LGBT in Video Games

[SageRuffin]

They're not stopping me from playing the games I enjoy, so I've no reason to them stop from playing theirs.

That's all I'm gonna say right now. I'm sure there are others who've brought individual games far better than I could ever hope to achieve.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Because? Sex is already not present in almost all the games today, and I don't think it would add much to the character whatever they fuck at night.

Take Dumbledore as an example, did it help his character in the slightest bit that J.K. Rowling explained that he was gay? Of course it didn't damage his character, but didn't add anything neither. It just...didn't do anything.

Unless your making a game based on peoples prejustice against homosexuality or something like that, having a gay character don't really add much. Haircolour is atleast something visual.

Of course it added to his character. If nothing else, his relationship to the Grindelwald character was cast in an entirely new light, something potentially even more tragic: two lovers on either side of an absolute divide.
I'd say that added plenty of subtext to Dumbledore's previous interactions.

If it had been revealed that Dumbledore used to be a redhead before his hair turned white, on the other hand...not so much.

As for your last point, I disagree entirely. Making the effort to be varied and multilateral in representing different cultures, sexualities, ethnicites and such makes it all the more likely that your work will resonate with a a wider audience, and helps rendering your work a more realistic and interesting construct.
Note that I didn't say it makes ones work more realistic or interesting per default, rather that it is a very useful and, dare I say it, reasonable tool.

 

[chadachada123]

I dislike the way that same people think that saying "fag" or "that's gay" is an offensive slur and at all relates to one's views on sexuality, and take offense to the idea that it's "immature" to use such a phrase to refer to something negative.

It's very hypocritical that people today have a problem with saying "that's gay" but don't rally similarly against the phrase "that's a gyp." That phrase is JUST as offensive against gypsies, yet means nothing today. Similarly, common usage of "that's gay" has nothing to do with sexuality. Getting pissed just creates unneeded tension between opposers and people that COULD be great allies in the fight for sexual equality and gender equality (not merely based on physical gender, either, but also gender identity).

Conversely, the immature kids that DO scream about "fags" in the homosexual sense are not representative of the gaming community. They're representative of bad parenting.

Anyway, I believe that adult gamers are far more accepting of homosexuality than adult non-gamers, by virtue of being generally less religious, having less interaction, especially physical, with other males in person, etc etc. Obviously the gap is shortening as games become mainstream, and these gaming stereotypes fade, but then so is sexual intolerance also.

On the topic of, say, Bioware, and some groups complaining about the lack of homosexual characters in certain games, I just have to say: What the fuck, man? If you put a character that acts stereotypically gay, then it's offensive for stereotyping. If you don't mention sexuality much besides the protagonist obviously getting the girl/boy/whatever, then you're "excluding." You can't just hamfist sexuality into things like this, and most companies do not have a problem with mentioning sexuality or including homosexual or sexual identity themes when it is appropriate.

Don't ruin good storytelling by trying to force "one of every major or minor group" into every collective. Some groups simply won't have females. Or males. Or whites. Or blacks. Or gays. Or whatever. It happens, and does not mean that the developers are prejudice.

 

[Slayer_2]

If they go overboard to show off their sexuality (read super butch lesbians or really girly gays), they can grind my gears, but I don't dislike them for who they fuck, and consequently, I'd have no issue with them in my games. However, I don't know how'd you'd mix a LGBT into a game like BF3, but if you can do it without being intrusive about it, I'd be fine with it/

 

[Terminal Blue]

Is the main char of Gears of War a normal hetero male? Is Morrigan (sic?) of DA a normal (hetero?) woman? Is a normal ?

You've missed the point a little.

There's no such thing as an 'abnormal' heterosexual. Heterosexuality is by definition 'normal' in relation to homosexuality.

What this means practically is that there is more than one way to present a character as heterosexual (in fact you don't even have to present a character as heterosexual in order for them to be so, it can always be an assumed point). So yes, Marcus Fenix (or whatever the fuck his name is) is a 'normal' heterosexual character, so is Commander Shepherd, so is Cloud from Final Fantasy VII, so is Gordon Freeman.

There is no such thing as a stereotypical heterosexual. Marcus Fenix is a stereotypical military douchebag, not a stereotypical heterosexual. Morrigan is a stereotypical female anti-hero, not a stereotypical heterosexual.

These characters aren't about sexuality, they're about masculinity/femininity and other social axes, but their sexuality doesn't really come into the equation.

This subculture suffers from a prevalent biphobia even more than homophobia, I'd say. The mere possibility of a fictional character even possibly being capable of finding people of either sex attractive seems to utterly terrify these individuals.

I think people like bisexuality as a convenient stand in for homosexuality which doesn't have to negotiate all that difficult 'doesn't like boobs' stuff, or as a narrative device to have 'normal' women fuck.

What I think there is is a deep lack of understanding of what bisexuality actually is or how people who are bisexual feel and behave. A disproportionate number of of bisexual characters are 'slut' stereotypes, for example, or bordering on omnisexuality.

Games aren't particularly bad in this regard though, they're just following existing narrative tropes.

 

[Daniel Allsopp]

When deciding if a relationship is right or wrong, I ask only 3 questions:

Do they love each other?
Do they know what it means to love each other?
Is the relationship healthy?

If the answer is "Yes" to all 3, I don't care who or what you choose to love.
Age, race, relation, religion, sex, species, and social status mean nothing to me.

You're both male? I don't care.
You're brother and sister? I don't care.
You're in love with an animal? I don't care.
You're in love with an inanimate object? That's kinda weird, but whatever.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

I like to have the option to see the world through another's eyes in a game. So I like to see it available, if it is done well. However, although gay/lesbian/bisexual are explored somewhat in games, transgender, intersex, and neuter (such as aliens that are crystalline entities, spore or bud reproducers, or drones like worker bees) are rarely or never offered. I am quite curious to see if, with the boundaries of "edgy" getting pushed, we will see any of these included in a game in a serious fashion. Alternatively, I haven't seen a game that gave you a permanent body swap or sex change, either. Seeing how in-game characters reacted would be interesting.

But of course, to see these things there must be a demand for them. And the demand comes from the current views of society on what is "acceptable". So it makes for in interesting measure of where our society stands on the issues of the LGBT people in the world. The more we see the options allowed, the more tolerant society is becoming in general, it would seem. Yet sometimes it also seems that it is allowed to be considered in private but not voiced in public. So I can't say with certainty if it is moderation of temperament in society, or more of a "guilty pleasure" effect to be investigated in the privacy of one's home at this time. However, that the option is there and that the games still sell very well, implies that there is some increasing level of tolerance/acceptance currently. Or so I think.

 

[LiquidGrape]

I dislike the way that same people think that saying "fag" or "that's gay" is an offensive slur and at all relates to one's views on sexuality, and take offense to the idea that it's "immature" to use such a phrase to refer to something negative.

It's very hypocritical that people today have a problem with saying "that's gay" but don't rally similarly against the phrase "that's a gyp." That phrase is JUST as offensive against gypsies, yet means nothing today. Similarly, common usage of "that's gay" has nothing to do with sexuality. Getting pissed just creates unneeded tension between opposers and people that COULD be great allies in the fight for sexual equality and gender equality (not merely based on physical gender, either, but also gender identity).

Words carry connotations. Words have implicit meanings. Making a comment which is gendered or sexually charged or any such thing is quite likely to resonate negatively with someone who've had to suffer that word in negative contexts previously.
That said, I'm not going to censor or doctor language. Freedom of speech and all that. But with freedom of speech comes the responsibility of using that right responsibly, I think.
I simply ask that people consider the implications of what they are saying, and how they might be perceived by somebody from a different background and mindset than theirs.

- Most of the time, what people bemoan as "political correctness" is simply common sense and consideration.

Conversely, the immature kids that DO scream about "fags" in the homosexual sense are not representative of the gaming community. They're representative of bad parenting.

They are representative of a certain trend in gaming culture, though. There's no denying that. Gaming, and particularly online such, is quite full of immature individuals who collectively encourage each other to behave in utterly atrocious ways. This can be traced all the way to the industry and its cheap marketing ploys and products. (Any stunt pulled by EA in the last 5-10 years, Duke Nukem Forever, etc.)

On the topic of, say, Bioware, and some groups complaining about the lack of homosexual characters in certain games, I just have to say: What the fuck, man? If you put a character that acts stereotypically gay, then it's offensive for stereotyping. If you don't mention sexuality much besides the protagonist obviously getting the girl/boy/whatever, then you're "excluding." You can't just hamfist sexuality into things like this, and most companies do not have a problem with mentioning sexuality or including homosexual or sexual identity themes when it is appropriate.

Don't ruin good storytelling by trying to force "one of every major or minor group" into every collective. Some groups simply won't have females. Or males. Or whites. Or blacks. Or gays. Or whatever. It happens, and does not mean that the developers are prejudice.

I'd be curious to know when it is "appropriate" to be inclusive. Yes, I realise you said 'themes of sexuality', but while these aren't mutually exclusive things, they aren't necessarily the same, either.
What I think you'll find most people asking for (asking, not 'trying to force') is the basic privilege, a privilege already enjoyed by heterosexual men and women, to have this one intimate facet of their being included and portrayed in some small portion.
I do not see how this is an unreasonable request. Especially not in games which stresses the importance of relationships and romance.

 

[Jubbert]

Personally, I don't have any problems with people as long as they aren't overly dumb, annoying, or assholes.

Go ask this question on the Call of Duty forums. I'd like to see their responses.

 

[chadachada123]

First, one quick thing. Take a website like 4chan. The users there are referred to as "fags." Every single one. If you're new to the site, a newfag. If you've been there awhile, an oldfag. If you're gay, a gayfag. Straight? straightfag. Amerifag, Britfag, etc etc. Sure, the origin is a derogatory word, but the usage has nothing to do with sexuality at all, only the history of the word. Anyway. Now the wall of text. If you read/reply to only one thing, please be it the bolded portion.

snip

Words carry connotations. Words have implicit meanings. Making a comment which is gendered or sexually charged or any such thing is quite likely to resonate negatively with someone who've had to suffer that word in negative contexts previously.
That said, I'm not going to censor or doctor language. Freedom of speech and all that. But with freedom of speech comes the responsibility of using that right responsibly, I think.
I simply ask that people consider the implications of what they are saying, and how they might be perceived by somebody from a different background and mindset than theirs.

- Most of the time, what people bemoan as "political correctness" is simply common sense and consideration.

I know that words can be perceived differently by someone of a different background. I don't disagree. However, it is idiotic for people to get so uptight about things without looking at all into the context. I can say the nicest *words* but with the most meaning possible, or the most disgusting, vile words but with true sincerity. Instead of blaming someone else for not growing up with *your* background, instead look into whether or not they actually harbor any prejudice or simply grew up with a different vocabulary, one that uses "gay" in the same way as most people use "gyp" today.

The key is, language evolves, and it is perfectly possible for "gay" to carry both homosexual notions and completely unrelated but derogatory notions at the same time, much like "gay" used to not mean homosexual and referred to feeling of goodness. I used to have a good example of a noun that can refer to a group of people but also can be something negative besides the word gyp, but I'm sure it's not hard to picture one and understand how gay is being adapted similarly.

My main thing is that I disagree with the notion that it's "common sense" and "considerate" to not say a phrase like "that's gay" when there's nothing even marginally related to sexuality about the topic at hand (whatever that may be). Your suggestion comes off (and I know it's not your intention) as claiming to have authority on something as flexible and ever-changing as language, and that to not agree with *your* interpretation of language is inconsiderate, regardless of intent. I don't mean to be attacking, and I don't mean to assume anything about you specifically, but others with your arguments have made similar claims on language and I wish to point out that I hope that is not your wish as well.

snip

They are representative of a certain trend in gaming culture, though. There's no denying that. Whether or not it is something which can be attributed to something inherent to the subculture as a whole, I'm not ready to say at this time. But there's no escaping the fact that gaming, and particularly online such, is quite full of immature individuals who collectively encourage each other to behave in utterly atrocious ways.

True. However, I would say that that's less based on the people and more based on the fact that you're letting people speak their mind on a faceless place like the internet. Take any group of 14 year old boys and tell them that they're allowed to say whatever they want to complete strangers, and I'm sure you know what the results will be. Most people act like dicks when there are no repercussions, and teen boys are the worst at this. Luckily, Xbox Live allows you to mute such individuals, making it basically a non-issue. I believe it more indicative of age than of gaming culture.

snip

I'd be curious to know when it is "appropriate" to be inclusive. Yes, I realise you said 'themes of sexuality', but while these aren't mutually exclusive things, they aren't necessarily the same, either.
What I think you'll find most people asking for (asking, not 'trying to force') is the basic privilege, a privilege already enjoyed by heterosexual men and women, to have this one intimate facet of their being included and portrayed in some small portion.
I do not see how this is an unreasonable request. Especially not in games which stresses the importance of relationships and romance.

I don't think that your request is unreasonable, no. Especially in games that stress relationships, etc. Especially in RPGs that let you make decisions based on your real self. And there is many a story that uses sexuality and specifically gay protagonists in a non-demeaning way that also fits well.

I'm just opposed to making alterations to stories merely for the sake of inclusion, like changing Link to right-handed in Twilight Princess for the Wii just because most Wii-players are right-handed, or changing the gender or race of an established character just for "inclusion."

*Edit* Lol, damn, messed up the quotes. Ah well. I don't think it messes with the interpreting at all.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

Being gay, I obviously have nothing against the LGBT community...
But I dislike "LGBT" because it lumps in transgender/sexual issues in with Homosexual/Bisexual ones, which are mostly unrelated. Other than that I can't think of any major issues besides the lack of "straight-acting" gay people in games... which is improving.

 

[drisky]

Being gay, I obviously have nothing against the LGBT community...
But I dislike "LGBT" because it lumps in transgender/sexual issues in with Homosexual/Bisexual ones, which are mostly unrelated. Other than that I can't think of any major issues besides the lack of "straight-acting" gay people in games... which is improving.

As someone posted in a video earlier, its the exact same people keeping transgender people and gay people form having human rights. And because they were both a man and a women at some point, so people will declare them as gay regardless of who they sleep with. So LBGT has the same enemies and similar goals. They are different aspects of someones identity, but the legal needs are the same. On top of that transgender need the advantage of latching to a larger cause, they are fewer in population and face statically more discrimination, as shown in this thread a lot of people don't understand transgender people beyond "they cut their dick off". Transgender would have a very hard time going at it alone, and in the end we are all in the interest of stopping hate aren't we?

 

[LiquidGrape]

*Snip*

All very well argued. While I maintain my reservations regarding the casual use of words with particularly problematic connotations, I'm certainly aware of the importance of context.
The trap of context is that context is so incredibly easy to misconstrue, as well.
In short, I've certainly been known to say "that's so gay" in a joking fashion. But when I have, I've said it in the company of people I know will comprehend the underlying intention and sincerity (or rather, lack thereof) of that comment.

What I'm trying to say is that while I don't think people should spend their waking hours constantly fearing to cause somebody else offense (hey, sometimes offense can be a catalyst of substantial discourse and betterment), I do think it's worth considering how one might cause needless offense, brought upon by something said or done without forethought.
I realise that is an argument of relative value as well, but I can't think of a much better way to put it.

...but no, no it wasn't my intention to claim authority on linguistics. Although I certainly see how I might've come off that way!
I have a tendency of getting overly didactic. Sorry about that.

 

[Blow_Pop]

I am myself a lesbian, so I, well, naturally don't actually give a flying fuck.
Seriously - this isn't something I think should be such a huge motherfucking topic anymore. It's not a matter of concern for you, unless you make it so. I do understand that it might be annoying to see stuff like two guys kissing, or two girls kissing, but guess what? It's just as fucking annoying to have a guy AND girl kissing in your face.
In videogames... I seriously... no, I just don't care. Just like whites or blacks - I see it a bit as Lauren Faust with the MLP:FiM series. The colors/design just show your unique persona. I don't care if every single person in a game is a masculine, straight, testosterone fuelled meat hump. If it's relevant to the game itself and well executed, I don't fucking care. Same if the cast was politically correct so to speak, if it is just that, an attempt at avoiding critique through racial diversity, it annoys me a lot more than if it might be able to be interpreted as a nazi propagande cast of some fucker constantly seeking for faults just to be a whiny *****.

Give it up.
It doesn't matter.

... at least not to me, and I'm the coolest person on Earth.

FOLLOW ME MINIONS!

i....love how well you worded that.

semi-relevant photo:

OT: seriously though I wish people would stop making such a big damn deal out of shite like this. If it is relevant to the game then fine it deserves to be in it. If not then it shouldn't be in the game. And I, myself, am bi. Race, gender, sexuality it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of life.

 

[semal]

Hello there,

I'm a white male - and not a gamer. I started hanging out here because of Zero Punctuation and then stayed because of other cool things, like Extra Credits. I also happen to be bisexual. What a twist!

I made this here for my parents inspired by a discussion of sexuality I've had with them:



(Turns out they have very conservative views for people who are very religious and grew up on the country side!)
You can use it to draw a vector of someone's development. (Sexuality goes from asexual to nymphomaniac - but the direction is what matters, or not, depending on who you ask, I guess

Now, on the topic: WHY THE HECK is this relevant?
I read through all seven pages and the Why? was only briefly or peripherally touched upon. But it's the first thing you should ask when someone suggests ANYTHING. If you're a sensible person, anyway. "We want more LGBT included!" (btw, I like "QUILTBAG" .. "Uh.. Why?" - Yes. "Why?" Not, "I HATE FAGS!", or "I LUV LEZBIANS!". It's, "Why?". As in: "Why is this even relevant?"

Imagine you're young, impressible and confused about the shit that's currently going on with you. Wouldn't it be AMAZING if you could turn to your favourite media and the community surrounding it and find actual support? By the simple fact that your kind is portrayed in a positive light?

I think that's a pretty good reason.

(Edit: The code of conduct here is really cool)

 

[Aprilgold]

*Snip*

All very well argued. While I maintain my reservations regarding the casual use of words with particularly problematic connotations, I'm certainly aware of the importance of context.
The trap of context is that context is so incredibly easy to misconstrue, as well.
In short, I've certainly been known to say "that's so gay" in a joking fashion. But when I have, I've said it in the company of people I know will comprehend the underlying intention and sincerity (or rather, lack thereof) of that comment.

What I'm trying to say is that while I don't think people should spend their waking hours constantly fearing to cause somebody else offense (hey, sometimes offense can be a catalyst of substantial discourse and betterment), I do think it's worth considering how one might cause needless offense, brought upon by something said or done without forethought.
I realise that is an argument of relative value as well, but I can't think of a much better way to put it.

...but no, no it wasn't my intention to claim authority on linguistics. Although I certainly see how I might've come off that way!
I have a tendency of getting overly didactic. Sorry about that.

Yaay, another post I can say that was 100% worth my time and was completely awesome.

 

[chadachada123]

*Snip*

All very well argued. While I maintain my reservations regarding the casual use of words with particularly problematic connotations, I'm certainly aware of the importance of context.
The trap of context is that context is so incredibly easy to misconstrue, as well.
In short, I've certainly been known to say "that's so gay" in a joking fashion. But when I have, I've said it in the company of people I know will comprehend the underlying intention and sincerity (or rather, lack thereof) of that comment.

What I'm trying to say is that while I don't think people should spend their waking hours constantly fearing to cause somebody else offense (hey, sometimes offense can be a catalyst of substantial discourse and betterment), I do think it's worth considering how one might cause needless offense, brought upon by something said or done without forethought.
I realise that is an argument of relative value as well, but I can't think of a much better way to put it.

...but no, no it wasn't my intention to claim authority on linguistics. Although I certainly see how I might've come off that way!
I have a tendency of getting overly didactic. Sorry about that.

Haha, we all can get a little...excited or wordy at times. You held yourself well, and I must say, thanks for this discussion!

I didn't think about the "needlessness" of offense, and, I suppose, you're totally right. We shouldn't go out of our way to say words that could be taken negatively without necessity, and I should have distinguished between this type of common courtesy and the other case of constantly fearing to cause offense, hah.

 

[Dethenger]

I'm pretty sure one of the characters in Catherine is a transsexual. They hint at it, anyway, you wouldn't be able to tell otherwise; they never make a big deal out of it, other than cracking jokes at one of their friends who doesn't know and is attracted to her.

 

[Xixikal]

Well if you're a guy, yea. Women have a biology different than the male, mentally and physically which is more conducive to bisexuality.

This is all coming from anecdotal evidence, but growing up in high school, when I'd hit up parties, girls would make out with each other and explore each other in the name of booze and glory for all the pleased men watching. No one ever thought twice about it. The girls liked kissing each other, the boys liked watching, but at no point did I ever turn to one of my buddies and ask him if he wanted to go at it. The thought never crossed my mind, and I'm almost certain not theirs.

Guys and girls just think differently, and that's okay. I just think we have to be honest with ourselves and accept who we are, and bisexuality just seems like a no-no for a guy. That's not to say experimentation is out of the question, of course not. Do what you need to do to learn about yourself, but the male road only travels two ways.

Girls will kiss each other because it's socially more acceptable and because they believe it will gain them attention. So really, you're promoting a double standard.

I understand that women and men think differently, but we're all human and, as such, we are all affected by the culture we live in. You probably didn't consider the possibility of making out with your man-friends because homosexual behaviour in males is conditioned against in western culture. And that is exactly the kind of thing that makes it hard for homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered individuals to express themselves without fear of condemnation.

In the end, it is really your opinion that bisexuality in males doesn't exist - which is fine, because we're all entitled to an opinion. However, I believe it is wrong that you claim with biased certainty to know the feelings and thoughts of others, especially when you have no relation to them in terms of your own sexual preference.

 

[Kyoufuu]

I have never understood the need for the L in LGBT. Doesn't the L fall under the G?