• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

General Thread/Musings about LBGTQ+ Representation in Games

Belthazar

Member
Surprisingly I think Sylvando is one hell of a positive representation for men that don't conform to the masculinity standard, gay or not.

At first I thought he would be a joke character, as it tends to be the case for effeminate characters, but that couldn't be further from the truth, having a feminine behaviour is just the way he is and it's never played out as a joke for people to laugh at his expense. It's a very powerful message of how you can be strong and a hero for everyone around you even when you're not a burly man with a deep voice. He just does things his own way and manages to accomplish what he set out to do and is one hell of a badass.

He isn't shown in any kind of romantic relationship/interest (even though he jokingly flirts a lot to mess with the boys around him) throughout the game but romance is an element that's rarely present in Dragon Quest games anyway, so it doesn't matter much in his portrayal.
 
Last edited:

GymWolf

Gold Member
I mostly don't care, i don't need to know what hole a protagonist love to fuck to like him.

Sexuality is not a personality trait unless you are an hardcore dongiovanni or obsessed with sex.

Bill being gay in tlou adds nothing to his grumpy fat guy run of the mill character.
 
Last edited:

Daymos

Member
I mostly play Japanese games and every time I come across LGBT representation it seems cool and I go with it. Even though I'm straight I loved some of my gay party members and was happy to gain their affections. Love and friendship and all that, regardless of your sexual orientation.
 
Last edited:

Dick Jones

Gold Member
Neil Druckmann has probably the best and worst aspects of this in TLOU series. TLOU was progressive as it didn't make being gay taboo. Bill was gay and it wasn't a big story beat but hints were there, weirdly some people missed it. Riley and Ellie too could easily have been construed as friends who finally took the next step, nothing to do with them being the same sex being the shock in the kiss. If you want to get rid of bigotry you need to normalise same sex relationships.

TLOU2 on the other hand, the barman being a homophobe. The fucking bigot sandwich line. We could have gotten to the same place that night by having the barman be Jesse's father who is pissed off thinking Ellie broke up Dina and Jesse, without knowing any of the facts. Dina and Ellie are fine as a couple and that no one else really gave a shit about their relationship, normalised it.

The worlds created in games are fiction so create worlds where that conflict isn't the primary focus. I imagine gay people would rather be treated the same as a straight couple by their friends. Why would anyone want to be singled out and treated differently always.

Final note:
Hana and Adira in Kena: Bridge of Spirits is a good recent choice.
 
Last edited:

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Surprisingly I think Sylvando is one hell of a positive representation for men that don't conform to the masculinity standard, gay or not.

At first I thought he would be a joke character, as it tends to be the case for effeminate characters, but that couldn't be further from the truth, having a feminine behaviour is just the way he is and it's never played out as a joke for people to laugh at his expense. It's a very powerful message of how you can be strong and a hero for everyone around you even when you're not a burly man with a deep voice. He just does things his own way and manages to accomplish what he set out to do and is one hell of a badass.

He isn't shown in any kind of romantic relationship/interest (even though he jokingly flirts a lot to mess with the boys around him) throughout the game but romance is an element that's rarely present in Dragon Quest games anyway, so it doesn't matter much in his portrayal.
Nah I don’t think he it a good representation. He is what people who complained about representation want though.
He is a joke character. There is an overwhelming evil trying to take over the world and he wants to dance and party and be in your face over the top all the time?
npcs in the game even bring up that flaw in the game.

The big flaw with all the “ representation “ screamers is it’s that it’s not really what they want. They don’t want to be a represented group they want to stick out. The more normal they become in society the more they want to stick out and be special. It’s exactly why there is now a lbgtq name and why it’s always adding letters.

the sad part is that itself is a not a good representation of the people it’s representing. It’s just like Twitter . A few people screaming doesn’t represent the majority
 
Last edited:

Eimran

Member
I loved what a powerfull character the Boss was in MGS3: Snake Eater.

Before all this representation crap. She was made like that because it fitted the story and suited her as an "antagonist".
Not like today's "i'M a WoMyn, hEaR mE rOaR!!!?!!"
 

UnNamed

18+ Member
Problem with "inclusivity" and representation is when these words are associated with "put a subject in your product at any cost" . Inclusivity is nothing like this.
Inclusivity (and representation) is give a chance to ANY people to express themselves.

Inclusivity is Dream Daddy, Tell me Why, That Dragon:Cancer.

Not inclusivity is Ellie lasbian out of nowhere, pronounces in games, black characters everywhere because BLM.
 

Fuz

Member
I would totally play a game with minority trans disabled whatever person, if they told a compelling story about the characters personal journey/struggles or just didn't talk about it at all and it was simply just who the character is, rather than be about "HEY look we put the minority in to upset the status quo! Now give us social justice points!"

The only gay man I know in real life is a masculine manly man and it took me half my life to figure it out.
Yeah, another issue. They're picturing all gays like caricatures.
What a game studio chooses to portray is 100% up to them.
lol, so naive.
Ok, need to know. What's the real tweet about?
 
Last edited:

Dr.Morris79

Member
Pandering.


Nobody gave a shit about Cate Archer, Lara, Chun Li or Jade. Enter the SJWs.
I just find the whole thing quite infantile to be honest. True I wanted to be like Robocop, but I was eight. As I grew up those notions went, as they do when you get older. At no point, even in old age, did I wonder if he was gay, Bi, trans or if I wanted him straight, like me.

Where did this notion of made up characters having to pander to your ideals actually come from? It seems very regressive to me and to be fair, utterly stifling from a creative point of view if you have to crowbar in space ranger Ricks sexual prefference into a story. Who cares where he puts his junk? I came for the shooty aliens..

Why are these people so obsessed with this stuff? Why does it always boil down to sex and genitals?

What the hell?

..Am I old? Well yeah, but c'mon, theres so much more to life than your sexuality or projecting this stuff on everything!
 

DForce

Member
Pandering.


Nobody gave a shit about the gender of Cate Archer, Lara, Chun Li or Jade. Enter the SJWs.

One of the reasons why Lara Croft and Chun Li are popular is because they're female characters.

Lara's croft sex appeal help sell the franchise.

Chun Li, alongside Sonya Blade, was the popular female video game character of the 90's. Make them another male character then they wouldn't be nearly as popular as they are today.
 

DForce

Member
LBGTQ+ Representation has been in video games for years. Hell, back in the 90s, many people assumed characters like Vega, Benimaru, King, and Voldo were gay.

I think representation matters to a certain extent because people do like characters that share the same background as them. Many women became fans of fighting games because of female characters. Poison from Street Fighter/Final Fight is loved by many trans women. Many African American men loved TJ Combo from Killer Instinct and Jax from Mortal Kombat.

The problem today is that many people demand LBGTQ representation in video games/entertainment and it doesn't feel natural.
 

sloppyjoe_gamer

Gold Member
I remember a time when we just played games and didn't give a shit about all of this, and which groups were represented, etc.....no wonder the world is so divided these days.
 

FunkMiller

Member
The best representation for LBGTQ+ people in video games (as in all media) is when said people are not wholly defined by their sexuality. Because straight people never are. The best gay characters are ones who's sexuality is merely a part of who they are... and is often never a driving force in the game's narrative.

Because that's the way the real world functions. LBGTQ+ people are not 100% defined by their sexuality in the real world, so why are they in narratives? It's fucking patronising, inaccurate, and frankly quite bigoted.

The key point is when gay people are treated the same as straight people (ie their sexuality is rarely something that has to be outlined or leaned upon for characterisation), that's when you get proper equality.
 
Last edited:

Belthazar

Member
Nah I don’t think he it a good representation. He is what people who complained about representation want though.
He is a joke character. There is an overwhelming evil trying to take over the world and he wants to dance and party and be in your face over the top all the time?
npcs in the game even bring up that flaw in the game.

The big flaw with all the “ representation “ screamers is it’s that it’s not really what they want. They don’t want to be a represented group they want to stick out. The more normal they become in society the more they want to stick out and be special. It’s exactly why there is now a lbgtq name and why it’s always adding letters.

the sad part is that itself is a not a good representation of the people it’s representing. It’s just like Twitter . A few people screaming doesn’t represent the majority

He's only a joke if you think being feminine or flamboyant is a joke, people like that exist in real life and it's not a problem. The way he is is never played as a joke in the game, if you see it like that then I think it's an issue with you.

Also, his arc when he wanted to "dance and party" while the world was in perfil was due to being lost and trying to find purpose, it's very touching actually as the Hero helps him fulfil his need to make people smile through his parade and then he proceeds to fight with the party to defeat the evil. His story with his father is also very well handled, especially with his father helping to take care of the boys in his troupe.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
I mostly don't care, i don't need to know what hole a protagonist love to fuck to like him.

Sexuality is not a personality trait unless you are an hardcore dongiovanni or obsessed with sex.

Bill being gay in tlou adds nothing to his grumpy fat guy run of the mill character.

I'd argue that it definitely informs a person's personality. I don't think a narrative needs to be built SOLELY around that fact (though if you want to, it's your body of work, do whatever you wish and I'll engage with what I prefer)

Knowing, for example, that Bill's partner that killed himself after splitting with him before the game's events was his PARTNER and not just his teammate or friend adds some real pathos to his reactions upon learning of his death. The bravado he puts on with his "dude was an idiot, anyway, fuck him," with a gruff but saddened voice. It adds a dimension to the character.

If you're saying you don't care about his sexuality or "what hole he likes to stick it in," that must also mean, for the sake of an even board, that you find the "typical," straight relationships pointless and TMI and out of place in narratives, too. Romance in general, because it adds nothing to a character?

I think it really depends on the aim, type and demographic of the content being released, as well as the consumer engaging with it. As I've said before in this thread, my big issue is how sexuality often becomes the focal point of any story that includes it, rather than an element in further fleshing out a well realized world.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
I'd argue that it definitely informs a person's personality. I don't think a narrative needs to be built SOLELY around that fact (though if you want to, it's your body of work, do whatever you wish and I'll engage with what I prefer)

Knowing, for example, that Bill's partner that killed himself after splitting with him before the game's events was his PARTNER and not just his teammate or friend adds some real pathos to his reactions upon learning of his death. The bravado he puts on with his "dude was an idiot, anyway, fuck him," with a gruff but saddened voice. It adds a dimension to the character.

If you're saying you don't care about his sexuality or "what hole he likes to stick it in," that must also mean, for the sake of an even board, that you find the "typical," straight relationships pointless and TMI and out of place in narratives, too. Romance in general, because it adds nothing to a character?

I think it really depends on the aim, type and demographic of the content being released, as well as the consumer engaging with it. As I've said before in this thread, my big issue is how sexuality often becomes the focal point of any story that includes it, rather than an element in further fleshing out a well realized world.
Would it change anything if his partner was a woman?! Absolutely not, he would have used the words bitch and her instead of idiot and him, so we return to my previous point.

Knowing that he like to fuck an ass instead of a pussy doesn't change jack shit in how i see bill as a character, do you judge him differently because he like to fuck men instead of women? Then that's on you.

A character can be straight, gay or whaever fancy words people use today, sexuality is not a damn personality trait.

Having a romance as a plot point is different than knowing what you like to fuck, don't confuse things my dude.
 
Last edited:

dcx4610

Member
It's done right when a big deal isn't made out of it. Treat it to be normal because it is. Not this Earth shattering event or this wink and nod to the audience to pander. Just like you don't think twice when you see a male and female kiss in a movie, that should be the same reaction if there is a gay couple that kisses.

Normalize - Not promote, virtual signal, pander, shoe-in, etc.
 

MiguelItUp

Member
Mad Moxxi from Borderlands is a beautifully written character.

Seriously though, Liara T'Soni from Mass Effect is great and Major Raikov & Volgin in MGS 3 is a funny little side story that added flavour.

I used this to help me remember which characters were lgbt:

This link was enlightening, lol.

Much like the majority here, I never really cared about who fucks what or who. I'm all for being inclusive, but I never really understood the whole sexuality aspect of things needing to be on the forefront. I get that it helps people relate to characters if they share the same interests, etc. But for me, I just never thought it mattered whatsoever.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
Would it change anything if his partner was a woman?! Absolutely not, he would have used the words bitch and her instead of idiot and him, so we return to my previous point.

Knowing that he like to fuck an ass instead of a pussy doesn't change jack shit in how i see bill as a character, do you judge him differently because he like to fuck men instead of women? Then that's on you.

A character can be straight, gay or whaever fancy words people use today, sexuality is not a damn personality trait.

Having a romance as a plot point is different than knowing what you like to fuck, don't confuse things my dude.

I mean, romance is by definition implying "what you like to fuck," ROFL. I don't see anyone's character, in real life or otherwise, as necessarily DIFFERENT because of their sexuality, "difference," implies that there's a parameter that defines "normal," to me. But I'd argue that sexuality does inform a person's personality. How often do you see people or characters described as "hopeless romantics," or "womanizers," or "pretty boys," ? Whether justified or not, these descriptions of *personality* evoke images of certain orientations; of certain people. You've never made a judgment call (good or bad) because of your inherent attraction or revulsion to someone? You can't see how, say, a character who is a high school football player would have different stories or challenges depending on race/orientation?

Don't get me twisted here, look at my posting history, I'm not the woke type. But even phrasing a reply like "You honestly think people with different backgrounds and hardships makes them unique from one another? That's on you," like I'm being scolded or something, is just...

Different strokes, I guess. It is on me.
 

GymWolf

Gold Member
I mean, romance is by definition implying "what you like to fuck," ROFL. I don't see anyone's character, in real life or otherwise, as necessarily DIFFERENT because of their sexuality, "difference," implies that there's a parameter that defines "normal," to me. But I'd argue that sexuality does inform a person's personality. How often do you see people or characters described as "hopeless romantics," or "womanizers," or "pretty boys," ? Whether justified or not, these descriptions of *personality* evoke images of certain orientations; of certain people. You've never made a judgment call (good or bad) because of your inherent attraction or revulsion to someone? You can't see how, say, a character who is a high school football player would have different stories or challenges depending on race/orientation?

Don't get me twisted here, look at my posting history, I'm not the woke type. But even phrasing a reply like "You honestly think people with different backgrounds and hardships makes them unique from one another? That's on you," like I'm being scolded or something, is just...

Different strokes, I guess. It is on me.
Pretty boys, womanizer etc are perfectly ok terms to define someone if sex is a major part of their character\charisma etc.

But i still don't care WHO they like to fuck, maybe i'm not clear enough.

Never said that you were woke dude, it's all good on my part.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
Pretty boys, womanizer etc are perfectly ok terms to define someone if sex is a major part of their character\charisma etc.

But i still don't care WHO they like to fuck, maybe i'm not clear enough.

Never said that you were woke dude, it's all good on my part.

Yeah, that makes more sense, I suppose.

And I wasn't implying you were saying I was woke, I just wanted to provide some context for my statements so that it didn't seem as if I was frothing at the mouth or anything, haha
 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
He's only a joke if you think being feminine or flamboyant is a joke, people like that exist in real life and it's not a problem. The way he is is never played as a joke in the game, if you see it like that then I think it's an issue with you.

Also, his arc when he wanted to "dance and party" while the world was in perfil was due to being lost and trying to find purpose, it's very touching actually as the Hero helps him fulfil his need to make people smile through his parade and then he proceeds to fight with the party to defeat the evil. His story with his father is also very well handled, especially with his father helping to take care of the boys in his troupe.
He’s a joke because the world is about to end and he wants to have shirtless little boys carry him on a parade float.

if it was just about his story and nothing else was going on it would be better but not in the context of the world ending and definitely not the little boys.
 
Last edited:

Belthazar

Member
He’s a joke because the world is about to end and he wants to have shirtless little boys carry him on a parade float.

if it was just about his story and nothing else was going on it would be better but not in the context of the works ending and definitely not the little boys.

All of the party members were lost and doing their own things to try to escape from what just happened... It was not just him. It's the whole point to bring them together and give them reason to fight again. He was not the only one in that situation.

Also, no one's shirtless in that sequence.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I don’t really think about or care about other’s sexuality, in real life or in my entertainment. When someone feels they need to make a big deal out of it, I just look the other way. I don’t share my sexuality with others because I think others feel the same way I do…they don’t care either. I let you be you and you let me be me.
100% agree.

Maybe if it's a hollywood movie where the plot involves sexuality where having straight or gay characters is important for the plot (a bunch of evil people are gay bashing and a detective has to solve it), but I dont see how the average video game needs to purposely inject straight or gay characters into it.

It doesnt matter if it's a Gears of War meathead with size 22 boots, or a D&D game with Fabio looking warriors and big titty sorceresses. Anyone in their head can think what you want who is straight or gay. I use the lizard man in ES games (Argonian). If I want to think Scaley Bob is straight or gay who cares. I can think what I want. I'm straight so for me I assume they are straight by default. If someone is gay, they can assume game characters are gay. Who cares.

Does the writer at Bethesda really have to tell everyone the plot is Argonians are straight or gay?

The funny thing about people who support LGT representation in media is that there's conflicting views what happens.

1. We need more LGT representation in media

2. Ok, here you go. We made some LGT characters

3. Those characters are stupid and totally stereotypical. We dont all look and act so blatantly gay. We can look and act no different than a straight person

4. Ok, then we'll make characters as they are now where you cant tell

Cant have it both ways.
 
Last edited:

Thaedolus

Gold Member
I thought Celeste was excellent in this regard. Ambiguous enough that nobody can really complain it’s “out of place” or whatever, and the game itself is excellent in all regards
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
Obsession with the representation of various identities is a framework that the capitalist class promotes to distract people from representation of wealth inequality.

I think basically everything that social media and modern society itself is obsessed with and propagates has shades of this motive. Not trying to derail my own thread, but if you've never heard about the "dead internet," theory, look that up when you have some time to read about it. It's fascinating (and mostly logical) stuff. I don't consider myself much of a conspiracy theorist, but most of it seems like just obvious truths and observation skills.
 

GustavoLT

Member
i was innocent at first to think that Lev was also immune like Ellie, the reason i thought he was running away, then discovered that he was a girl with mental disorder
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
I actually don't care the sexuality of ANY character in any video game. What I don't like is when certain individuals DEMAND that we NEED more "representation" and then suddenly main characters are gay.

That's a good point. I don't like the modern obsession/vendetta against well established media and changing things to be more "relevant," I'll never side with changing an established character's race, gender, or sexuality on a dime to pander to crowds that, in all likelihood, were never invested in the property regardless.
 

Irobot82

Member
i was innocent at first to think that Lev was also immune like Ellie, the reason i thought he was running away, then discovered that he was a girl with mental disorder
I thought Abby was trans for the longest time. Especially after watching her sex scene, I thought Owen was going up the backdoor. It confused me for a while.

Edit: To be clear I didn't understand the hate with her not being realistic or whatever. I was like, well she's bio male. Didn't realize she was bio female.
 
Last edited:
I think basically everything that social media and modern society itself is obsessed with and propagates has shades of this motive. Not trying to derail my own thread, but if you've never heard about the "dead internet," theory, look that up when you have some time to read about it. It's fascinating (and mostly logical) stuff. I don't consider myself much of a conspiracy theorist, but most of it seems like just obvious truths and observation skills.
How many times has media called something a "conspiracy theory" only for it to not only be true, but then that same media tries to say it is a good thing that it is happening?

Occupy Wall Street was not as succinct in its ideas as I would have preferred, but as soon as social justice activists came in and divided the occupiers into identity groups and gave preference to different identity groups, the whole thing collapsed. When every corrupt institution goes full force into celebrating LGBTQ+ pride and racial identity, that should have been a warning sign. When the response to every business scandal is improving "Diversity and Inclusion" rather than something like improving actual working conditions or increasing pay, that should be an alarm bell to everyone that this whole thing is completely disingenuous and we have all been played for fools. The problem is that the surface level celebrations of LGBTQ+ and racial identities is enough for a good amount of people to overlook awful corporate practices. We have people who would throw a fit if a company has a single employee who doesn't agree with gay marriage, but would shrug their shoulders if that same company poisons a local water supply by dumping chemicals.
 
I agree with what others have said about how the best sort of representation is to simply just have a character of whatever race/ethnicity/orientation present, while not making that the focus of the entire character or doing it specifically to be noticed for representation’s sake alone.

Another thing I’d like to add is that I feel games were doing (increasingly) pretty well with this up until before the whole GamerGate thing. There were many games adding more Non-White/non-Asian characters, and doing so in way that didn’t have any overt political agenda. For Black characters for instance, there was Coach and Rochelle from Left 4 Dead, Shinobu from No More Heroes, Anthony Higgs in Metroid Other M, and Sheva and Josh in RE5. I’m sure there’s more but, of the games I played at the time, those are the first that came to mind.

Most people I know of liked these characters, and their race really didn’t play into who they were as characters at all. There’s a sentiment I think some people have as to how black characters (or any character of any race really) should act, that’s always been around to a degree, but has since been magnified due to the rise of SJW’s and that whole cultural shift that started in 2013/‘14.

And what I mean by that is you’ll have some people who are of the opinion that if X character acts too stereotypically like their race is perceived to normally act then that’s bad. Inversely some others feel if said X character doesn’t act stereotypically enough like their race then they aren’t an “authentic” representation and might as well be White because they “act White.”

Both of these viewpoints are part of the same flawed way of looking at things though in my opinion, as judging the character on their own merits is impossible to do if one is always looking through one of these lenses. Now I would say that there is probably a limit to how stereotypical a character could be presented as before it was crossing the line into mean spirited derision (if done unironically/non-jokingly). However the chances of that actually happening today are pretty slim I would say, and if it were to happen it would be more or less unanimously called out.

Because non-white characters seem to be put under this constant scrutiny of possibly being seen as too stereotypical or too “white,” I feel that’s a huge detriment to the writing process as any writer will have to walk on eggshells and try to please everyone while likely ending up with a very milk toast character that doesn’t please anyone. And since even now making a main character White is seen as a political statement (because everything has to be), this scrutiny is basically placed on any type of character nowadays. And while ironically I guess this means that every character is getting treated in one way the same regardless of skin color, it’s in a really ass-backwards way that limits creativity for fear of angering twitter mobs.

Holy shit didn’t know this would be this long but hopefully this is somewhat of a worthwhile contribution.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
I agree with what others have said about how the best sort of representation is to simply just have a character of whatever race/ethnicity/orientation present, while not making that the focus of the entire character or doing it specifically to be noticed for representation’s sake alone.

Another thing I’d like to add is that I feel games were doing (increasingly) pretty well with this up until before the whole GamerGate thing. There were many games adding more Non-White/non-Asian characters, and doing so in way that didn’t have any overt political agenda. For Black characters for instance, there was Coach and Rochelle from Left 4 Dead, Shinobu from No More Heroes, Anthony Higgs in Metroid Other M, and Sheva and Josh in RE5. I’m sure there’s more but, of the games I played at the time, those are the first that came to mind.

Most people I know of liked these characters, and their race really didn’t play into who they were as characters at all. There’s a sentiment I think some people have as to how black characters (or any character of any race really) should act, that’s always been around to a degree, but has since been magnified due to the rise of SJW’s and that whole cultural shift that started in 2013/‘14.

And what I mean by that is you’ll have some people who are of the opinion that if X character acts too stereotypically like their race is perceived to normally act then that’s bad. Inversely some others feel if said X character doesn’t act stereotypically enough like their race then they aren’t an “authentic” representation and might as well be White because they “act White.”

Both of these viewpoints are part of the same flawed way of looking at things though in my opinion, as judging the character on their own merits is impossible to do if one is always looking through one of these lenses. Now I would say that there is probably a limit to how stereotypical a character could be presented as before it was crossing the line into mean spirited derision (if done unironically/non-jokingly). However the chances of that actually happening today are pretty slim I would say, and if it were to happen it would be more or less unanimously called out.

Because non-white characters seem to be put under this constant scrutiny of possibly being seen as too stereotypical or too “white,” I feel that’s a huge detriment to the writing process as any writer will have to walk on eggshells and try to please everyone while likely ending up with a very milk toast character that doesn’t please anyone. And since even now making a main character White is seen as a political statement (because everything has to be), this scrutiny is basically placed on any type of character nowadays. And while ironically I guess this means that every character is getting treated in one way the same regardless of skin color, it’s in a really ass-backwards way that limits creativity for fear of angering twitter mobs.

Holy shit didn’t know this would be this long but hopefully this is somewhat of a worthwhile contribution.

As far as your last point goes, it's weird. It's a balancing beam. Too far one direction, you're not respecting a character's heritage or individuality. Too far in the other direction, and you've made a caricature. If the only outcome of the game is to lose either way, it ties people's hands who want to tell legitimate, thought provoking stories.
 
As far as your last point goes, it's weird. It's a balancing beam. Too far one direction, you're not respecting a character's heritage or individuality. Too far in the other direction, and you've made a caricature. If the only outcome of the game is to lose either way, it ties people's hands who want to tell legitimate, thought provoking stories.
I think the answer is to treat the person’s/character’s culture as an extension of them, and with an air of respect but levity. Guacamelee is a good example I think. It seems to celebrate Mexican culture while also having a sense of humor. Sure some people may say it’s too stereotypical, but I don’t think it’s depiction of the culture/people was mean spirited in slightest.

It’s also why people should be able to laugh at themselves. Like the whole meme of White people not being able to eat spicy food and finding Mayonaise spicy. Is it true of all white people? Of course not. But I find it funny anyways because it’s just an over exaggerated joke.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
I think the answer is to treat the person’s/character’s culture as an extension of them, and with an air of respect but levity. Guacamelee is a good example I think. It seems to celebrate Mexican culture while also having a sense of humor. Sure some people may say it’s too stereotypical, but I don’t think it’s depiction of the culture/people was mean spirited in slightest.

It’s also why people should be able to laugh at themselves. Like the whole meme of White people not being able to eat spicy food and finding Mayonaise spicy. Is it true of all white people? Of course not. But I find it funny anyways because it’s just an over exaggerated joke.
I'm all for jokes and funny stereotypes.

However, many arent. And in media, law, Twitter bombing etc..... it typically funnels down to the lowest common denominator. And if one person out of a million complains there's still a chance someone at the company will bend over spreading their asshole begging for forgiveness where they change everything up to be sterile.

It just comes down to the company. Elon Musk and Tesla dont seem to give a shit when they get criticized and they seem to be humming fine and people love Musk. Probably because he has some balls. Now if the CEO of Ford got criticized for saying dumb things, he'd probably do a formal apology. Same position, same kind of company. Two different responses. One guy would say get lost, the other would beg for mercy.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom