Should Diversity be addressed within the narrative or should it be a non-issue?

[DC_78]

so discrimination doesn't exist because you don't see it? come the hell on I don't get it

you defend artistic integrity for this (irrational) fear that something might get diversified for the sake of it...yet artistic integrity goes out the window when it comes to the market?

YES the market is a thing YES you have to take these things into account

but doggedly following the market at the expense of "artistic integrity" will not always guarantee you will sell, and [b/]reasonable[/b][footnote/]if we have to be palatable to the masses[/footnote] variation does not guarantee a flop

if Women in lead roles were box office poison then Gravity, Frozen and the Hunger games would not have done so well

No I am saying that the free market is not mean to any group because it is unfair. Every industry has plenty of research into what demographics will buy X and what each demographic will not buy. So if it can get enough LGBTQ folks along with the primary target demographics to buy "Hetero Alien Zombie Pirate Smasher 14" then it is golden. Just like if they can get enough cis white males like me to buy Gone Home then Gone Home is golden. Sometimes that means minority representation, but a lot of times it just means a good story or gameplay. Or at least it used to.

Now I am glad Gone Home is there, but I doubt anyone would argue it has a small niche. And that is okay because that is how the market diversifies, adapts, and innovates. All good things which help the artist in the long run. Look at Jazz music in the 20's, which eventually became Rock and Roll and Hip Hop. That is what the market does on its own when a minority enter it to produce content to represent themselves. No one forced it. No one had a checklist to go down. Organic social normalization is what everyone should aspire to. Then when the artist adds a off beat character no one raises a fuss and starts a social media campaign.

but doggedly following the market at the expense of "artistic integrity" will not always guarantee you will sell, and reasonable[1] variation does not guarantee a flop

Doggedly following the market like in every sequel over the past twenty years? Should I start the list now? I could probably have it done in a week.

And you jumped topics into women? How did we get there? Women are not a minority, they are 50% of the population. That is like me jumping to saying "look those last Will Smith and Tom Cruise movies tanked. Guess men are done being lead actors."

And Frozen? That is a Disney princess movie. When is the last time a Disney princess movie tanked at the box office?

My points are: The market works. Artist that want to ride the market should be allowed to without folks judging their art on some moral grounds or trying to alter it. Artists that want to buck the market can and I encourage it. But they have to be allowed to fail or succeed within the market. If you want to influence the market consume the stuff you like and don't consume the stuff you don't. That is how we innovate and adapt the market. That is how as a society we get to the equality I think we all want. That way eventually Sarah the lesbian Space Marine will get made and no one will bat an eye when she zero-g shags Becky on screen. Okay?

 

[Robert B. Marks]

It really depends on the story.

I am very much for diversity. I am very much against tokenism. Let me provide a racial example.

There was a British series called Merlin, which cast a black actress as Guinevere. Now, the actress was great, and since Guenevere is supposed to be exotic and beautiful, a black Guenevere can really knock this out of the park. But, it didn't - and it didn't because the fact that she was black should have meant something in the narrative, but it didn't. Nobody gave her uncomfortable stares, nobody treated her as exotic, none of the things that she should have faced as a visible minority in a time when there really were none in that setting occurred. So, she became a token minority.

On the other hand, look at Copper and The Knick - there are black characters there, but the fact that they are black means a LOT in the narrative. In Copper, the fact that the doctor is black means that every time he does an autopsy, the main characters have to hide the source. In The Knick, the black doctor has to face some truly disgusting racism.

Then, if you take something set in England today, race means fairly little, so the fact that somebody is black (or brown, etc.) shouldn't really mean anything to the narrative.

Take that to sexuality, and the same principles apply. If you have a setting wherein somebody's sexuality should matter, then in the narrative it needs to be addressed. On the other hand, if it's a setting and story where sexuality shouldn't matter (such as, say, Torchwood), then it's just part of the background of the character.

All that said, as TVTropes sometimes likes to say, sometimes anvils need to be dropped. There's a great moment in Starship Troopers (the book), where you find out at the very end that Rico is a Filipino. Sometimes the point about diversity needs to be driven home, and that character who you assumed to be heterosexual turns out in the end to be gay (and speaking as somebody who has met my share of gay people, a lot of them do not set off a "gay-dar" - they're just like everybody else, except they have different romantic inclinations).

But, it all depends on the story and the context.

 

[QuicklyAcross]

To me it seems pointless in a non-narritive/non-storydriven setting and game.
If it holds on mechanical function other than trivia or fun fact then it really shouldnt be adressed if it has no impact on the gameplay or even in the world itself.

 

[happyninja42]

I think we need more of both. There's nothing particularly wrong with using a character's race, gender, sexual orientation, gender orientation, etc. as a main point in the narrative as long as it fits the narrative. There is value in that as those stories as not told often enough and are stories that should be told. That said, there is also value in simply having more variety in the backgrounds of narratives. This also pushes things forwards in showing simply that diversity is "normal" and is everywhere in a way that doesn't call attention to itself. This is one of the reasons why I would like to see more diverse videogame characters even when their gender/race/etc. doesn't have any impact on the narrative.

I agree. If emphasizing a single trait about a character is part of the narrative, then that's fine. But if it's simply a characteristic of the character, and isn't integral to the narrative, then don't put a spotlight on it. You can illustrate it sure, I mean make it apparent to the audience, but you don't have to overdo it.

John Scalzi's book "Lock-In" is a pretty good example of how I think this stuff should be done when it's not integral to the narrative. He mentions it in a casual, offhand way, and then moves on with the story. Some characters were introduced as obviously being gay, but it was in a way that was so casual as to be unobtrusive. And another character, who's ethnicity was previously undescribed, had it mentioned in a way that if you didn't pay attention, you might miss it. Actually when I first heard it in the audiobook I was like "wait..so that means he's...oh, ok." And I thought back and realized that it hadn't been brought up at any point previously in the story, and it didn't matter at all. The lack of ethnic classification effected the narrative in no way. It was actually kind of cool to see it done so well in a published work.

But yeah, don't shove the character's one trait (whatever it might be) down my throat unless there is a reason for it in the story. Please just make good, fleshed out, 3 dimensional characters with believable motivations for their actions. Do that, and I'll be a happy camper with pretty much any kind of character you show me.

 

[hermes]

Personally, I would like it to be addressed somehow. It makes it more grounded. It doesn't have to be hammered down every single time the character is on screen, but it would be a waste if its not used at all. For example, there has been some talk (at the time) about the Human Torch being recasted as an African American. Which shouldn't be a big deal, except for the fact he is still the brother of blond model-looking Sue Storm. I think its interesting if they are portrait as half brothers, or one of them being adopted, but I would find the change glaring if they do nothing with it... If they walk around being introduced as siblings and no body bats an eye, it would be a missed opportunity for some character interaction.

I know its weird to find this off-putting in a movie about a man made of rocks, but if the movie was to be set in the modern world (instead of a future setting, for example), it would be as weird as having Borat (in thong) walking among them and everybody being nonchalant about it.

In other words, yes... I think if its part of the identity of the character, it should be included on the narrative somehow. It doesn't have to be hammered down, or turn into its only defining characteristic; but it should not a blind spot from the real world either...

 

[Thaluikhain]

Why not that kid in those ads that ask why not both?

Why shouldn't diversity be, you know, diverse? Stick different people in in lots of different ways (er, no pun intended!)

I have to wonder.

If you were to go about your normal day, doing the things as you do - getting ready for work, hit the grocery store, maybe see a movie after dinner and so on - but every day, you have a random person come up to you and soliloquise about how they are gay. Would that serve any purpose for function to your day other than confirming that "Yes, gay people exist"?

Because that is what this sort of requirement-of-mention feels like it would be to me. We know gay people exist, trans people, and everyone else. We don't need a daily reminder for that to continue to be true. I don't see how games should be different.

We are bombarded with reminders that cishet people exist all the time, though.

To an extent, you could fix things by removing all sexuality from a game. That's a lot of work though, nobody has a BF or GF, nobody ever mentions more than one parent, etc. Very difficult if there is any characterisation. Works with, say, Doom, though. Now, if you've only got a limited number of people whose sexuality comes up, then if they are all straight it's not such a big deal. When you've got zillions and zillions and they are all straight, then one has to ask why your escapist fantasy is so heteronormative. If you are going to a Star Trek type Utopia, they one really has to ask.

...

Having said that, sticking someone in who isn't the default of white, cishet etc, doesn't just happen. The default is very strong. You can put another straight character in without thinking about it, but putting someone gay in, in most cases, that's a deliberate and conscious act. It's an issue.

 

[Areloch]

I have to wonder.

If you were to go about your normal day, doing the things as you do - getting ready for work, hit the grocery store, maybe see a movie after dinner and so on - but every day, you have a random person come up to you and soliloquise about how they are gay. Would that serve any purpose for function to your day other than confirming that "Yes, gay people exist"?

Because that is what this sort of requirement-of-mention feels like it would be to me. We know gay people exist, trans people, and everyone else. We don't need a daily reminder for that to continue to be true. I don't see how games should be different.

We are bombarded with reminders that cishet people exist all the time, though.

To an extent, you could fix things by removing all sexuality from a game. That's a lot of work though, nobody has a BF or GF, nobody ever mentions more than one parent, etc. Very difficult if there is any characterisation. Works with, say, Doom, though. Now, if you've only got a limited number of people whose sexuality comes up, then if they are all straight it's not such a big deal. When you've got zillions and zillions and they are all straight, then one has to ask why your escapist fantasy is so heteronormative. If you are going to a Star Trek type Utopia, they one really has to ask.

...

Having said that, sticking someone in who isn't the default of white, cishet etc, doesn't just happen. The default is very strong. You can put another straight character in without thinking about it, but putting someone gay in, in most cases, that's a deliberate and conscious act. It's an issue.

I feel you may miss my point.

In essence, why does everyone assume that every single character in every single game is straight, and that unless explicitly told so, none of them could be gay, or trans or what have you? That strikes me as something somewhat insulting at breadth if you context it to real people: "Gay people don't exist unless I have daily confirmation they continue to".

You don't need to be told every day that random people you meet on the street may be gay, or trans or what have you. However, because it's irrelevant to your day-to-day doings as WELL as theirs, it isn't brought up.

Having said that, I think it would be good to see more games that emphasize character drama that have characters like this. They would provide very unique insights to explore. However, requiring X number of random characters in games to at some point in the experience arbitrarily affirm that they are gay seems patronizing to both sides.

 

[Gamerpalooza]

It should be up to the writer and director how they want to touch the subject if they even want to.

It should be a non issue for us consumers. If we like the character or story for what they are that is entirely up to us at an individual level.

IMHO this is the best way to allow freedom of creativity while allowing diversity to be touched and praised based on execution.

 

[Silvanus]

I feel you may miss my point.

In essence, why does everyone assume that every single character in every single game is straight, and that unless explicitly told so, none of them could be gay, or trans or what have you? That strikes me as something somewhat insulting at breadth if you context it to real people: "Gay people don't exist unless I have daily confirmation they continue to".

You don't need to be told every day that random people you meet on the street may be gay, or trans or what have you. However, because it's irrelevant to your day-to-day doings as WELL as theirs, it isn't brought up.

Romantic sub-plots are very common. That's the form it takes; not characters just randomly stating their sexuality, but characters mentioning a relationship or past relationship. That happens extremely frequently.

Assuming that silent character #45 could, hypothetically, be gay does not equal the frequent canon straight characters and relationships. It's not the same thing.

Having said that, I think it would be good to see more games that emphasize character drama that have characters like this. They would provide very unique insights to explore. However, requiring X number of random characters in games to at some point in the experience arbitrarily affirm that they are gay seems patronizing to both sides.

Nobody is suggesting that. I've only seen requests that gay people occasionally be portrayed in the same way that straight people are; often its incidental, sometimes it's plot-relevant. Either way, we all take it for granted when it's straight, but people begin calling it pandering as soon as it's done with gay people-- even when the balance is still gigantically in favour of heterosexuality.

 

[Areloch]

I feel you may miss my point.

In essence, why does everyone assume that every single character in every single game is straight, and that unless explicitly told so, none of them could be gay, or trans or what have you? That strikes me as something somewhat insulting at breadth if you context it to real people: "Gay people don't exist unless I have daily confirmation they continue to".

You don't need to be told every day that random people you meet on the street may be gay, or trans or what have you. However, because it's irrelevant to your day-to-day doings as WELL as theirs, it isn't brought up.

Romantic sub-plots are very common. That's the form it takes; not characters just randomly stating their sexuality, but characters mentioning a relationship or past relationship. That happens extremely frequently.

Assuming that silent character #45 could, hypothetically, be gay does not equal the frequent canon straight characters and relationships. It's not the same thing.

Having said that, I think it would be good to see more games that emphasize character drama that have characters like this. They would provide very unique insights to explore. However, requiring X number of random characters in games to at some point in the experience arbitrarily affirm that they are gay seems patronizing to both sides.

Nobody is suggesting that. I've only seen requests that gay people occasionally be portrayed in the same way that straight people are; often its incidental, sometimes it's plot-relevant. Either way, we all take it for granted when it's straight, but people begin calling it pandering as soon as it's done with gay people-- even when the balance is still gigantically in favour of heterosexuality.

I will admit, I dislike the "obligatory romantic interest" in movies and games, straight pairing or otherwise. So people wanting 'identical treatment', while fair, puts an unpleasant taste in my mouth all the same.

I do mean what I said though. I would much prefer to see a game focusing on interpersonal drama and have a gay or trans character be one of - if not THE - main characters. I think that would be an amazing game. And I'd like it considerably more than a token male romantic interest than a female one.

But yes, my main argument was against tokenism. I'm all for having legit characters with relationships on either side. But if it doesn't serve the story, tossing them in is tokenism, and I hate it regardless of if it's straight or gay.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In essence, why does everyone assume that every single character in every single game is straight, and that unless explicitly told so, none of them could be gay, or trans or what have you? That strikes me as something somewhat insulting at breadth if you context it to real people: "Gay people don't exist unless I have daily confirmation they continue to".

You don't need to be told every day that random people you meet on the street may be gay, or trans or what have you. However, because it's irrelevant to your day-to-day doings as WELL as theirs, it isn't brought up.

We live in a heteronormative society, where people are assumed to be straight unless specified otherwise.

We've just have a thread about this www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.862122-Assuming-Heterosexuality [www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.862122-Assuming-Heterosexuality] and overwhelmingly most people said it was alright to assume people are straight.

Remember the controversy when Rowling said Dumbledore was gay? Imagine if she mentioned instead an ex-girlfriend, nobody would bat an eye.

Similarly, a lot of people were very annoyed when the movie version of Hunger Games had Rue be a black girl, instead of white, like she was in the books. Only, she wasn't said to be white in the books, she was specified as being black, but only in passing, and many people apparently missed that and therefore automatically assumed she was white.

But yes, my main argument was against tokenism. I'm all for having legit characters with relationships on either side. But if it doesn't serve the story, tossing them in is tokenism, and I hate it regardless of if it's straight or gay.

If, say, you have a crowd scene, and in it you can see two people flirting, whether or not they are a the same gender is going to decide whether or not they are a token.

 

[briankoontz]

It should always be addressed, because it begs a lot of questions. Even if the game is a "mindless shooter", there's always a context that the game world exists in. So it matters if the murderous protagonist is white, black, a man, a woman, straight, gay, transgender, a robot, an alien, or a sentient tree.

And the more the game has narrative and "meaning", the more important is the precise identity of the protagonist.

It's completely fine for the player to be allowed to choose aspects of the protagonist, including their gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. But the vast majority of games which allow this currently *ignore it* except for very trivial issues like the grammar that NPCs use when speaking with the protagonist (saying "he" instead of "she").

Every developer that allows these kind of player choices need to take the choice seriously, and deal with the choice appropriately. Not crow about how they support "diversity" in gaming by giving players choices that affect the world only in the most shallow possible ways, and even then barely at all.

A game featuring Trayvon Martin for example would mean something completely different if the player chooses his ethnicity as caucasian, for example, or perhaps selects transgender. The game could make a POINT of how different ethnicities can produce very different outcomes in a situation - the player could do one playthrough as a black Trayvon and another as white.

Developers possibly make the excuse to themselves that the world they are creating is "post-gender" and "post-racial" so it doesn't matter to the world what the player chooses for his protagonist. But this itself is merely an assertion and there is never any historical proof given by the developer for this supposed aspect of the world, and it's incredibly ridiculous and convenient that so many game worlds have this feature, when no society in human history has ever managed it.

 

[JohnFei]

It really depends on the story.

I am very much for diversity. I am very much against tokenism. Let me provide a racial example.

There was a British series called Merlin, which cast a black actress as Guinevere. Now, the actress was great, and since Guenevere is supposed to be exotic and beautiful, a black Guenevere can really knock this out of the park. But, it didn't - and it didn't because the fact that she was black should have meant something in the narrative, but it didn't. Nobody gave her uncomfortable stares, nobody treated her as exotic, none of the things that she should have faced as a visible minority in a time when there really were none in that setting occurred. So, she became a token minority.

On the other hand, look at Copper and The Knick - there are black characters there, but the fact that they are black means a LOT in the narrative. In Copper, the fact that the doctor is black means that every time he does an autopsy, the main characters have to hide the source. In The Knick, the black doctor has to face some truly disgusting racism.

Then, if you take something set in England today, race means fairly little, so the fact that somebody is black (or brown, etc.) shouldn't really mean anything to the narrative.

Take that to sexuality, and the same principles apply. If you have a setting wherein somebody's sexuality should matter, then in the narrative it needs to be addressed. On the other hand, if it's a setting and story where sexuality shouldn't matter (such as, say, Torchwood), then it's just part of the background of the character.

All that said, as TVTropes sometimes likes to say, sometimes anvils need to be dropped. There's a great moment in Starship Troopers (the book), where you find out at the very end that Rico is a Filipino. Sometimes the point about diversity needs to be driven home, and that character who you assumed to be heterosexual turns out in the end to be gay (and speaking as somebody who has met my share of gay people, a lot of them do not set off a "gay-dar" - they're just like everybody else, except they have different romantic inclinations).

But, it all depends on the story and the context.

Agree with most of this.

My main hesitance with stories that make diversity and tolerance their center focus, is that they're usually run-o-the-mill oppression quests and sob stories. And I say this as an Asian bi. The ol' identity politics story about the Chens and Wangs being racially and sexually oppressed until they breaks down or does something about it? It's only interesting and meaningful for the first couple of times you read it. After that it becomes so predictable it's honestly embarrassing and might as well be an extension of token diversity.

I'm also leary of stories that try to 'drive home a point' by dropping an anvil after leading the reader on. By that expression alone, you know these stories tend to make a pretty arrogant assumption that their readers are 'problematic' and need to have an anvil dropped on their head. Usually, the argument is that if you don't have 'problematic' ideas, it wouldn't be an anvil. IMO, it's kafkatrapping and quite disrespectful, even insulting, to assume that you know better than your readers, and assume that just because they have some problematic' ideas, they deserve your literary shock therapy.

 

[Thaluikhain]

My main hesitance with stories that make diversity and tolerance their center focus, is that they're usually run-o-the-mill oppression quests and sob stories. And I say this as an Asian bi. The ol' identity politics story about the Chens and Wangs being racially and sexually oppressed until they breaks down or does something about it? It's only interesting and meaningful for the first couple of times you read it. After that it becomes so predictable it's honestly embarrassing and might as well be an extension of token diversity.

Yeah, you're not the first to make that observation.

If the story is about a gay guy, it's going to be about how awful it is to be a gay guy. Which...um...there's a problem there.

I'm also leary of stories that try to 'drive home a point' by dropping an anvil after leading the reader on. By that expression alone, you know these stories tend to make a pretty arrogant assumption that their readers are 'problematic' and need to have an anvil dropped on their head. Usually, the argument is that if you don't have 'problematic' ideas, it wouldn't be an anvil. IMO, it's kafkatrapping and quite disrespectful, even insulting, to assume that you know better than your readers, and assume that just because they have some problematic' ideas, they deserve your literary shock therapy.

Dunno about this so much. Sure, there are good and bad ways to do it, but dropping the anvil by itself...not seeing this as a problem.

 

[Areloch]

In essence, why does everyone assume that every single character in every single game is straight, and that unless explicitly told so, none of them could be gay, or trans or what have you? That strikes me as something somewhat insulting at breadth if you context it to real people: "Gay people don't exist unless I have daily confirmation they continue to".

You don't need to be told every day that random people you meet on the street may be gay, or trans or what have you. However, because it's irrelevant to your day-to-day doings as WELL as theirs, it isn't brought up.

We live in a heteronormative society, where people are assumed to be straight unless specified otherwise.

We've just have a thread about this www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.862122-Assuming-Heterosexuality [www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.862122-Assuming-Heterosexuality] and overwhelmingly most people said it was alright to assume people are straight.

This is true, but even if we agree that it's normal to assume heterosexuality, we also know that gay people exist, even if they're not the norm. If you were to look out over a city scene, one could assume that a handful of people in that crowd would be gay, even if they don't explicitly inform you of that.

Remember the controversy when Rowling said Dumbledore was gay? Imagine if she mentioned instead an ex-girlfriend, nobody would bat an eye.

Similarly, a lot of people were very annoyed when the movie version of Hunger Games had Rue be a black girl, instead of white, like she was in the books. Only, she wasn't said to be white in the books, she was specified as being black, but only in passing, and many people apparently missed that and therefore automatically assumed she was white.

I recall hearing about the Dumbledore thing, but I admittedly never got to reading the books and didn't particularly pay much attention to the fans, so I was not aware it was a big deal. I read about the "reveal", went 'Huh, interesting.' and that was more or less my experience. Somewhat saddening that it was apparently that big of a deal, but it likely went against people's own personal interpretation of the character, similarly to the hunger games thing.

That's less open for interpretation compared to the Dumbledore situation though, especially if it specifically stated she was black. But yes, if someone consuming a media has their own interpretation of characters or events - a "headcanon" - being informed it was wrong will invariably rile people up, regardless if it was a character's sexuality, race or story development.

Not that I believe it is justified to get mad to the point of an actual controversy, but I think it's normal human behavior when you get invested into something.

But yes, my main argument was against tokenism. I'm all for having legit characters with relationships on either side. But if it doesn't serve the story, tossing them in is tokenism, and I hate it regardless of if it's straight or gay.

If, say, you have a crowd scene, and in it you can see two people flirting, whether or not they are a the same gender is going to decide whether or not they are a token.

Hm, now that is an interesting example. In my head, I was imagining a more open expression of it, which is why I attributed the 'token' label. If all you see is two men or women flirting, or holding hands or what have you in passing - not framed via a flashing sign - then I wouldn't have any issue with that. That would be right at home in my above mentioned "crowded city" example above.

I was considering something more like how some people thought Cortez was going to be when they first heard about him in Mass Effect 3. I remember people worrying about him being a token 'fabulous' gay character.

Then you met him in the game, and the only time it actually came up was several conversations in, when he made a passing comment about a husband - and only after Sheperd asked about loved ones.

From there, to see if further, you had to personally engage to the character. This is the kind of thing I greatly appreciate because it's much more akin to reality, and would be what I'd like to see more of. But I do think just walking down the street in Watchdogs or any other game where you see people doing normal day to day, and seeing 2 guys holding hands, or two girls flirting at a bar, would also be perfectly fine, because that's not really tokenism.
The characters aren't there TO be gay, they are part of the scene anyways. But they are ALSO gay. Which I believe to be the defining difference.

 

[Netrigan]

I have to wonder.

If you were to go about your normal day, doing the things as you do - getting ready for work, hit the grocery store, maybe see a movie after dinner and so on - but every day, you have a random person come up to you and soliloquise about how they are gay. Would that serve any purpose for function to your day other than confirming that "Yes, gay people exist"?

Because that is what this sort of requirement-of-mention feels like it would be to me. We know gay people exist, trans people, and everyone else. We don't need a daily reminder for that to continue to be true. I don't see how games should be different.

As others have said, if interpersonal drama is a main part of the story, and some of your characters' genders, sexual orientation and so on would be relevant to the issue, then I see no problem at all with the characters bringing it up.

But if you're playing a high action game like Call of Duty, where there's very little downtime, and characters exist purely to push you through the action, having one character stop to talk about how they like men would almost always be irrelevant and serving only to check off a 'diversity' box on a form somewhere.

Think of all the little ways people bring up their heterosexuality in public. They argue with their girlfriend. They go shopping together. They hold hands. There's pictures of them together. The dying soldier wants you to let Sally know his last thoughts were of her.

And in the game of inclusion, there's various stages to all this. First stage is usually making a bit too big of a deal about it, as the writer wants everyone to know just how cool he is with this group. Then we get into the quieter version, but still looking for ways to include this stuff in the scene. Then you just get to the point where there's gay couples dancing together or you're the best man at a gay wedding and gay couples of getting blown up by car bombs and people are just being unobtrusively gay in exactly the same way that straight couples are being unobtrusively straight all over the place.

Just to throw in my Doctor Who reference. Since the new series has debuted in 2005, there's only been one companion who didn't have a black boyfriend. At no point has anyone ever made any kind of deal about this. It just is. Clearly that many black boyfriends is over-compensating a bit for the typically all-white main cast, but no one thinks it odd that Billie Piper would have a black boyfriend. It's just completely normal within the world.

 

[Thaluikhain]

This is true, but even if we agree that it's normal to assume heterosexuality, we also know that gay people exist, even if they're not the norm. If you were to look out over a city scene, one could assume that a handful of people in that crowd would be gay, even if they don't explicitly inform you of that.

In the real world, sure. In a totally fictitious world, in a medium with a notable lack of gay people, not so much.

I recall hearing about the Dumbledore thing, but I admittedly never got to reading the books and didn't particularly pay much attention to the fans, so I was not aware it was a big deal. I read about the "reveal", went 'Huh, interesting.' and that was more or less my experience. Somewhat saddening that it was apparently that big of a deal, but it likely went against people's own personal interpretation of the character, similarly to the hunger games thing.

That's less open for interpretation compared to the Dumbledore situation though, especially if it specifically stated she was black. But yes, if someone consuming a media has their own interpretation of characters or events - a "headcanon" - being informed it was wrong will invariably rile people up, regardless if it was a character's sexuality, race or story development.

Not that I believe it is justified to get mad to the point of an actual controversy, but I think it's normal human behavior when you get invested into something.

Sure, but my point is, if Dumbledore was revealed to be straight, or Rue was white, this would not have been such a problem, because that is the assumed default. Nobody was going to assume he was gay, or she was black because they weren't told otherwise.

 

[Sight Unseen]

If it makes sense to their character and the narrative of the game for there to be diversity then have diversity. but shoehorning in diversity just for the sake of pleasing someone is the wrong way to go about it.

 

[Sight Unseen]

This is true, but even if we agree that it's normal to assume heterosexuality, we also know that gay people exist, even if they're not the norm. If you were to look out over a city scene, one could assume that a handful of people in that crowd would be gay, even if they don't explicitly inform you of that.

In the real world, sure. In a totally fictitious world, in a medium with a notable lack of gay people, not so much.

I recall hearing about the Dumbledore thing, but I admittedly never got to reading the books and didn't particularly pay much attention to the fans, so I was not aware it was a big deal. I read about the "reveal", went 'Huh, interesting.' and that was more or less my experience. Somewhat saddening that it was apparently that big of a deal, but it likely went against people's own personal interpretation of the character, similarly to the hunger games thing.

That's less open for interpretation compared to the Dumbledore situation though, especially if it specifically stated she was black. But yes, if someone consuming a media has their own interpretation of characters or events - a "headcanon" - being informed it was wrong will invariably rile people up, regardless if it was a character's sexuality, race or story development.

Not that I believe it is justified to get mad to the point of an actual controversy, but I think it's normal human behavior when you get invested into something.

Sure, but my point is, if Dumbledore was revealed to be straight, or Rue was white, this would not have been such a problem, because that is the assumed default. Nobody was going to assume he was gay, or she was black because they weren't told otherwise.

I wasn't one of the people that got really upset or angry when Dumbledore was revealed to be gay, but I think that part of the reason why that reveal was so bizarre was that:

a) it happened after the series was already over
b) there was, as far as I can remember, no indication or hints that he was gay in the story other than a lack of mentioning a wife...

It just came off to me as JK Rowling making one of her already defined, written, and dead characters and arbitrarily turning him gay as a show of support for the LGBT community after the fact.

As a counter example- When reading A Song of Ice and Fire for the first time, I never noticed or picked up on the fact that Renly and Loras were a gay couple. It wasn't until Game of Thrones the TV show very nearly hammered its viewers over the head that they were gay that I caught on. But when I went back to the text with that in mind, there were very clearly some seeds planted that hinted Renly was gay in the books too.