Define "A Well Writen Gay Character" in Gaming.

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Leonardo Da Vinci from Assassin's Creed?

Exactly. His character was defined by his artistic and engineering genius, and his friendship with Ezio, not by his sexual preference.

How can people still think that Steve Cortez is a well written gay character? His entire purpose in the game is to be gay. That's what his character is build around. Sure he's a nice guy and all, and he pilots that shuttle, but that's not why Bioware created him. They created him to expand their audience to gay gamers. Same is true with Samantha Traynor. How obvious does it have to be? Do you really think Bioware couldn't just put Kelly Chambers on The Normandy again?

 

[SextusMaximus]

No, Dumbledore is gay 100% of the time. He doesn't necessarily fit the gay 'camp' stereotype 100% of the time, but he's gay 100% of the time.

A character should not have to "act gay", to be gay.

There is a huge difference between being a stereotype and having your personality informed by your sexuality. I don't mean to sound rude, but responses like yours seem to come mostly from overly PC straight people. As a queer, I can definitely tell you that my sexuality is inseparable from my larger personality; moreover, I can confirm the same for literally every other LGBT person I have ever met, from doctors and lawyers to drag queens. I have never met in all my life a person whose homosexuality was not an integral part of their being. I suggest spending more time with gay people before just accepting straight liberal assumptions regarding their behavior.

I have a very, very good friend who came out as being gay a year ago, and a friend who came out as bi a year ish before that, would absolutely not have thought they were gay. So no, I'm not some politically correct straight guy (besides, you seem to be implying that's WORSE than some douchebag homophobe), I'm absolutely saying that personality is not necessarily driven by sexuality at all, besides Dumbledore is a massive introvert, and we only see parts of the story his life tells, so while his character is well fleshed out and created, we are not seeing how he'd have a dinner with friends or any sort of leisurely activity, but only extensively serious matters which require him to work.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

No, Dumbledore is gay 100% of the time. He doesn't necessarily fit the gay 'camp' stereotype 100% of the time, but he's gay 100% of the time.

A character should not have to "act gay", to be gay.

There is a huge difference between being a stereotype and having your personality informed by your sexuality. I don't mean to sound rude, but responses like yours seem to come mostly from overly PC straight people. As a queer, I can definitely tell you that my sexuality is inseparable from my larger personality; moreover, I can confirm the same for literally every other LGBT person I have ever met, from doctors and lawyers to drag queens. I have never met in all my life a person whose homosexuality was not an integral part of their being. I suggest spending more time with gay people before just accepting straight liberal assumptions regarding their behavior.

To be fair, he's got a point, and I don't think it's about political correctness. There's a gay kid in my year at school, and while some of the more sexually insecure homophobes define as just being "a gay", others, including myself, think him of as that smarty-pants Atheist guy who likes to quote Darwin. And there?s another one who recently came out, and he?s not stereotypically gay either. No-one really gave a shit. He got a blowjob from some guy at a party, and some people in our respective groups) talked about it for a bit along with the other sex stories on that day, and then it was practically forgotten. And then there's also a guy who I've been close friends with for five years, and he came out as bi, but you wouldn't guess it and no-one cared about that either. (I live in the UK, and a pretty small, dull and somewhat liberal area.)

I'm not gay myself, but I don't have to be to assume that, for some gay people, their sexuality isn't a big deal. Not to themself, nor to their family and/or friends if they're lucky. I mean, that's like saying that all ethnic minorities' race is an integral part of their being, when I know for a fact that many racial minorities just don't give a shit and think of themselves as an average person. I'm one example.

Of course, it's different if you're transgender, because that's obviously a bigger hardship than being gay. But I can't think of any stereotypes about transgender people that aren't already shared by gay people, other than the cliched storyline of "man hooks up with girl in bar or something, finds out she's got a dick, freaks out because he thinks she's a man" (which, to be honest, I always found pretty insulting to trans people, because it just assumes that they're all "traps" and I tend to think that the man who freaks out is a bit of a dick because of his sexual insecurity).

 

[peruvianskys]

I'm bisexual and trans; as a 32 year old, I've been onboard with activist causes since before a lot of the members of this site were able to spell activist. I don't mean to sound rude, but responses like yours don't pass the smell test. Like, seriously, I have never met an LGBT person who would claim this sort of thing, and I know it ain't true for me. Perhaps I have been brainwashed by the liberal PC conspiracy or whatever, but come on.

Perhaps you guys are missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying that all gay people have to be the same or that LGBT people aren't "normal"; I'm just saying that a gay character, if he or she has any dimension at all, will act in ways, subtly or overtly, that reflect that sexuality.

Think of it like an African-American character. It's true that you can just take a white character, write them like every other white character, and then change the skin tone, but is that really capturing a real black CHARACTER or is it just taking a generic (read: white) character and splashing a different skin color on? Now this doesn't mean they have to play into stereotypes or negative assumptions; after all, Cornell West and Jay-Z are both equally informed by the African-American experience. It just means you have to consider their race, how it has affected the way they've experienced the world, and tailor that character accordingly.

It's the same way with homosexuals or transmen/women or any other member of the queer community. A doctor who has lived his or her life as a queer is going to have a perspective molded and shaped by their experiences with LGBT culture and experience. Queers are human beings and human beings run the gamut from flaming fag to introverted loner to confident this or friendly that or whatever - but reducing a gay character's sexuality, which is hugely important to every human being, gay or straight, to a token kiss scene is not doing justice to that character.

Are you saying that your experience as a trans bisexual has not in any way informed your outlook and personality? Because "I have never met an LGBT person who would claim this sort of thing."

Okay then. It just sounded like you where basically saying "Someone who looks straight, but happens to sleep with the opposite sex isn't gay", basically amounting to the example I gave.

It has nothing to do with looks; it has to do with who that person is. Homosexuality is not some kind of uniform =]

I imagine I would have, considering I'm transgendered.
My boyfriend does not have any typical gay traits.
He's essentially a straight acting male who happens to love another male.
And I love that, I don't think it's too awful important to evaluate or re-evaluate yourself on the basis of who you sleep with.

Once again, if that's not what you were saying I've misunderstood and I apologize.

I think you have. I am not in any way saying that you need to have "typical gay traits." I don't have typical gay (or queer) traits. My employer, a Shakespeare scholar, has no "typical gay traits." But his experiences with AIDS in the early 90's have left him incredibly lonely and prone to bouts of self-pity. His experiences with the sometimes unstable intersection of faith and sexuality have left him a devoted Baha'i. My experiences with a disapproving family have left me with a somewhat unhealthy need to please others, and my experiences with a compassionate and loving partner have made me confident and unable to accept discrimination. My early years spent growing up where I could not find a single person to love me have shaped who I am. Who I am is nothing but an amalgam of my experience, and a huge number of my experiences are shaped by my sexuality. And without being presumptuous, I can't imagine you are easily separated from your sexuality either.

So that's what I'm arguing here: that simply having a character who is stamped with "gay" but has no personality or outlook that realistically reflects that sexuality means that they are no longer a character. They're just a cardboard cutout with "gay" written on it at worst and at best, they're just straight, i.e. the fact that they are LGBT simply disappears except when convenient. I'm hoping that one day we can have characters whose sexuality stands as an important, informing aspect of their character, not simply a crutch to lean on or a diversity grab.

CATCHPA: Cabbage Borsht. Delicious.

 

[piinyouri]

Okay then. It just sounded like you where basically saying "Someone who looks straight, but happens to sleep with the opposite sex isn't gay", basically amounting to the example I gave.

It has nothing to do with looks; it has to do with who that person is. Homosexuality is not some kind of uniform =]

I imagine I would have, considering I'm transgendered.
My boyfriend does not have any typical gay traits.
He's essentially a straight acting male who happens to love another male.
And I love that, I don't think it's too awful important to evaluate or re-evaluate yourself on the basis of who you sleep with.

Once again, if that's not what you were saying I've misunderstood and I apologize.

I think you have. I am not in any way saying that you need to have "typical gay traits." I don't have typical gay (or queer) traits. My employer, a Shakespeare scholar, has no "typical gay traits." But his experiences with AIDS in the early 90's have left him incredibly lonely and prone to bouts of self-pity. His experiences with the sometimes unstable intersection of faith and sexuality have left him a devoted Baha'i. My experiences with a disapproving family have left me with a somewhat unhealthy need to please others, and my experiences with a compassionate and loving partner have made me confident and unable to accept discrimination. My early years spent growing up where I could not find a single person to love me have shaped who I am. Who I am is nothing but an amalgam of my experience, and a huge number of my experiences are shaped by my sexuality. And without being presumptuous, I can't imagine you are easily separated from your sexuality either.

So that's what I'm arguing here: that simply having a character who is stamped with "gay" but has no personality or outlook that realistically reflects that sexuality means that they are no longer a character. They're just a cardboard cutout with "gay" written on it at worst and at best, they're just straight, i.e. the fact that they are LGBT simply disappears except when convenient. I'm hoping that one day we can have characters whose sexuality stands as an important, informing aspect of their character, not simply a crutch to lean on or a diversity grab.

CATCHPA: Cabbage Borsht. Delicious.

Ok, I think I get what you're saying.

Though I will say isn't everyone, regardless of sexuality or life preference shaped and influenced by what happens in their life?

In that regard people who fall into the LGBT group aren't different in that regard.

I do get what you're point is though. You think the experiences they had as a result of their sexuality and it's byproducts should be a more integral part of the character. In a good way, not the "I am defined entirely by who I sleep with. Nothing else matters." And I can understand that. You do have to walk a careful path when writing characters like that, as a degree of subtlety is probably the only thing that separates believable, relatable human being from walking stereotype.

 

[CMDDarkblade]

I am not in any way saying that you need to have "typical gay traits." I don't have typical gay (or queer) traits. My employer, a Shakespeare scholar, has no "typical gay traits." But his experiences with AIDS in the early 90's have left him incredibly lonely and prone to bouts of self-pity. His experiences with the sometimes unstable intersection of faith and sexuality have left him a devoted Baha'i. My experiences with a disapproving family have left me with a somewhat unhealthy need to please others, and my experiences with a compassionate and loving partner have made me confident and unable to accept discrimination. My early years spent growing up where I could not find a single person to love me have shaped who I am. Who I am is nothing but an amalgam of my experience, and a huge number of my experiences are shaped by my sexuality. And without being presumptuous, I can't imagine you are easily separated from your sexuality either.

So that's what I'm arguing here: that simply having a character who is stamped with "gay" but has no personality or outlook that realistically reflects that sexuality means that they are no longer a character. They're just a cardboard cutout with "gay" written on it at worst and at best, they're just straight, i.e. the fact that they are LGBT simply disappears except when convenient. I'm hoping that one day we can have characters whose sexuality stands as an important, informing aspect of their character, not simply a crutch to lean on or a diversity grab.

The only examples you brought up are how elements of discrimination and prejudice have shaped the lives of LGBT people, but in an ideal world, like the world of a video game, that kind of discrimination might not exist. In that kind of world, LGBT people would have the same types of experiences as other people without the experience of prejudice looming over them. The people you are talking about haven't been shaped BY their sexuality; they've been shaped by people's reactions TO their sexuality.

I agree that gay characters should have their sexuality depicted realistically, but for gay characters to be depicted realistically it isn't necessary for them to have a background of suffering because of their sexuality. I guess what I am trying to ask you is: without the prejudice and discrimination what makes a gay character different from a straight character?

 

[Tranquility]

Commander Shepard

 

[Thespian]

-snip-

Ugh. Okay Captain Pedantic, what I'm saying is that you are likely to find a gay person who had trouble admitting they were gay among groups of homosexuals than you are to find a straight person who had trouble admitting they were straight among heterosexuals. That is all I'm saying. If you are going to refute that, then you are either a troll or grossly misinformed. Either way you are wasting my time. The fact of the matter is that there just isn't as large a proportion of straight people who were terrified of people finding out that they are straight compared to the proportion of gay people who were terrified of people finding out that they are gay. How many straight people do you know had to work up the courage to come out to their parents? How many straight people do you know got married to someone of the same sex because they were refusing to admit that they were straight? Heterosexuality being the default assumption of society, it does not happen as much. There are FAR less people who think heterosexuality is an abomination than there are people who think homosexuality is an abomination. This is fact.
The point: For this reason and others, it's more common for a gay person to be ashamed of being gay than it is for a straight person to be ashamed of being straight.

Also!

But you said gays were more sexually insecure.

An absolute fabrication. This is so indicative of your entire thinking here. You are skimming what I say and paraphrasing it in a sensationalist manner, then attempting to refute it. I never said gays were more sexually insecure. The one thing I said that was remotely close to that (but still very far off, I assure you) was corrected.

Read my god damn posts. Read what I say. Do not put words in my mouth. Show some bloody decorum.

 

[MidnightSt]

This brought me to the question that is in this topic's title: "Just what IS a 'well writen' gay character?"

Soooooo yeah. What do you consider to be a "well writen gay character"?

A character that doesn't shove it up your face by his appearance, by how he acts, speaks, or by any of his opinions. Basically, I was surprised to learn I've met a few gays, and not a single time a single thought about them maybe being gay crossed my mind. They were just the same, in all respects, as any other men, only they were sexually attracted to men, that's all.

That means, avoid ALL the cliché's, in clothing, speaking, accent, voice type, face type, everything. Make him a man like any other, and then make a backstory for him in the likes of "Oh, by the way, I met this AWESOME guy, we were out for a coffee, we talked for like two hours, then we went to bar, got really drunk, all the while talking for another four hours, and just as I was starting to think 'damn, I really like this guy', he kissed me! We're going out again tomorrow."

And that's it, there you have it, a well written gay character, showing the truth that they're just like any other person except that one for most intents and purposes insignificant detail.

ALSO, they can still "rate" women the same way as heterosexual men do; the same way as I, heterosexual man can "rate" men ("damn, if I was a woman, I'd be TOTALLY into that guy there, he's got such an awesome and charismatic nose" - don't you do that sometimes, guys?)

 

[Something Amyss]

Perhaps you guys are missing what I'm saying. I'm not saying that all gay people have to be the same or that LGBT people aren't "normal"; I'm just saying that a gay character, if he or she has any dimension at all, will act in ways, subtly or overtly, that reflect that sexuality.

Such as?

I mean, you gave "black" examples, but since you yourself are trying to indicate this exists within the LGBT community (and that a heterosexual might not have the experience to know better), perhaps you should give real examples of this here and now?

 

[Something Amyss]

Ugh. Okay Captain Pedantic, what I'm saying is that you are likely to find a gay person who had trouble admitting they were gay among groups of homosexuals than you are to find a straight person who had trouble admitting they were straight among heterosexuals.

Which isn't what you said. That's not pedantry. How am I supposed to guess from your clumsy wording about insecurity in their sexuality and your flailing attempts to backtrack that you meant anything of the sort?

 

[Thespian]

Which isn't what you said. That's not pedantry. How am I supposed to guess from your clumsy wording about insecurity in their sexuality and your flailing attempts to backtrack that you meant anything of the sort?

Gasp! Recent studies have shown that that IS what I said. So to answer your question of "How were you supposed to know what I meant", I will say "By reading the words I typed in english that clearly indicated what I meant."
Need some proof? LET'S JOURNEY BACK.

4 - The message I meant to get across didn't pertain to sexual insecurity in general. I should have been more specific mayhaps, but I thought context implied it. What I perhaps should have said was this:
It is more common for gay people to be insecure with their sexual orientation than for straight people to be.

Shocking. I clearly said those exact words. Or do you need it to be explained more clearly? I'll quote the exact sentence for you, hold up.

It is more common for gay people to be insecure with their sexual orientation than for straight people to be.

Better? No? Should I bold it this time?

It is more common for gay people to be insecure with their sexual orientation than for straight people to be.

So I guess I did say it in the second post! Huh. But wait, there's more! You actually noticed this! And responded to it?

4 - The message I meant to get across didn't pertain to sexual insecurity in general. I should have been more specific mayhaps, but I thought context implied it. What I perhaps should have said was this:
It is more common for gay people to be insecure with their sexual orientation than for straight people to be.

Which still isn't true.

Whoa! Hold up. You actually replied to that part, specifically! And you refuted it! But you aren't refuting it now. Did you just refute it blindly because you wanted to 'win' an argument? Did you even read it? Did you not understand it? Do you know what "sexual orientation" is? Because you clearly argued then, but now you're all "Ohhh I didn't know what you meant" which is WEIRD frankly because how can you say here that what I said isn't true, but say now that what I said never made any sense?

Allow me to put forth a theory here: You skimmed my posts, didn't read my points properly, stubbornly refuted what I said without fully understanding it, REALIZED you did all this at the last minute and attempted to spin it in such a way that it would seem as if I can't write instead of you being unable to read.
Just admit you made a mistake and were wrong instead of throwing insults at me, FFS.

 

[thomasmj7]

there's that one guy in persona 4 and... that's about it.

 

[Mr F.]

a well written gay character is a well written character who is gay
same way a well written female character is a well written character who is female

This guy. He just defined it.

Although you could argue that it is not a well written character if their sexuality can be airlifted strait out and it would not change who they are to any degree. I mean, He would be the same character if he was asexual, strait, you name it.

It depends on the aim though. As a character, he is well written. As a well written gay character, he is a good example.

However, since Mass Effect is set in the future, and in a future filled with equality and genocide, the fact that he is gay makes no difference to who he is.

What I am trying to say is the fact that he is gay doesn't matter at all. And if you lift that away suddenly his character starts to dissolve. He is just a macho fighter pilot man. Two dimensional. And yet one of the best examples of a well written gay character.

I guess the point I amt rying to make is that his homosexuality does not matter. Now, if they had a gay character within a Modern Warfare game that had to deal with the treatment that homosexuals get in any of the armed forces you can currently name (From being the "Camp *****" in the UK military to being immediately discharged from the Turkish military, after a bit of healthy rape anyway) then maybe they would be a "Well Written" gay character.

I would define well written as someone who the audience can... Empathise with. On a real level.

EDIT:

What are you talking about when you say a 'straight character who's gay'?

Dumbledore is a well written character who is gay, but it's not the standout trait of the character.

Because Dumbledore isn't gay. He acted straight in every possible way, free from any behavior that could have even possibly been based in any element of LGBT culture or expression. Just because he was given a token sexuality that was literally never referred to, doesn't mean he is a "gay" character. Dumbledore is a straight character 99% of the time.

A truly well-written character who is gay will behave in ways that are informed by the LGBT experience. They will not simply exist as heterosexual-looking, heterosexual-acting, heterosexual-speaking characters who happen to get the "stamp of gayness" put on whenever the story has to get some momentary diversity. That's what I mean by a "straight gay character": one who is the picture of heteronormativity but every once in a while mentions a husband instead of a wife.

No, Dumbledore is gay 100% of the time. He doesn't necessarily fit the gay 'camp' stereotype 100% of the time, but he's gay 100% of the time.

A character should not have to "act gay", to be gay.

I am just going to say this.

My sister studies the dialogue of the closet. Dumbeldore is not gay. It was pointed out to JK Rowling that she did not have a single homosexual character so she threw it in and added some weak (Never really mentioned) backstory that he may or may not have had a homosexual relationship with someone.

Sorry. I know you will flip out and state that I am just "Wrong". But it takes more then an author stating a character is gay to make that character gay. Either she had no intention of Dumbeldore being homosexual or she has no idea how to write a homosexual character.

Your call.

Personally I think she cannot write. And I think she should have just had the balls to state "You are right, I didnt add a single homosexual to my book because I simply was not thinking about it at all. Whoops." It wouldn't make her homophobic, just a construct of a heteronormative society.

----

had to add the edit, even though it contradicts my major point in the original post.

A "Well Written" character is someone whos every aspect changes who they are and how they react to the world. If a large part of who they are can be changed without any substantial difference to who they are, they are a poorly written character.

So either Dumbeldore was never meant to be gay or he is poorly written.

Same applies to any homosexual I can think of in the videogames I have played.

 

[ksn0va]

Cortez - Mass Effect 3

 

[DementedSheep]

Well...a character who just happens to be gay and bring it when relevant. If you are wanted it to be more than just a trait and something central to the character you could do it by having them affected by some of the problems that the gay community face in their background story or in the actual game and have that central and have that affect their personality.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well written characters are an extreme rarity in gaming as it is.
Now you want to tackle a character that is more nuanced and niche' without offending anyone or dipping into stereotypes?

Why do many writers in popular fiction (any medium) write gay characters with lisps, "fashionable" clothing, and have them work in sexually polarizing jobs (relative to tradition)?

Because they don't know a damn thing about how those people actually live.

Keep in mind: this applies to any character trait you can think of; it isn't limited to sexual preference, gender or nationality.

Knowing all that, I, as a straight white male am probably the last person to attempt to write a homosexual character.

So yeah...this has been a colossal waste of time. Sorry -_-

 

[Something Amyss]

Gasp! Recent studies have shown that that IS what I said.

Except it isn't. Requoting yourself doesn't change what the thing you said actually means.

Shocking. I clearly said those exact words. Or do you need it to be explained more clearly? I'll quote the exact sentence for you, hold up.

And then you went on to continue to rephrase it in ways that don't work:

It is more common for gay people to be insecure with their sexual orientation than for straight people to be.

Is false.

It is more common for gay people to be insecure with their sexual orientation than for straight people to be.

And it's still false here.

And I addressed it myself:

Which still isn't true.

And it wasn't!

Whoa! Hold up. You actually replied to that part, specifically! And you refuted it! But you aren't refuting it now.

Yes. Because after restating the argument several times, you changed it. You changed it to a specific, narrow comment rather than one about sexual orientation and security.

It's funny how, when you stop saying something false, I stop calling you on saying something false. I don't know why that's hard for you to understand.

 

[Thespian]

-snip-

what I'm saying is that you are likely to find a gay person who had trouble admitting they were gay among groups of homosexuals than you are to find a straight person who had trouble admitting they were straight among heterosexuals. That is all I'm saying.

That's the part you seemed to agree with and claimed that I didn't say before.

It is more common for gay people to be insecure with their sexual orientation than for straight people to be.

Annnd that's what you claim is totally different to the quote above it. I just don't understand that. How are those two quotes saying totally different things? They are both saying that gay people are more often insecure with being gay than straight people are with being straight.

All previous snideness aside, are you understanding me?

 

[Laser Priest]

Agreed on Cortez.

I would consider Veronica from Fallout:New Vegas to fit the category. Her orientation is just one aspect of her character thats mentioned in passing. It adds depth to her.

I agree here to and say Arcade Gannon of the same game.

Basically, all three are well written characters who happen to be gay.

Really, a well-written gay character is - as has been said - a well-written character who is gay. If it's their defining characteristic, then that's a bad mark. If they are an over-the-top stereotype (See: Bernie of GTA IV) then they are generally lame characters.