being a heterosexual? The same should apply for homosexuals turning down a heterosexual love interest. You should be able to politely turn down a romance without receiving renegade points unless they include an option to be a douchebag. I thought the same thing back in Mass Effect 1 when I was a heterosexual turning down heterosexual romances.

Certain replies in this thread, including your own, is a real life example of 'liberal backlash' for having an opinion. I simply critiqued an interview and suddenly I have 'straw man liberals' and fictitious fantasy. That's the problem with debates like these.

This is why gay rights and the feminist movement will forever continue to have uphill battles only to find a new reason to feel excluded or violated. Anyone with an opposing viewpoint to the majority who agree with homosexuality will always be given some dismissive label. In my case, 'homophobic' and 'straw man'. Now imagine this debate on a larger scale and it will make perfect sense.

You resort to labeling and dismissive name calling because it's the only way you can deal with disagreement. Yet we read articles and hear interviews about the plea of equality for the gay community. Equality works both ways. How do you expect me to respect your cries and concerns when you blatantly disrespect me for having an opposing opinion? Whatever happened to respectfully agreeing to disagree? Resorting to name calling and dismissive labeling is the only way you resolve debates which no one forced you to participate in?

The backlash Carolyn caught for her GTA V review was her own fault. I do not condone death threats over an opinion and anyone who went that route needs to be transported to a stranded island forever. Carolyn decided to fuse her own propaganda as a transsexual with content in a game franchise that clearly presents itself as a mockery of American culture. GTA games are known for it satire and dark comedy views on American culture.

San Andreas did not represent black and latino people in a positive light. Yet many black and latino gamers enjoyed San Andreas with no problem and felt no way about it's wacky, over the top depiction of gang life in LA. No one in the gay community had a problem with Trevor from GTA V talking about sexually forcing himself on his buddies intimidating men to perform oral sex on him. Yet Carolyn somehow felt GTA V was "profoundly misogynistic" and didn't represent females in a positive light. The whole game pokes fun at everyone. Give me a break with the sob story.

Before I reply, I just want to say that all the text I won't reply to seems to me like a fair point, so there's no need for me to reply to that. Normally I have a (problematic) tendency to point that out with individual segments, but well, my reply and your reply are pretty long, so I'm going ignore those for now.

@HipHopBeats said:

Your opinions are as much valid as mine and I can respect anyone's opinions who differs from mine. There are valid points to be considered from both sides of this debate. What I disapprove of is being labeled a 'homophobe' or ignorant because my views may differ from the majority. If you notice, I never labeled anyone who disagrees with in this thread anything. Yet I'm a 'homophobe' because I feel devs should focus on more important things like gameplay, proper QA testing, better writing, and stop with the season passes crap.

Look, I did a word search and noone uttered the word 'homophobe', apart from you. You started your article with: "I don't give a shit about the character's gender, ethnicity, beliefs or sexuality." Now, personally, I would never have started with a phrase like that, because it comes across as unnecessarily aggressive and because it will immediately raise suspicion. After that phrase you explain why in fact you do care about a character's gender, ethnicity, beliefs or sexuality, but not in the sense that you don't want those characters in videogames, but in the sense that you want them sensibly written and not forced in. Still, it unintentionally contradicts your opening phrase.

Now, I have to admit I was a bit suspicious in the beginning aswell, although I didn't think you were a homophobe. But well, you were being crass and you focused solely on your own perspective. Also, you ended with: "Like the old saying goes, you can't please all the people all the time." which kind of deflates your whole argument, because well, if that's the case then why are you so upset? Be annoyed about it and move on. Why did you have to post anything on a message board in the first place? This is where people start to interpret the problematic and unintentionally questionable elements of your text and form ideas about who you are and what your intention is.

This is the internet. People are quick to judge and rely on preconceived notions when interpreting comments. I know all this social media stuff has to move fast, but people should take more time realising how they might come across when they say something. Sensible people get knocked down, because they swear or because they SEEM unreasonable and self-centered. I take my time formulating my replies, because I know how quickly people twist things and that important things like intonation are missing. And even I fail to account for everything. But if you want to have a serious discussion (also with people you disagree with) you've got to be more aware of how you might come across.

@HipHopBeats said:

How good of a story could you possibly write if your main focus is simply fulfilling a political agenda, attempting to relate a video game to one specific group of people with no clear view of where the story is headed?

Well, you're filling in other people's intentions here. You might want to push an agenda and also write a good story. Right now you make it look like the two are mutually exclusive. If the writers of the gay characters you did like came out and said: 'we were trying to promote gay people', would that make the character badly written all of a sudden? I'm not saying pushing agendas can't be bad, but it's not immediately a recipe for disaster.

This is again one of those statements that will cause people to fill in what you 'really' think. It seems that in order for your argument to make sense pushing an agenda and writing a good story HAVE to be mutually exclusive, otherwise you're getting upset over a very minor issue, especially given your statement that you can't please everyone all the time...

@HipHopBeats said:

Bill and Volgin weren't thrown in for shock value or fan service the way Cortez from Mass Effect 3 was.

I never experienced it like that and I think it's pretty hard to convincingly prove without using external statements made by developers.

@HipHopBeats said:

The Bioware dev in this video, specifically answers Sessler's question at 3:36 about players wanting to relate themselves to a game which makes sense. Then he critiques games like Uncharted and Tomb Raider for having stereotypical protagonists. The white, heterosexual male, the gun toting female heroine with cleavage, etc etc. Then Sessler chimes in about shareholders being leery to want to take chances investing in games with openly gay characters or female protagonists by themselves on the cover art.

Games like Uncharted and Tomb Raider were successful games in their own right. One inspired by the other. How are Nathan Drake and Lara Croft stereotypical protagonists? How does critiquing classic games solidify an agenda about pushing the boundaries? With funding sources like Kickstarter and indie companies, there's no reason NOT to be able to create the type of game you feel to make.

Kickstarter and indie companies are not the same thing as an AAA production. Also, what does it matter? He also clearly said: "We should make the game we want to make. Nobody should have to be forced to diversify the game if they don't want to." He repeats it again at the end. This guy has a strong opinion and he would like to make a big game with a minority character. Nowhere does that imply he doesn't care about writing a good story or making a good game. He's critiquing in the same way you are. You didn't like the Cortez character, because you think it was forced in and badly written. He doesn't like Nathan Drake, because he thinks it's a worn out stereotype he can't really relate to (although he doesn't explicitly say he didn't like the character). He didn't say games like that shouldn't be around. He even said: "I want to see more authored characters ASWELL, that take on LGBT characteristics or women." He's obviously pushing an agenda, I just think it's utterly harmless.

@HipHopBeats said:

And if this isn't a cry for 'cool points', I don't know what is.

Isn't this another case of 'you can't please everyone all the time'? They listened to certain fans and added a gay option, ignoring other fans in the process. You can't please everyone all the time. Besides, it appears to be added content (on a separate planet no less), not something that messes up the entire structure of the game itself. The article even questions their way of handling it. So if it was a cry for cool points, it might have been an unsuccessful one.

@HipHopBeats said:

Lol, I see your sarcasm but I never said homosexuas are emotional and dependent weaklings. There is nothing wrong with having gay romance options, but at times the whole romance vibe in Mass Effect 3 felt a tad overdone and an obvious fan service to members of the gay community who were upset about a lack of gay romance options. That's my subjective opinion. Keyword, subjective.

This is not about what you said, this is about how other people might look at that scene. I painted a picture in which the gay character is seen in a negative way (based on elements from that scene), which makes your whole idea of this scene being blatant gay promotion at least problematic. I understand it's a subjective interpretation, but if I feel that interpretation did not take several options into consideration, I want to point that out.

@HipHopBeats said:

Even keeping Kaiden alive, as a male Shepard felt kind of weird with a couple of conversations. I understand the new gay romance options, but must every human being in the game suddenly now a potential bisexual?

@HipHopBeats said:

The only conversations that didn't have bisexual undertones were from any human who was not a romance options and the alien species.

That's an exaggeration. Miranda, Jack, Ashley and Vega are straight and are all romance options (Vega becomes one with the Citadel DLC). And, while not human, Tali, Thane and Garrus can also be considered straight. They are very clearly masculine or feminine characters. Besides, their species have clear male or female counterparts. The exception is Javik, who is a romance option for female Shepard (in the Citadel DLC), but I haven't seen a female Prothean, so I'll let that one slide. So that leaves Kelly, Kaidan and Diana as bisexual options (not including Liara and Samara, since the Asari have no male counterpart), Samantha as a lesbian option and Cortez as a gay option. So we have several romance options without bisexual undertones, both on the male and female side. Again, while I do understand your point, I think you are stretching it in some cases.

@HipHopBeats said:

If Bioware is on this political crusade to 'get homophobes to accept gays', why only paint half the picture? Why not have rejections from NPC's that tell Shepard in a polite way, 'I'm not gay'. The same way Samantha rejects heterosexual advances from male Shepard.

I get what you're saying. However, again, maybe it's not simply about 'get homophobes to accept gays', but also to appeal to gay players. Can't you be happy that some gay players have something to relate to now, even though it might be badly written or forced in? It's not like the gay option is the only option. Again, you can't please everyone all the time.

@HipHopBeats said:

The only difference between my views and Heir's is that his views can be influenced on anyone who buys a Bioware game vs someone merely skimming through and completely disregarding my views online. People generally play video games to have fun and escape reality. Not saying reality cannot be recreated in a video game. But video games should not attempt to influence agendas or beliefs on unsuspecting players.

You can't please everyone all the time. :-P No game is ever going to tailor specifically to your exact needs. There will always be a moment that spoils the fun or makes you think about reality. Maybe a minority person also likes to have fun and escape reality, but he/she can't, because there is no minority option or very little to relate to. This is not simply about you being forced to accept a minority, this about giving that minority something to relate to.

@HipHopBeats said:

You say the media or video games cannot force ideology on you, but that is exactly what's happening everyday. Everytime you turn on the tv, radio or open a book, ideologies and beliefs are shoved in people's faces. Public marketing today as we know it was built on principals of convincing consumers why they NEED a companies product vs why they should PREFER a companies product. Look up Edaward Bernays and you will see what I mean.

But are you powerless to resist or ignore? If you want you can surround yourself every single day with things only you like. The internet made sure of that. You let something being forced on you, because you choose to expose yourself to it. There's this politician in our country who repeatedly says Islam is a dangerous religion that should be suppressed. It borders on racism. He's a very prominent figure and his statements are continuously being discussed. But he isn't forcing anything on me, because I choose not to look for or get mad about every single word he utters. There are plenty of other things I can keep myself busy with. Besides, who am I to say he shouldn't force his agenda on me or create a political party that focuses on constructing laws that penalise people for expressing their religion? I think what he's doing is wrong, but a lot of people agree with him and support him and so his presence has merit and purpose, as weird as that may sound. And again, this is more about appealing to certain people than it is about convincing people who disagree.

@HipHopBeats said:

Heir's suggestive ideology is no different. Why even mention 'stereotypical heterosexual male protagonists' unless Heir is on a self entitled crusade for the gay community to have more recognition in video games? Why does any one specific group of people deserve recognition over another? What makes the gay community so special that they deserve a spotlight over any other group of people?

Nothing. And they are not being put in the spotlight. This is a peripheral issue, no matter how much the media magnifies it. They will always be a minority. All minorities will always be minorities. There will never come a point that all videogames will have options for all minorities. That's not how business works and that's not how creative freedom works. That said, people have to choose their ideologies and ideals. You can't be a crusader for every single issue. You defend the ideals you feel strongly about and you can relate to. And if you feel that your minority isn't recognised enough (which doesn't mean always and everywhere) and you have the stage to express that, then you have every right to take that opportunity. And if that ideology ends up in a game, then well... you can't please everyone all the time.

@HipHopBeats said:

We all plea for equality yet isolate ourselves from humanity on our own accord. We choose to label ourselves as belonging to a specific group instead of referring to ourselves as human beings. Which we all are at the end of the day. We all demand special treatment for no other reason than simply being different. It's okay to demand equality, as long as it's on ourr terms and it works for us as a specific group of people.

Everyone screams for equality, yet wears a label and demands preferential treatment to spotlight their differences. For example, it's cool for the gay community to have a gay day parade, marching up and down city streets, celebrating homosexuality. Yet if heterosexuals had a city parade celebrating heterosexuality, everyone would be in an uproar.

Again, that last argument rings hollow, because it's pure speculation. Equality is an illusion. We are not equal. It's about accepting differences. All labels want to be heard and accepted and some have to work harder for that than others. There's no reason for a heterosexual parade. There was nothing straight people had to overcome. There was nothing straight people had to fight for. Straight people aren't being frowned upon or beaten up for being straight. Gay people have that parade to celebrate that they can be openly gay now and also to raise awareness about the fact that in some countries homosexuality is still punishable by law. It isn't about shoving their homosexuality in your face. Why do so many people (not you, by the way) see these expressions as a blaming finger towards a majority or a threatening attempt to overthrow the status quo?

Also, you're starting to generalise here, which means I could simply say that you are just as much labeled and that every game you like is pushing your particular agenda, minority or not.

@HipHopBeats said:

This is the flipside of exploiting liberalism. It's human nature to feel or identify with a specific group of people. It's even more cool when you can simply relate from personal experience. Heir is talking about creating protagonists based on based on race, gender and sexuality. How will this relate to anyone if their is no good story to go along with these characters?

That is not for you to decide. You are not the target group in that case. You can only hope that the character might still appeal to you. You can't please everyone all the time. Also, for some people presence is enough. Plus, again, if Heir wants a specific character and writes a good story to boot, then what's the problem? You can't prematurely conclude that pushing an agenda will compromise the story no matter what.

@HipHopBeats said:

I think most gamers would prefer the option to customize and role play their own story character versus playing a character specifically designed to 'relate' to specific group of people. There will be criticisms from both sides. Opposing minds who simply do not want to accept differentiation, along with members of that specific group who feel their group could have been represented in a less stereotypical fashion or whatever.

Well, that's speculation, because there are plenty of popular games with authored protagonists. It's not a given that people will always like customisable characters. Heir seems to want more diversity when it comes to authored characters. And writing authored characters will always lead to discussions. you can't please everyone all the time, you know. :-P (sorry, it's getting old)

@HipHopBeats said:

My point is it's a lose - lose situation for both Heir and his supporters. If Heir were to simply focus on makin better games and telling better stories, he could still express his views without force feeding propaganda. As for Cortez's character, any mourning widower constantly sobbing about the same thing would be annoying in my eyes. Whether he was a heterosexual male in a movie, video game or book. I do not think his story was speifically constructed to fit a gay character. But the homosexual angle was most likely a last minute curveball, similar to the star child crap with crazy endings. Cortez's story was simply a good plot device for Bioware to appeal to the fans from the gay community who were complaining about gay romances.

This is another one of those interpretation moments. This sidestory was probably already crap, with or without a gay character. You would have been annoyed by it no matter what. Then why is it such a big deal that a crappy side story is used to appeal to a minority? People will read this as if the fact that there's a gay character in that scene is the reason you complain about it, which they will interpret as you having a problem with gays. Add to that that it is a very subjective interpretation of the scene in question (which, as I have pointed out, can be interpreted in several ways) and there's trouble ahead.

@HipHopBeats said:

I can see what you're saying but if I'm a heterosexual, why must I lose paragon points for being a heterosexual? The same should apply for homosexuals turning down a heterosexual love interest. You should be able to politely turn down a romance without receiving renegade points unless they include an option to be a douchebag. I thought the same thing back in Mass Effect 1 when I was a heterosexual turning down heterosexual romances.

If you play as a homosexual Shepard and you turn down heterosexual romance options, you'll be considered renegade. It's because you turn people down, not because you have a specific sexual preference. Whether or not it's a good thing that turning people down is considered renegade is a different discussion entirely. But you can't use that example to claim that there's gay promotion going on.

Dammit, I was hoping to keep it short...

Where in that post was I name-calling you? The only time I remember name-calling you was in my first reply when I called you out for being a hypocrite, but that was because your comments are self-contradictory, not because I have any problem with you being homophobic. Hell, I've been accused of being homophobic myself, at times. The problem I have with your arguments is that they are logically flawed and irrational.

Anyway, the responses you've received in this thread are just mere criticisms and nothing more. No one has been sending you death threats or rape threats, or anything of the sort. That's nothing compared to the vitriol and life-threatening threats that the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, Carolyn Petit, Zoe Quinn, etc. have been receiving for speaking up about sexism in the gaming industry/community. Whatever criticisms you've received are a joke in comparison. So please, spare me your sob story.

And finally, the thing about San Andreas is that it was one of the few games where black and Latino communities were represented at all, so that's why many of them enjoyed it, even if they were represented negatively. Similarly in the Middle East, the most popular games are FPS games like COD, games where you usually play as Americans gunning down Arab terrorists. Believe it or not, but a lot of Arab gamers enjoy playing those games, because many of them find even a negative representation better than being invisible. Same goes for the older Lara Croft, who was popular with female gamers despite the sexualized representation, because she was at least better than nothing. I haven't seen the GTA5 scene you're referring to, but I'd presume the same might go for the gay community.

@Jag85:

the first thing you need to understand is that the term "homophobe" is now a misnomer. meaning, when i was younger and due to the questions surrounding the hiv virus there was a LEGITIMATE concern about homosexuality. the medical community just didn't know enough at the time.

however, today there are very, very few people who are TRUE homophobes. that is, being scared of people who choose to engage in homosexual activities.

the modern-day term "homophobe" is a word defined by PRO-homosexuals in an attempt to delegitimize those who are against the normalization and public/political acceptance of homosexual choices. they use it as an INHERENTLY negative term, which, it is NOT. it is a term misused by pro-homosexuals and attempts to ridicule. it is a term used to try and set the terms and rules of the argument.

in other words, only a FOOL calls someone who is against homosexual behavior a "homophobe." only a FOOL labels someone who is against homosexuality an "ignorant" person or a "bigot."

learn to think critically.

In other words it is a rock that some likes to throw from their glass houses.

That's nice and all, but... has anyone in this thread actually accused the OP of being a "homophobe"? No one in this thread even mentioned the word "homophobe" until the OP himself brought it up...

@Jag85:

my entire post was based on you doing just that. check out your previous comment and notice where you say you don't have any problem with him being homophobic. you then went on to say that you've been accused of being homophobic.

just call it some free edification.

wiounds- lol, yep.

Naughty Dogs Druckmann and Straley were right. Sexual orientation is kinda beside the point. It's people's struggles and desires that allow you to understand any kind of character, and that's the glue of understanding we should be shooting for.

I know this isn't fair considering this is not a game, but I watch Showtime's Shameless, and find my empathy extended to every member and friend of the Gallaghers on some degree. Hetero, Homo whatever... ends up having nothing to do with it when characters reveal their goals and struggles.

@udubdawgz1:

Read what I said again: "that was because your comments are self-contradictory, not because I have any problem with you being homophobic." If that sounds like an accusation to you, then it's your reading comprehension that might need some "edification". Also, both you and the OP might need to grow some thicker skin and stop being offended so easily.

@Jag85:

not only did I keep rereading that comment, but, I reread some of your earlier posts. there is no doubt in my mind that you think "homophobe" as used today is a legitimate term, otherwise, you wouldn't have kept referencing it and denied calling him one.

as well, you've not accused me of anything nor is there anything to accuse me of for me to get thick-skinned about. and, btw, the simple act of responding to criticism does not make one thin-skinned. being thin-skinned is feeling sensitive or defensive about something. one can both respond and be sensitive and, therefore, they are not the same.

the last thing I ever do is get offended about what others believe or what they think about my beliefs. I am one of those individuals that laughs at the people today and all of their "insensitivities" and yap about being offended. so many people today are mentally weak and get uncomfortable and thin-skinned at the drop of a hat. I am the last person you need to say that too.

now, if you want to talk about strong writing and strong beliefs then I happily stand accused.

Pardon my intrusion, but is that really necessary, though? Can't you just laugh at them in front of your monitor and not also in your replies? You keep saying to learn to think critically, but I'd say that also entails thinking critically about how you might come across when replying...

@udubdawgz1:

You can go read the whole thread again and you'll find the first person to even bring up the word "homophobe" was none other than the OP himself... How much longer are you going to keep falling back on this irrelevant strawman argument?

@loafofgame:

not when it comes to the issue of oversensitivity. it is now a well-used excuse in almost every aspect of life these days. and, laughing at my monitor would be merely for my callous benefit. I am serious about this modern day problem. it permeates the government school systems, government, talk/radio shows, etc.

and, it impacts many other issues, as well. and, tbh, i'm sick of it. it's a deterioration and stifles thought and debate. it is now also used like a punchline, as if, somebody being offended means they must be accommodated or reimbursed in some way.

and, I mean it that when I hear people immediately run to the "I am offended" excuse, I immediately shake my head and laugh and then get down to the business of critiquing their sensitivities. you could even say, I have made a personal stereotype for people who abuse it.

as far as, thinking critically about how I come across- I have and do. I think you're under the assumption I need to come across a certain way or the message is lost. I've had THAT debate with friends and family, as well, lol.

however, with certain issues, a clear statement of position is warranted no matter how people might take it. in fact, their response often proves the point.

plus, with this medium it's hard to get things across exactly how you want and so a strong emphasis is attempted to paint a clear picture, but, isn't always successful, lol.

the first to bring up a term is hardly relevant. it's use is.

so, I take it you agree that the modern-day term, "homophobe" is a misnomer and is used as an inherently negative by those who are pro-homosexual?

and, seriously, your strawman rationale is incorrect. in fact, it's reverse, upside-down and backwards so to speak, lol.

@udubdawgz1:

I don't gave two pennies what "homophobe" means. Go find someone else to discuss that with.

Well, yes, I do think you have to come across a certain way to get the message across. In my opinion one has got to look at how a certain person argues and adjust one's replying methods accordingly. Because whether or not someone's response proves the point is irrelevant when it doesn't really prove the point to that someone.

I've had healthy debates with people I strongly disagreed with and then saw that same person discuss the same issue with someone else and it turned into namecalling. I agree that people are often too easily offended and sometimes use that to worm their way out of a discussion, but I also think that a lot of people are way too quick in presenting their opinions as fact and starting debates on the wrong foot by being needlessly aggressive and/or condescending.

I personally have a bigger issue with people coming here to have discussions, but wanting to do it twitter style and keeping it extremely basic and superficial, often only replying to small segments they feel they can refute without looking at the bigger picture. Not to excuse my often long replies (it's something I have to work on), but a lot of people are extremely selective.

@HipHopBeats: Oh get over it. Yes, sometimes games are going to have characters who are gay or non-white or have certain viewpoints or belong to different religions, etc... Its because these people EXIST so why not add them? Why is it you hate the idea of different types of people being represented in games? If you have characters who are all the freaking same, that is BORING. Most people like a little diversity in their stories. What the heck, do you want all video-game characters to be white, straight, male, christians? That would be awful on so many levels. LOL The second problem is that they are just games. There are a lot of things I don't particularly care for in games either, such as how women are often represented but I'm not making posts screaming about it. I would rather deal with REAL LIFE issues related to it that actually affect me. In the end, they are just video-games. You can choose not to play a game.

I believe that respect given is respect earned. Sometimes the ones with thick skins are usually the first to get the labels thrown on them simply for having an opinion. We can agree to disagree all day, but when you get dismissive with phrases like 'strawman comments' and 'homophobe, it just proves who's really the overly sensitive soul.

It's why threads like these get eventually get locked. Someone states an opinion that differs from the majority, someone else takes it the wrong way or gets dismissive and calls them a name, and the friendly debate is out the window. There is no right or wrong in debates like these. Only opinions.

Ha ha! What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read my first post? I clearly stated there is nothing wrong with incorporating gay male, female or a non white protagonist in a good story. I even gave a few examples of that.

My problem is if the only reason you are adding these people is just to 'be different', all you're doing is exploiting different groups of people to make money and nothing more in what will most likely be a crap video game because it's being made for the wrong reasons. Those wrong reasons being to exploit various groups of people rather than creating a fun outlet which is what video games are all about.

Also, video games are more than 'just games you can chose not to play'. Most good games are experiences nowadays. It's a billion dollar industry with enough clout obviously for people to feel they should be represented in a certain light.

Even if you choose to ignore a certain game, your kids or someone close to you is playing is and could be influenced by them in the wrong way just like they can from the internet, movies, tv, radio, books or any other media.

@HipHopBeats: Oh so you are saying it is okay to have these people but then you want to make up your own reasons for why they are in the games and say that is the only possible reason why they are. Well, its awesome that you can read the minds of developers.

Influenced by them in the wrong way? Instead of worrying about controlling what other people experience why don't you allow them to decide for themselves what they experience and let them form their own opinions? We try too hard to shape people's views instead of letting them be individuals and make their own conclusions about things in life.

@hailtothequeen:

learn to think. this isn't about any particular story. this is about a dev dude telling us what to do about a problem he creates. f a g s having sex is inconsequential. people being poosay's iz.

let me put it this way: the Christians that get maimed and die every year, literally: how do you feel about that?

the homosexuals who get singled out due to their free behavior choices, how do you feel about that?

The hypocrisy of the OP is stunning

@wis3boi: lol, explain please.

personally, I've never experienced a bigger group of idiots than those of the liberal herd.

I doubt you could prove otherwise: liberals love their delusion.

You should probably calm down before this thread gets locked.