Would you play a game with a gay main charater?

[Sveppi]

Yes. Homosexuality doesn't bother my in the slightest.

 

[carpathic]

Absolutely. One of the best books I have read in years was written by Richard Morgan, and the main protagonist is gay.

The story is important, the game play is important. As long as the sexual preference made sense in the story, or the person wasn't weak then yeah!

(I am thinking Dumbledore here, gay, powerful but most importantly fit in and the preference made sense in the story and to the character)

 

[_zuul]

ANYONE WHO'S PLAYED A JRPG HAS TO SAY YES.

someone could also joke that MGS2 counts, too.

 

[Fingolfin High-King of the Noldor]

Yeah I don't see why not. Although I really hope that there wouldn't be a gay sex scene because that would be a little weird.

 

[aeros320]

No. Just no.

No? Just no? What, so you're saying you're homophobic for...what reason? Please explain yourself because I have a huge problem with people who hate other people based on something they cannot control.

 

[Nabirius]

I would have no issue with a game with a gay main character, as long as it wasn't offensive toward gay people. Although a gay sex scene would be kind of awkward, although, it's not gay if they are elves.

 

[cathou]

only if there's a real good reason that we know the sexual orientation of the main caracter. So if it's give something to the story and give depth to the caracter : yes. if they say the caracter is homosexual, but it doesnt give anything more to the game : no

 

[son_of_khorne]

I wouldn't mind as long as the gameplay was good.

 

[Xojins]

Oh I accept that biologically the main point of sex is to procreate, but in today's world, it's mostly about pleasure (save for some societies, probably). I would go so far as to say that most people (at least young people) who have sex have no intention or desire to have children, hence the use of condoms/birth control. They do it for the pleasure. So by your argument, there must be something defective with them.

Also, let's just examine how you think that homosexuality is something that "goes wrong." Biologically, something that "goes wrong" is a disadvantageous trait, making it less likely for that organism to survive. Homosexuality, however, is not a disadvantageous trait; it certainly isn't an advantageous trait, but not a disadvantage at the same time (according to Sigmund Freud. I can even provide a quotation if needed).

And I said "fuck you" not because I think I'm "better than you," but because I'm gay and I actually take offense to having myself being equated to cancer or asperger syndrome.

Yes but what you described is a byproduct of a healthy and useful process. In the case of homosexuals the process itself is corrupted.




I would say that inability to procreate really decreases chances of the organism to survive. Not as a unit but as a species. I certainly agree with homosexuality being a neutral trait. I only disagree that this is normal and healthy.



These were wrong examples and I stand corrected, what I meant was that this is something you are born with (although some disagree but that's not the point), a mild deviation with no real disadvantages for a concerned person. Still, I refuse to accept it as norm or a standard. I refuse to accept "equality" of homosexuality and heterosexuality. I will not succumb to a lie, even if it is to grant tolerance for homosexuals that they rightfully deserve. Tolerance should flow from understanding and letting others live the way they want, not from a brainwash that those to variants are equal.

It's not so useful if there's no intention to procreate is there? And why is heterosexuality "healthy"? I see no difference in health between any regular straight or regular gay person.

Well, if our species is to die out, it certainly will not be because of homosexuality. Plenty of homosexuals donate sperm or have artificially inseminated children, in which case they "do their part to further the species," as you would say. Also, not even all heterosexuals have children, so they would be equally detrimental to our species survival, by your logic. There's also a difference between the norm and normal. Homosexuality certainly is not the norm, but it's normal (homosexuality exists outside of the human species).

Your latent homophobia comes across a lot in this last part. Basically what you are saying is that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals, which is bullshit and oh so ignorant in almost every aspect. Yes, heterosexuals reproduce more effectively. Big fuckin' deal. Higher reproduction rates are the last thing our species needs right now. As I've already said, homosexuals can reproduce via artificial insemination. Not as effective, but it works. Plus, if it came down to it, I'm sure a gay guy would have sex with a woman to ensure the continuation of our species.

Yes, tolerance should flow from understanding and not brainwashing, but it works both ways. The reason homosexuality is traditionally is a taboo thing is due mostly to media reflecting the values and traditions of those in power. Guess who those people are? Right-wing conservatives *GASP*. Where do those conservative values come from? Most of it has to do with religion and the bible, which most people believe to be fiction anyway. So basically, the intolerance of homosexuality historically is based on religious beliefs, which some could consider (and many do) brainwashing. But don't pay attention to that, it'll put many holes in your explanation next time.

 

[Amondren]

Yeah sexual preference doesn't matter if the game is good

 

[djkangal]

No. Just no.

No? Just no? What, so you're saying you're homophobic for...what reason? Please explain yourself because I have a huge problem with people who hate other people based on something they cannot control.

What, wasn't "humans would extinct" enough of an explanation for you?

 

[Ace of Spades]

If they acted or spoke like Bernie from GTA IV, then no, I wouldn't because it would annoy the crap out of me, but otherwise, that's fine.

 

[K_Dub]

I did play Army of Two.

Anyways, it depends. Simply being gay wouldn't bother me, and if the gameplay was good I doubt I'd care, but if they made an effort to match the stereotypical flamboyant drama queen gay profile, it might irritate me too much to put up with.

Pretty much what this dude said. In the end, so long as the character is interesting, the gameplay is good, and the story is passable, I don't care what the sexual orientation of the protagonist is.

Hell, I'd love to see a homosexual protagonist in a game just to see the public out cry from over-sensetive pricks. "That game is trying to turn our family into a bucha queerosexuals!"

I think it'd bring something new and interesting to video games, so I'm all for it!

 

[War Penguin]

Sure. Why not? What problem should I have if the guy (or girl) is gay?

 

[Erana]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.85721

Depending, I may already have. Well, he is a main character, but more interesting than the others...

Spoiler: Snip

Oh I accept that biologically the main point of sex is to procreate, but in today's world, it's mostly about pleasure (save for some societies, probably). I would go so far as to say that most people (at least young people) who have sex have no intention or desire to have children, hence the use of condoms/birth control. They do it for the pleasure. So by your argument, there must be something defective with them.

Also, let's just examine how you think that homosexuality is something that "goes wrong." Biologically, something that "goes wrong" is a disadvantageous trait, making it less likely for that organism to survive. Homosexuality, however, is not a disadvantageous trait; it certainly isn't an advantageous trait, but not a disadvantage at the same time (according to Sigmund Freud. I can even provide a quotation if needed).

And I said "fuck you" not because I think I'm "better than you," but because I'm gay and I actually take offense to having myself being equated to cancer or asperger syndrome.

Yes but what you described is a byproduct of a healthy and useful process. In the case of homosexuals the process itself is corrupted.




I would say that inability to procreate really decreases chances of the organism to survive. Not as a unit but as a species. I certainly agree with homosexuality being a neutral trait. I only disagree that this is normal and healthy.



These were wrong examples and I stand corrected, what I meant was that this is something you are born with (although some disagree but that's not the point), a mild deviation with no real disadvantages for a concerned person. Still, I refuse to accept it as norm or a standard. I refuse to accept "equality" of homosexuality and heterosexuality. I will not succumb to a lie, even if it is to grant tolerance for homosexuals that they rightfully deserve. Tolerance should flow from understanding and letting others live the way they want, not from a brainwash that those to variants are equal.

It's not so useful if there's no intention to procreate is there? And why is heterosexuality "healthy"? I see no difference in health between any regular straight or regular gay person.

Well, if our species is to die out, it certainly will not be because of homosexuality. Plenty of homosexuals donate sperm or have artificially inseminated children, in which case they "do their part to further the species," as you would say. Also, not even all heterosexuals have children, so they would be equally detrimental to our species survival, by your logic. There's also a difference between the norm and normal. Homosexuality certainly is not the norm, but it's normal (homosexuality exists outside of the human species).

Your latent homophobia comes across a lot in this last part. Basically what you are saying is that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals, which is bullshit and oh so ignorant in almost every aspect. Yes, heterosexuals reproduce more effectively. Big fuckin' deal. Higher reproduction rates are the last thing our species needs right now. As I've already said, homosexuals can reproduce via artificial insemination. Not as effective, but it works. Plus, if it came down to it, I'm sure a gay guy would have sex with a woman to ensure the continuation of our species.

Yes, tolerance should flow from understanding and not brainwashing, but it works both ways. The reason homosexuality is traditionally is a taboo thing is due mostly to media reflecting the values and traditions of those in power. Guess who those people are? Right-wing conservatives *GASP*. Where do those conservative values come from? Most of it has to do with religion and the bible, which most people believe to be fiction anyway. So basically, the intolerance of homosexuality historically is based on religious beliefs, which some could consider (and many do) brainwashing. But don't pay attention to that, it'll put many holes in your explanation next time.

Have you ever known someone who killed themselves because they thought they might be gay? Someone whose been assaulted for being gay?
What about innocents killed over the topic? The church I went to as a little girl was the victim of a shooting. He thought he would, "Go kill the homosexuals," there because it was tolerant of homosexuality. Seven injured, two dead. None of them gay.

I just want to know if you really think that its worth it.

 

[Tanto-chan]

Yeah. Who gives a fuck?

Amen to that. It really shouldn't matter.

 

[SnipErlite]

Yeah I'm not quite sure why there's so much discussion about random gay points that don't relate to the thread

Oh yeah, derailing n' that

But to be honest:

Who gives a fuck?

It really shouldn't matter.

It doesn't matter