The Surge in LGBT rainbow characters - AKA: The New Demographic and why its happening.

[happyninja42]

No you're jumping to extremes. Lord I freaking hate online arguments like these, because it's jumping from one extreme to the other constantly.

All that it would have taken for this not to feel tacked on or token would have been for Kung Jin to say that he's gay. Failing that than for the doubt to be removed by another character who at least took the vague nature away from it. Not some vague linguistic dance around the issue, and a totally outside the universe "official conformation."

Can people please understand why that seems like a cynical, ass covering, self serving way of having a homosexual character?

Oh sure, I can see why you think it's a cynical ass covering, self serving way of having a homosexual character, but that doesn't mean we have to actually agree with that opinion of yours. I personally think it's simply a bit of subtle story telling. You know, letting the dialogue convey the meaning, instead of having to just blurt it out. Story tellers use it all the time, it's an element of plot structure. Just because something isn't broadcast in obvious ways, doesn't mean it isn't implied in the context/subtext. And story tellers aren't under any obligation to require that, or else we must all assume that the characters are hetero by default. I mean, why should we assume the characters are heterosexual if they don't actually declare it in the game right? Since it's not stated, they must all be asexual or something. But nobody every says that, because we let the words and actions of the characters, and the people who interact with them, inform the character.

You see it as "tacked on and token", I don't. I see it as subtle story telling. People can debate which is correct until the end of time, but it's not going to actually resolve anything. On the subject of Kung Jin, I've seen people state opinions like yourself, that it was an after the fact addon to make them look more diverse, that they should just come out and say "I'm gay, and deal with it", for any gay characters they create. And if they don't, it's all propaganda. Others have stated that if they did that very thing, they would be, again, pandering to the SJW crowd, to make them look more diverse. So apparently the companies simply can't win, no matter what direction they go with any gay characters they introduce, they are apparently pandering and working an angle.

Regardless, nobody knows if it was intentional from the start, or if they retconned him, so debating it seems moot to me. I personally feel it was intended from the start, and at most, the game devs made the dialogue intentionally vague to get it under the company radar, sort of like the ending to Legend of Korra. So that once it's actually out there, the morally righteous people can't pull the plug on it. But like I said, I don't know if that's the case at all, it's pure speculation on my part, just like everyone else.

 

[Silvanus]

All that it would have taken for this not to feel tacked on or token would have been for Kung Jin to say that he's gay. Failing that than for the doubt to be removed by another character who at least took the vague nature away from it. Not some vague linguistic dance around the issue, and a totally outside the universe "official conformation."

You realise, of course, that had it been handled in the way you describe, precisely the same accusations would have been thrown at them, just with other bases. "Why are they bringing it up", "shoving it in our faces", rabble rabble rabble.

When a gay character's sexuality is relevant to the plot, it's accused of pandering and tokenism (as happened with DA:I). When it's incidental, it's accused of the same thing but for the opposite reason (MKX, ME:3). The accusation occurs no matter how gay characters are done.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Hey guys take a shot every time someone says sjw or as I like to call it gamegate answer to misogynist.

seriously like misogynist it's lost all meaning and I don't give a fuck about it anymore.

This thread is one of the most alienating things I've read in a long time.

threads like this is why I want neutral

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Just out of curiosity, in the opinions of the people here, what exactly is the difference between pandering and targeted marketing?

It seems whenever people include women, ethnic minorities, or LGBT for the sole reason that they believe it will make them money from the publicity, there are the inevitable hoards who call this cynical pandering to the SJWs.

Yet, whenever people criticise the number of straight, white men in games and movies, people will defend this as simply being targeted marketing; an intelligent business decision based upon demographic data and the reality of gaming as an industry.

It's almost as if targeted marketing is just a euphemism for pandering towards me, or more correctly, pandering is actually a dysphemism for targeted marketing.

Also, where the hell are these legions of LGBT characters, and why should I be bothered by them?

I was gonna rant about this but glad to see someone already said it more coherently than I would have.

I'm seeing no difference myself between the two except for personal approval. It's annoying and dishonest when people try to make that distinction.

 

[Edl01]

The issue with, "The gay guy", is the same issue with say, "The Jock", in that it's a per-determined caricature put into a poorly written narrative rather than a three-dimensional and fleshed out characters.

If we want the representations of gay characters in video games to improve then the first thing we need is better writers who can give life to these characters. Unfortunately until then we will have to settle for the token, "gay guy", caricature that we're currently seeing in many games, which I guess is better than nothing. Sadly though it's just a fact that a bad writer will choose to have their character be defined by their sexuality rather by who they are as a human being.

 

[MrFalconfly]

True enough, it's just the forbidden love angle has come up a lot and I think it's kind of a weak one. I think the phrasing and the vagueness definitely implies a general preference as opposed to a specific romantic interest. Keeping it vague makes sense if they're referencing his preferences, it would just feel weird if they were talking about a specific person who never gets brought up in any way shape or form throughout the entire story.

as for why we care, it provides context to his backstory. He had strong familial ties to the White Lotus, but didn't join himself because he was afraid they wouldn't accept his sexuality. Not joining the monks he ended up as a thief, his belief in redemption lead to him becoming very studious when he did become a monk and this lead him to becoming a very important part of Cage's squad because he was incredibly knowledgeable about Outworld.

All that, just for a character being gay.

Bloody hell.

Actually no, this isn't because the character was gay, but rather the writer wrote the character as being a bit self-doubting. He wasn't turned down by the monks, but rather thought himself that he'd be turned down by the monks.

My conclusion would then be that it isn't him being gay that gives context to his backstory, but rather his lacking confidence or assertiveness (I should know. All my schoolyears up was a living hell for me because I wasn't confident enough in my own abilities, and as a result I was mercilessly bullied. I'm thankful for the support of my parents and my friends, who boosted my confidence enough for me to serve a tour with the Danish Royal Life Guard).

 

[MrFalconfly]

True enough, it's just the forbidden love angle has come up a lot and I think it's kind of a weak one. I think the phrasing and the vagueness definitely implies a general preference as opposed to a specific romantic interest. Keeping it vague makes sense if they're referencing his preferences, it would just feel weird if they were talking about a specific person who never gets brought up in any way shape or form throughout the entire story.

as for why we care, it provides context to his backstory. He had strong familial ties to the White Lotus, but didn't join himself because he was afraid they wouldn't accept his sexuality. Not joining the monks he ended up as a thief, his belief in redemption lead to him becoming very studious when he did become a monk and this lead him to becoming a very important part of Cage's squad because he was incredibly knowledgeable about Outworld.

All that, just for a character being gay.

Bloody hell.

Actually no, this isn't because the character was gay, but rather the writer wrote the character as being a bit self-doubting. He wasn't turned down by the monks, but rather thought himself that he'd be turned down by the monks.

My conclusion would then be that it isn't him being gay that gives context to his backstory, but rather his lacking confidence or assertiveness (I should know. All my schoolyears up was a living hell for me because I wasn't confident enough in my own abilities, and as a result I was mercilessly bullied. I'm thankful for the support of my parents and my friends, who boosted my confidence enough for me to serve a tour with the Danish Royal Life Guard).

Lacking confidence and assertiveness? He attacked the god of thunder.

But apparently didn't have the guts to actually try and get into the White Lotus.

Also, because he lacked assertiveness back then doesn't mean he did when he attacked Raiden (I mean, those are clearly two different points in his life. They didn't happen successively).

EDIT: One of his "fight start" lines is "You wouldn't accept me". HOW DOES HE KNOW??? Seriously why don't a single other character answer him with "How do you know, you boneheaded oaf? How can you know without trying?"

You'll never get an answer if you don't ask. And even a painful answer is better than being oblivious.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Also, because he lacked assertiveness back then doesn't mean he did when he attacked Raiden (I mean, those are clearly two different points in his life. They didn't happen successively).

It's the same scene, after he beats Raiden, Raiden tells him to join which is when he says they wouldn't accept him.

EDIT: One of his "fight start" lines is "You wouldn't accept me". HOW DOES HE KNOW. Seriously who don't a single other character answer him with "How do you know, you boneheaded oaf? How can you know without trying?"

Because the line is only delivered to his cousin Liu Kang who replies "I'm aware of your proclivities." in a disapproving tone. The characters all have about 2 specific lines of dialogue for before a fight for each individual character.

Are you sure the "disapproving tone" is about his bedroom escapades, and not just his assumption that it was a hindrance?

You know what. I give up. MK doesn't make any kind of sense. People in that game clearly behave as if their brains and testicles have been interchanged.

 

[bossfight1]

I think we're still waiting for the day that learning a character is gay won't be such a shock. I mean, with the above mention of Steve Cortez, when he said "I had a husband..." I felt pleasantly surprised; I liked seeing that he openly discussed his husband, since it was a sign of progress.

But the thing is, progress is one thing: it's another thing entirely to actually succeed. So I'm waiting for when a character is being designed, their sexuality is approached with the same casual way one approaches their hair color.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Also, because he lacked assertiveness back then doesn't mean he did when he attacked Raiden (I mean, those are clearly two different points in his life. They didn't happen successively).

It's the same scene, after he beats Raiden, Raiden tells him to join which is when he says they wouldn't accept him.

EDIT: One of his "fight start" lines is "You wouldn't accept me". HOW DOES HE KNOW. Seriously who don't a single other character answer him with "How do you know, you boneheaded oaf? How can you know without trying?"

Because the line is only delivered to his cousin Liu Kang who replies "I'm aware of your proclivities." in a disapproving tone. The characters all have about 2 specific lines of dialogue for before a fight for each individual character.

Are you sure the "disapproving tone" is about his bedroom escapades, and not just his assumption that it was a hindrance?

"You never could accept me"
"I am aware of your proclivities."
"Wow, thanks for the reassurance."

Once again they're family, it can be assumed he's speaking from experience when he says Liu Kang couldn't accept him.

What about the whole attacking Raiden and being afraid to join the WHite Lotus happening in the same scene?

You know what. I give up. MK doesn't make any kind of sense. People in that game clearly behave as if their brains and testicles have been interchanged.

To be fair, it does make their spooge really clever.

I guess the reason we see it differently is because I analyse a character's behaviour by putting myself in his shoes.

And personally I would've tried before assuming that such "proclivities" would be a hindrance (because I've assumed I couldn't do things before, and I'm glad I was pushed by my parents to actually try, because some of those things were the most fun things in my life). And personally I'd reply to someone telling me that I wouldn't accept them because of such "proclivities" with a resounding "How the fuck do you know that you boneheaded bell-end?".

It's like the old adage. "Never assume, because when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me."

 

[MrFalconfly]

And personally I would've tried before assuming that such "proclivities" would be a hindrance (because I've assumed I couldn't do things before, and I'm glad I was pushed by my parents to actually try, because some of those things were the most fun things in my life). And personally I'd reply to someone telling me that I wouldn't accept them because of such "proclivities" with a resounding "How the fuck do you know that you boneheaded bell-end?".

It's like the old adage. "Never assume, because when you assume, you make an ass out of you and me."

You're assuming he didn't based on what exactly? That's how you'd reply. Liu Kang's reply was "I'm aware of your proclivities." That's the one that kind of matters don't you think. Not how you'd respond.

Because we get excuses for why he isn't.

"You wouldn't accept me", "They wouldn't accept me".

Not "You didn't" or "They didn't".

And yes Liu Kang is a monumental arsehole. But that doesn't mean much in a universe that seems to be populated by Duke Nukem wannabes.