Heteronormaltivity in games

[Aramis Night]

Actually given that most of the women where I live are at least bi, I'm actually a little surprised that women's magazines don't focus more on gays. I had never had a relationship with a straight girl until I was 29, they are so rare. Still with her thankfully. Got tiring having to not only compete for women with other men, but with women as well. Its amazing I've ever managed to land any women with that much competition.

Meh. A great many people, women and men, probably fall somewhere between 1-5 on the Kinsey Scale when it comes to their sexuality. Men are just less likely to admit it, either to others or themselves, as traditional notions of masculinity preclude any "feminine" traits or homosexual feelings.

Funny you mention that. Some of the women I have been with tried to BS me trying to claim they were straight. I called them out on it, and sure enough either they had had an experience before me I found out about, or we broke up and they went lesbian. Seems women also have difficulty admitting their homosexual feelings as well. Or maybe they thought so little of me, they assumed I would be offended. Not sure why. As far as I'm concerned lipstick lesbians are the only ones with any standards. Not sure how anyone can find a man physically attractive, and I don't understand butch women at all.

 

[jehk]

Why would you assume that about me? Just because i understand a bit about the way the world works, doesn't mean i'm unsympathetic.

Excusing the homogeneity of video game characters with "business is business" is pretty unsympathetic. A sympathetic answer would be "maybe there should be a few more gay/female video game characters".

Also, take your own advice. Figure out how companies work before you dictate it to others.

I'm sympathetic enough to offer more than a feel good circle jerk about the way things should be. And you're in no position to be telling me about running a business. You have offered no insights outside of "But they don't have to make profit, they should be fair." so you'll forgive me for not taking your business acumen seriously. But hey, if your bank is so generous, then by all means, take a loan out and make the game you want to make. I'm sure your current employer will be very supportive.

I work on projects that connect our employees with the community. If I thought a game could do that they would certainly support me.

Your "business is business" assertion does demonstrate your deft understand on corporation culture and business practices.

You keep stating "Business is Business" as though i actually ever used those words. Though I'll follow through on it i suppose. At least then maybe you'll make a point against this strawman you want to battle so much. Community outreach is good PR. Good PR is in the interests of your banks profits, no matter how much you want to pretend its entirely altruistic. People like to think that a company they give money to gives a damn about them on some level. It is in your employer's interest to make sure you drink the kool aid, because you will do a better job of fooling shills if you're one as well. I'm guessing you must be very good at your job.

Haha! Whatever you say Glenn Beck. Drink the kool aid. Really guy? You sound like a conspiracy crackpot.

Really? Glen Beck? That's your argument. Yes, large businesses operate on a profit motive. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

Its not my argument. I'm ridiculing you because you're being ridiculous with the kool aid and corporate shill comments. You're in crackpot territory with your claims that all businesses do nothing by seek profit at all costs. It's pretty easy to find contradictory evidence. But yeah, whatever floats your boat.

I don't doubt your a true believer. It's heartening tbh. Even cute. You do realize the Kool-Aid thing was established well before Glen Beck right? The Jonestown massacre was in 1978. As for your contradictory evidence, show me this mythical AAA developer that operates on happy thoughts and no profits, and ill happily concede defeat.

Pre-EA BioWare. Sure their games made profit but that's not why they operated. The original founders were a couple of doctors that just loved gaming. Go google for the interviews.

I'm sure you'll find some excuse for this. You are in crackpot land after all.

And where is Bio-ware now? Conspiracy!!! LOL's!!! It's the tradeoff every company makes when they get big enough to be publically traded. I work for a small business myself. The owner has no intention of ever becoming a large company even if we could. We satisfy a niche in the market ourselves. Our own business operates thanks to profit, but we tend to see it in terms of existing only as long as we fill a need. Profitability is how we are forced to measure that. But we won't change markets just to keep existing or break laws or rip off our customers. If we became a large company, big enough to for example make AAA games, then we would likely have to compromise our current values, just like Bio-ware has had to. When you go from business to large corporation, you are less likely to maintain complete control of your business and it spawns a life of its own. Just ask every business founder who was forced out of the leadership position they had in their own company.

Excuses, excuses. Sure, things changed. However, BioWare was a big AAA gaming studio even before EA took over. The company made games because they loved doing it. The were passionate and it showed. They're not alone. You're firmly in crackpot territory and I'm not following you any further. Good luck.

 

[Denamic]

Many games never touch on the subject of the protagonist's sexuality. Why do you assume they are all heterosexual?

 

[Aramis Night]

Why would you assume that about me? Just because i understand a bit about the way the world works, doesn't mean i'm unsympathetic.

Excusing the homogeneity of video game characters with "business is business" is pretty unsympathetic. A sympathetic answer would be "maybe there should be a few more gay/female video game characters".

Also, take your own advice. Figure out how companies work before you dictate it to others.

I'm sympathetic enough to offer more than a feel good circle jerk about the way things should be. And you're in no position to be telling me about running a business. You have offered no insights outside of "But they don't have to make profit, they should be fair." so you'll forgive me for not taking your business acumen seriously. But hey, if your bank is so generous, then by all means, take a loan out and make the game you want to make. I'm sure your current employer will be very supportive.

I work on projects that connect our employees with the community. If I thought a game could do that they would certainly support me.

Your "business is business" assertion does demonstrate your deft understand on corporation culture and business practices.

You keep stating "Business is Business" as though i actually ever used those words. Though I'll follow through on it i suppose. At least then maybe you'll make a point against this strawman you want to battle so much. Community outreach is good PR. Good PR is in the interests of your banks profits, no matter how much you want to pretend its entirely altruistic. People like to think that a company they give money to gives a damn about them on some level. It is in your employer's interest to make sure you drink the kool aid, because you will do a better job of fooling shills if you're one as well. I'm guessing you must be very good at your job.

Haha! Whatever you say Glenn Beck. Drink the kool aid. Really guy? You sound like a conspiracy crackpot.

Really? Glen Beck? That's your argument. Yes, large businesses operate on a profit motive. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!!!

Its not my argument. I'm ridiculing you because you're being ridiculous with the kool aid and corporate shill comments. You're in crackpot territory with your claims that all businesses do nothing by seek profit at all costs. It's pretty easy to find contradictory evidence. But yeah, whatever floats your boat.

I don't doubt your a true believer. It's heartening tbh. Even cute. You do realize the Kool-Aid thing was established well before Glen Beck right? The Jonestown massacre was in 1978. As for your contradictory evidence, show me this mythical AAA developer that operates on happy thoughts and no profits, and ill happily concede defeat.

Pre-EA BioWare. Sure their games made profit but that's not why they operated. The original founders were a couple of doctors that just loved gaming. Go google for the interviews.

I'm sure you'll find some excuse for this. You are in crackpot land after all.

And where is Bio-ware now? Conspiracy!!! LOL's!!! It's the tradeoff every company makes when they get big enough to be publically traded. I work for a small business myself. The owner has no intention of ever becoming a large company even if we could. We satisfy a niche in the market ourselves. Our own business operates thanks to profit, but we tend to see it in terms of existing only as long as we fill a need. Profitability is how we are forced to measure that. But we won't change markets just to keep existing or break laws or rip off our customers. If we became a large company, big enough to for example make AAA games, then we would likely have to compromise our current values, just like Bio-ware has had to. When you go from business to large corporation, you are less likely to maintain complete control of your business and it spawns a life of its own. Just ask every business founder who was forced out of the leadership position they had in their own company.

Excuses, excuses. Sure, things changed. However, BioWare was a big AAA gaming studio even before EA took over. The company made games because they loved doing it. The were passionate and it showed. They're not alone. You're firmly in crackpot territory and I'm not following you any further. Good luck.

Well, if 2 doctors can come up with the money to create a AAA gaming studio, then you should have no problem convincing the bank you work at to give you a loan to start making video games featuring gay romance. I look forward to your first title. Hope you don't mind if I just borrow it from a friend though since you obviously wont need profit. Good luck

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Excuses, excuses. Sure, things changed. However, BioWare was a big AAA gaming studio even before EA took over. The company made games because they loved doing it. The were passionate and it showed. They're not alone. You're firmly in crackpot territory and I'm not following you any further. Good luck.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering, but you really do need to settle down jehk. There is nothing "crackpot" about pointing out that AAA games created by or funded by publicly traded companies will prioritize ROI. They are legally required to prioritize the interests of their shareholders, which means "profitable games" as opposed to "socially progressive" games.

Is it cynical to point this out as a hand wave to the question of Heteronormativity in gaming? Sure. Is it helpful to the discussion at hand? Probably not, everyone of age to be intelligently contributing to this discussion should already be perfectly aware of it and taking it into consideration when offering solutions to the issue.

But there's nothing "crackpot" about it. You might as well say someone was a "crackpot" for pointing out that leaves grow on trees. Calling him a "crackpot" is not only a lazy ad hominem attack, it's also a violation of forum rules. Either calmly and rationally post and support your argument without resorting to name calling, or don't post.

 

[jehk]

Excuses, excuses. Sure, things changed. However, BioWare was a big AAA gaming studio even before EA took over. The company made games because they loved doing it. The were passionate and it showed. They're not alone. You're firmly in crackpot territory and I'm not following you any further. Good luck.

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering, but you really do need to settle down jehk. There is nothing "crackpot" about pointing out that AAA games created by or funded by publicly traded companies will prioritize ROI. They are legally required to prioritize the interests of their shareholders, which means "profitable games" as opposed to "socially progressive" games.

Is it cynical to point this out as a hand wave to the question of Heteronormativity in gaming? Sure. Is it helpful to the discussion at hand? Probably not, everyone of age to be intelligently contributing to this discussion should already be perfectly aware of it and taking it into consideration when offering solutions to the issue.

But there's nothing "crackpot" about it. You might as well say someone was a "crackpot" for pointing out that leaves grow on trees. Calling him a "crackpot" is not only a lazy ad hominem attack, it's also a violation of forum rules. Either calmly and rationally post and support your argument without resorting to name calling, or don't post.

They can still prioritize the interests of their shareholders and be socially progressive. This is not a black and white all or nothing game. BioWare is the go to example of a company doing this.

How many times do I have to say this before someone gets it?

EDIT: I didn't call him a crackpot. His idea. Sure.

Also, you're also incorrectly using ad hominem. You should really understand what it is before you lecture people on it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

They can still prioritize the interests of their shareholders and be socially progressive. This is not a black and white all or nothing game. BioWare is the go to example of a company doing this.

How many times do I have to say this before someone gets it?

Try saying it without burying it in a minefield of personal attacks and you might find people are more receptive to your message.

Bioware is pretty much the ONLY example of a company doing this, and even Bioware has played it very safe by offering a blank slate character as opposed to a homosexual one. Until we get a strictly homosexual protagonist in a mainstream game we're not going to have good data on how well we could expect something like that to sell. And even then it's not cut and dry, because game sales are multifactorial and not solely determined by the gender or sexuality of the characters.

EDIT: I didn't call him a crackpot. His idea. Sure.

Also, you're also incorrectly using ad hominem. You should really understand what it is before you lecture people on it.

Haha! Whatever you say Glenn Beck. Drink the kool aid. Really guy? You sound like a conspiracy crackpot.

Even if you HADN'T directly called him a crackpot, you'd be splitting hairs. Constantly inferring someone is an idiot because they're in "idiot territory" would not be meaningfully distinct from just saying "you are an idiot".

And I'm very well aware of what ad hominem means, thanks. Rather than speaking to his argument, you dismiss him...in four posts running no less...as a "crackpot". That is the essence of ad hominem. Nevertheless, I am not here to educate you on the subject of proper argumentation. You can either correct the way you present your arguments or stick to your guns and continue to act bewildered when people "don't get it". That's really entirely up to you.

 

[jehk]

Try saying it without burying it in a minefield of personal attacks and you might find people are more receptive to your message.

I never attacked him personally. Even then I never used it to discredit his argument (please understand argumentum ad hominem before you lecture people on its use). Sure, I ridiculed him but the kool aid and coporate shill comments were very ridiculous. And how were those not personal attacks?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Sure, I ridiculed him but the kool aid and coporate shill comments were very ridiculous. And how were those not personal attacks?

Is this 5th grade? At what point in your life did you come to the conclusion that "he started it" was justification for petty name calling and childish argumentation?

 

[jehk]

Even if you HADN'T directly called him a crackpot, you'd be splitting hairs. Constantly inferring someone is an idiot because they're in "idiot territory" would not be meaningfully distinct from just saying "you are an idiot".

And I'm very well aware of what ad hominem means, thanks. Rather than speaking to his argument, you dismiss him...in four posts running no less...as a "crackpot". That is the essence of ad hominem. Nevertheless, I am not here to educate you on the subject of proper argumentation. You can either correct the way you present your arguments or stick to your guns and continue to act bewildered when people "don't get it". That's really entirely up to you.

Clearly, you don't understand ad hominem. I never said his argument was invalid because I think he's sounds like a conspiracy crackpot. It's invalid because I demonstrated a company that directly refuted his claim.

 

[Aramis Night]

Try saying it without burying it in a minefield of personal attacks and you might find people are more receptive to your message.

I never attacked him personally. Even then I never used it to discredit his argument (please understand argumentum ad hominem before you lecture people on its use). Sure, I ridiculed him but the kool aid and coporate shill comments were very ridiculous. And how were those not personal attacks?

Don't forget, I also referred to you as naïve and a true believer. At least I own what I say and don't make lame attempts at back pedaling. Go ahead and just call me a crackpot. If it's the worst thing I'm called all day ill be disappointed in myself. I won't be offended. Ego is for fools.

Edit: Though I do not hate or even dislike you. If more people were like you and saw things as you do, perhaps the world would be a better place.

 

[jehk]

Sure, I ridiculed him but the kool aid and coporate shill comments were very ridiculous. And how were those not personal attacks?

Is this 5th grade? At what point in your life did you come to the conclusion that "he started it" was justification for petty name calling and childish argumentation?

OMG! Ad hominem! Why do I get the lecture when he was directly attacking me. Not my job. Not my idea. But Me. You have the gall to ask for rational discussion too.

 

[jehk]

Try saying it without burying it in a minefield of personal attacks and you might find people are more receptive to your message.

I never attacked him personally. Even then I never used it to discredit his argument (please understand argumentum ad hominem before you lecture people on its use). Sure, I ridiculed him but the kool aid and coporate shill comments were very ridiculous. And how were those not personal attacks?

Don't forget, I also referred to you as naïve and a true believer. At least I own what I say and don't make lame attempts at back pedaling. Go ahead and just call me a crackpot. If it's the worst thing I'm called all day ill be disappointed in myself. I won't be offended. Ego is for fools.

Edit: Though I do not hate or even dislike you. If more people were like you and saw things as you do, perhaps the world would be a better place.

I don't actually think you are a crackpot. Your claim (or whoever made the original claim) that all companies everywhere solely operate for profit. That idea is crackpot and I told you why. I also provided a contradictory example against that claim.

I can attack your idea but not attack you as a person. You should try to do the same.

EDIT: wrong word. meant contradictory

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Clearly, you don't understand ad hominem. I never said his argument was invalid because I think he's operating from crackpot territory. It's invalid because I demonstrated a company that directly refuted his claim.

Yes. "Clearly". As I said, I'm not really interested in this extremely predictable bout of defensiveness in which you prevaricate for hours about things you clearly said and did. Either remedy your behavior or don't, it's really naught to me either way.

OMG! Ad hominem! Why do I get the lecture when he was directly attacking me. Not my job. Not my idea. But Me. You have the gall to ask for rational discussion too.

Possibly because he wasn't the one trilling "Crackpot lol!" over half the page. He is also quite evidently aware of his transgressions and isn't tying himself in knots trying to refute them. Your complaint about the lack of fairness in my forum quoting choices is noted for the record, though.

 

[Lightknight]

Developers usually craft the actual hero/avatar with their fan base in mind if it isn't based on an already stable character. I could see niche games doing this but it should be a lot rarer in AAA titles except where the player decides what they want their character to be. With the gay community making up less than 5% of the US population it would be a little bit odd to cater to the 5% at the cost of the 95%. For the same completely rational reasons that gay individuals would like an avatar that matches their characteristics, so do heterosexuals generally appreciate avatars that match their own. Neither side is wrong for waiting that, it's just that one group is far larger.

It's like this, are there men that wear waist-high stockings? Sure. Does that mean that stocking companies should make stockings intended for everyone different to cater for the men even though it'd likely be a little less comfortable for women? No, you either make stockings that are more comfortable as possible for men while costing the women nothing or you make a specific line of stockings cater to men's needs. That's not being sexist, that's just catering to your largest demographic.

In a perfect world, total customization of your character would be available for anyone and everyone. But including that costs development resources and even more money if voice acting is involved. So you do the best you can with what you've got and if your options are to please 95% of your target market or 5% then you should take the 95%. Fortunately, games like Mass Effect are rewarded for adding such customiseability and what is it to anyone else if someone can choose to be something you don't want to make your character?

Remember, catering a product or service for a customer base is different than refusing service to a particular group or hiring an individual based on physical characteristics. A restaurant that cooks meat with cheese in the same place doesn't get sued by the Jewish community because they can't eat there and follow their religion. Instead, niche restaurants pop up and succeed or fail based on demand or the individuals go there and order something anyways.

 

[jehk]

Either remedy your behavior or don't, it's really naught to me either way.

Noted. I'll make sure its clear that I'm attacking his idea or behavior instead of him in the future.

 

[Aramis Night]

Try saying it without burying it in a minefield of personal attacks and you might find people are more receptive to your message.

I never attacked him personally. Even then I never used it to discredit his argument (please understand argumentum ad hominem before you lecture people on its use). Sure, I ridiculed him but the kool aid and coporate shill comments were very ridiculous. And how were those not personal attacks?

Don't forget, I also referred to you as naïve and a true believer. At least I own what I say and don't make lame attempts at back pedaling. Go ahead and just call me a crackpot. If it's the worst thing I'm called all day ill be disappointed in myself. I won't be offended. Ego is for fools.

Edit: Though I do not hate or even dislike you. If more people were like you and saw things as you do, perhaps the world would be a better place.

I don't actually think you are a crackpot. Your claim (or whoever made the original claim) that all companies everywhere solely operate for profit. That idea is crackpot and I told you why. I also provided a contributory example against that claim.

I can attack your idea but not attack you as a person. You should try to do the same.

The claim was that large publically traded AAA game development companies operate with a profit motive as their primary consideration with every decision made. For stating this, I am deemed a crackpot.

Your evidence against my claim was citing a game company that is currently profitable, but has yet to make the step of a non-optionally gay protagonist. From this you extrapolate that this means that having a clearly gay protagonist made by said company(or any other AAA developer), should be created regardless of concerns about profitability.

Given how games starring Luigi have not been huge blockbusters I can see why most AAA studios have doubts about gay protagonists being profitable.<sips Kool-Aid>

 

[Hagi]

I think Path of Exile deserves a mention for having implemented a gay character in a rather interesting way.

It's an aRPG, so there's not really much story on any of the playable characters beyond some very basic background and even in that background there's no mention of the Ranger being gay.

Here's the interesting thing though, in the game there's a zone, the Siren's Lair. Inside that zone phantoms appear that beckon the player to enter deeper. The four male characters are all faced with mostly naked female phantoms. The Witch, the other female character besides the ranger, is faced with mostly naked male phantoms. The Ranger however, a female character, is faced with mostly naked female phantoms as well.

I thought that was a rather interesting way to put some extra information on the characters in the game.

 

[jehk]

The claim was that large publically traded AAA game development companies operate with a profit motive as their primary consideration with every decision made. For stating this, I am deemed a crackpot.

He's not making excuses. Business is Business. Economics has everything to do with it.

Corporations don't care about your views on social justice. Money, that is all.

The above is the original claim you made. Economics doesn't have everything to do with it and they don't just care about money. No, I'm not denying profit as a motive and claiming pure altruism either.

Making such a generalization about a multitude of complex and diverse entities is a ridiculous claim.

EDIT: If you've changed you claim then cool. We don't have to argue. The above is specially what I have problems with.

 

[Aramis Night]

The claim was that large publically traded AAA game development companies operate with a profit motive as their primary consideration with every decision made. For stating this, I am deemed a crackpot.

He's not making excuses. Business is Business. Economics has everything to do with it.

Corporations don't care about your views on social justice. Money, that is all.

The above is the original claim you made. Economics doesn't have everything to do with it and they don't just care about money. No, I'm not denying profit as a motive and claiming pure altruism either.

Making such a generalization about a multitude of complex and diverse entities is a ridiculous claim.

EDIT: If you've changed you claim then cool. We don't have to argue. The above is specially what I have problems with.

Profit is the unifying theme of every corporation regardless how diverse. Without it, they cease to exist. To expect a corporation to not pursue profit, is like expecting us to stop breathing. As generalizations go I feel pretty safe with this one.