Having Mass Effect include gays can be considered a good portrayal of all the different stereotypes of people. But just because it's a good portrayal doesn't means it's a good one to have. It is worth noting that gay people are not extremely common. The planet Earth does not have a 50/50 split of gay and straight. So of course there's going to be contention putting a homosexual character in Mass Effect. If Bioware wanted to not be flamed they probably should have ignored the homosexuality, and just focus on a great narrative. I'm the kind that looks past the homosexuality, but I do find it a bit irking that the inclusion of homosexuality indicates a certain political side for Bioware - a company I thought would always remain neutral on such topics. Now you got anti- and pro- gay people bickering over it. :( I didn't want to see the beloved Mass Effect franchise turn into a controversial subject. And this I don't like them for. I'm the kind that just wanted Bioware to be about the games. You didn't see anti or pro gay messages in Baulders Gate because it was in a certain sense an escape from reality and the troubles of controversy.

@Ryouga001 Fair point, but it's only defense. Otherwise we'd start seeing our first truly homosexual games where you only play as a homosexual rather than the other way around, not only to have them exist, but to have millions play them as well. That's what I'm referring to when I say mainstream. Let's try an example. So, say someone says morbidly obese people are fairly date worthy people who explore a creative romantic side. That one is to look past obese people and accept them as complex emotional beings and that only want to fit in with everyone else. However, this person may not actually date an obese person because they just don't want to. And if asked would have no real reason as to why they don't want to. Words are cheap. Making words pretty is cheaper still. And taking a "moral" high ground that all are created equal is equally cheap. That's what I see in articles like these, and that's what I see in many so-called defenses for homosexuality. And for those against homosexuality I see mainly insults and vulgarities that stems more from a persons heart than the brain. What I'm trying to say: I believe that neither the pro or anti side of homosexuality have produced meaningful reasons as to why they like or dislike the other. The mainstream is like a metacritic of the ideas, and currently seems to suggest that homosexual relationships are just not popular. And that's why you get individuals upset about the idea.

Why is there a struggle between the mainstream and homosexuality? 1. Is it right to say many people are misinformed on this "complexity of human emotion"? (as how its, quite frankly, romanticized in this article) 2. Or is it that this "complexity of human emotion" really isn't that prevalent in (current) American society. Choose one but not both, that's what I see. If homosexuality were a realistic portrayal of human emotion, then it must stand to follow that it garners mainstream attention. As a premise, it does not, or otherwise this article would cease to exist. Therefore does it stand to follow that the latter is true? That homosexuality really is not that important besides the few who do desire it (like the article's writer, for one)? While this message may be heart-warming for some it's been said many times before. To define terms, the "mainstream" is a body of opinion that can't be easily swayed, it defines it's own terms on it's own time. This we must respect. Do I see homosexuality being accepted into the body of people we call the mainstream? Look at microcosms and it's true. Look at macrocosms and it's not. Let's wait and see how things come along. Though I do applaud the great lengths the gay population takes to get their voice heard. Extremely great lengths, sometimes.

It was a natural reaction, more or less. In fact we should look at peoples "repulsive" treatment of her as a plausible indication that she said something that wasn't right. And in doing so, see what elicited such emotions and try to dissolve those fears or prejudices. Game creation is give and take, this you agree to. She can't brainwash people. Obviously Heplers comment is apparently not something gamers (or rather those gamers) enjoy ("gamer" being a person interested in combat (chiefly gameplay)), and thus she had a, well, bad idea for her audience. I myself disagree with her, and I'm the type who wouldn't be repulsed, a little shocked is all but I'd certainly not purchase that kind of game she speaks of, just on my interest alone, but not to attack her. The markets decide whats trending, if she markets her ideas and they don't massively trend but trend to only people who are like herself interested in that, then she won't make a lot of money. Those angry gamers had that same feeling but decided to use less eloquence in their arguments. Remember those were COD players (gotta be judging by the language!)

The problem is that the ESRB needs to be transparent enough to handle a wide range of creative freedom in games yet opaque enough to remove those games which are perverse. Killing, *beheadings*, gore is perverse. I find it perverse that we don't find it perverse. I think I have a different opinion of you, Mr. Editor. In fact we've grown so tolerant to the perverse attitudes in San Andreas that we have desensitized our capacities for gore/violence/language and even sex. Look at movies made in the 1940's they dared not dip into ludicrous behavior or violence of any kind because audiences back then would have been intolerant to it. Remember the "Quite frankly my dear, I don't give a damn?" line from 1939's Gone with the Wind? It was lauded as a very controversial statement at its time for the word "damn"... Such a benign word. That was kind of the START of language in films... Now language like the "F" word is used everywhere (now with limited use in PG-13 films)! So before we start talking about "creative freedoms" realize we've in fact gotten more and more primitive when dealing with themes of drugs/sex/violence/etc than being mature about it. BTW in case you haven't picked up on it, to make my point work, 1940's movies had great stories and some very creative writers working on them. While I find it weird we accept so much violence in today's society, I myself am desensitized to it. So in fact it takes a lot of courage to say what I just said. To admit our flaws. And there's no sign of this ever changing.