887
Whine harder you assholes
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
887 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
5741 readers
162 users here now
!gaming is a community for gaming noobs through gaming aficionados. Unlike !games, we don’t take ourselves quite as serious. Shitposts and memes are welcome.
Our Rules:
1. Keep it civil.
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only.
2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry.
I should not need to explain this one.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month.
Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Logo uses joystick by liftarn
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
What you are describing is a concept of the mechanically bisexual. The options as given often allow players to choose in a sandbox game whether they experience the game as a completely non-queer experience or not. It sometimes creates queerness as an option rather than a core part of an experience which rep wise is considered a step better than when all romance options in games were mandatorily heterosexual but also kind of a cop out where player choice means all characters are often Shrodinger's bi. If you want to experience say Skyrim as an almost entirely queer free experience - you can. Your choices flip that representation on and off like a lightswitch so if you have queerphobic tendencies the game doth not offend much. No one ever hits on you first.
Rep wise Gay characters are ones specifically ones where the queerness isn't optional, it's a part of the canon of the character. Straight characters often are so in fixed story narratives where they have hetero relationships and if they have brushes that look like same sex romance it's played for laughs and treated as not really an option. Since culture still sort of assumes straightness as a default if the character only ever is coded romantically by the frame of the game to be attracted to the opposite sex they can be termed a "straight character" because as a player the game's interfacing with that character's sexuality is mandatory. An example is the Prince of Persia games or the Final Fantasy series which have a romantically coded opposite sex paramours that you don't have an option not to interface with the character's sexuallity.
This is way more common in older games and fixed story franchises.
Because, surprise surprise, most non-romance games don't have romance as significant part of the game. You don't get straight tailored experience in Skyrim either. Unless you believe killing bandits or mammoths is how you romance a straight person.
This mentality is why so many gamers outside the homophobic conservative circles are pissed at game developers and groups like Sweet Baby Inc. Not cramming gender politics into a game that has nothing to do with them is not a cop out. It is good game design. Skyrim is not a romance simulator and it shouldn't be turned into one just to "be more inclusive".
Hey, just a heads up assuming "gender politics" don't matter and being upset if a character is noticeably queer - makes you a part of the homophobic conservative circles. People, irl are queer, omitting queer people from settings where they would just exist as part of the world because "they shouldn't be there" is a little queerphobic.
Conservative circles have been screaming about woke games forever just when options to have non-binary people exist at character creation or when there is one gay side character. A lot of folks in the arts, including in game development, are queer and like to make stories that didn't exist when they were growing up. Your opinion is your own but assuming it's universally considered "good game design" to force developers to exclude the things they are passionate to put in their games to appease a howling mob that is never happy even when they get what they say they want is a bit rich.
No. Not wanting to have your car stolen by a gay person does not make you a homophobe. It just makes you a normal person that doesn't want to be stolen from. Equally, wanting a game to be entertainment, not political messaging does not make you conservative.
Most people had no issue with diverse characters that are part of a game, see Life is Strange. They do when you turn a game into political PSA at the expense of the rest of the game, see Valeguard.
Ah yes, the two sexualities - political and non-political. You really aren't as far along as you think.
I can accept that you are unhappy and want your games to not make you feel uncomfortable. Gods forbid they ever be like every other form of media and actually have a message they want to convey or try anything new. I can say having something tailored specifically for you is quite nice - now that more of us actually get to experience that.
You are missing the point entirely. Playing as a homosexual character did not make me feel uncomfortable, even though I understand if it did for some people. Even so, not every game is for everyone. It is fine to have games focused at different audiences.
But when you hand over writing your game characters and story to groups like SBI, whose only qualification is "inclusive writing", than it destroys games for everyone and you get entirely justified backlash from gamers.
Same if you take an established franchise and change the target audience.
Unfortunately, just like you don't make distinction between the actual homophobes and people who just want good writing and game design, a lot of gamers once pissed of don't distinguish between good inclusion and forced, badly executed one. And than you get the polarized BS of today.
There's no "actual homophobes" vs " not homophobic but still unhappy that queer people and 'forced inclusion' are in a game people" - that's just different degrees of homophobia.
Games changed a bit so that they aren't all made for you specifically. Those franchises didn't belong to you and for some people those 'ruined games' are their favorite games. Everyone has studios they don't like. Not all representation is gunna be great because not all writing is going to be great but when inclusion "ruins it for everyone" in your veiw look around and ask if the people around you who are discussing it is actually a good cross section of "everyone".
That's the same kind of argument as saying criticizing Israeli genocide is antisemitism. There are objectively bad things done in the name of inclusion. Criticizing them is not homophobic. If you are going to pretend they are, that you are somehow above criticism just because your stated goal is noble, don't be surprised when people turn against you.
Are these "bad things in the name of inclusion" just making a game you don't like? The push against "inclusion" on a general scale has lead to real world harms because a bunch of babies can't come to terms with there being pieces of media with choices they don't like and threw a fucking tantrum. There isn't really a side anymore where railing against the harms of "inclusion" isn't propping up the arguement that minorities "earned" the actions against them by asking "too much".
People will take your words as tacit endorsement that queer people "had this coming" because a bunch of businesses responded to a body of queer theory and made some fucking games. The anti-DEI crowd is the Conservative crowd and you might be on the fringe but you aren't outside the radius.
That is exactly why your stance is pissing me off so much. People like you, who don't care how their ideas impact other people as long as they are inclusive, are pushing massive amounts of people towards the conservative side of the argument. I don't think that makes those people conservative, for some reason you do. Regardless, we both agree it hurts queer people.
So was it worth it? A bunch of poorly written queer characters in games and movies in exchange for pissing off a portion of otherwise tolerant population and pushing it towards conservatism?
Was it worth it? Coming down hard on queer and telling us we're terrible people for daring tp ask for something better and throwing your lot in with the oppressors at the smallest hurdle?
Yes, deflect the question, misrepresent the issue, and blame everyone around. Just avoid any introspection.
There is no "worth it" here for the non-queer gamers in the first place. It costs them (seemingly) nothing to throw queers under the proverbial bus and oppose any inclusivity. The only thing stopping people is sympathy and goodwill. Being a decent human being. Which tends to go out of the window quickly, when you actively try to destroy what those people care about. People don't have sympathy for people that "picked a fight" with them first. They just "fight" back.
And before you pretend games are insignificant and people shouldn't do this "just because of games", remember you picked this "fight" because of representation in games as well. Can't have it both ways. Games either don't matter (in which case what are we arguing about) or they do.
Gamers care about games. They have always pushed back hard against people messing with their games, whether it is "concerned parents" (religious conservatives), queers, or payment processors. If you believe that it is just homophobia, you are deluding yourself.
So I ask you again, is it really worth it to push things like SBI, that produce objectively bad games for everyone, knowing it will destroy sympathy and goodwill you have with gamers?
You don't have to answer here, just think about it. Because you can't expect understanding and sympathy from others if you are not trying to understand and sympathise with them as well.
Because I don't find you terribly sympathetic. Yes, I would like better inclusion and more variety in games and can look at past examples and point out what worked and what didn't from a queer perspective but you came in hot with your nose out of joint about how what is being asked is bad "for everyone" as though you are the arbitor of the everyman.
It's worthless to conceed ground over and over again to people who always wanted us to disappear. It doesn't work. You want to go on the woke advisory board on Steam and see how nit picky they get? This isn't about media. This is part of an interconnected effort to get all of us to disappear from public life forever and it didn't start, it never stopped and the point is it won't until it all goes back to the way it used to be.
What is "in it" for the non-queer gamers is realizing they aren't the center of the fucking universe. That they can show their support for something that isn't explicitly for them and leave homophobic assholes with no wonderful jungle of slightly less homophobic assholes to hide behind. But no the second it costs you anything suddenly it's the end of the fucking world. People want to feel all nice and accepting and open minded but they never want it to actually inconvenience them.
By all means keep on harping your one fucking studio you hate. I hope it keeps you warm.
Sure, I was the one doing that. Whatever makes you sleep better.
And you proceed to describe what would benefit queer people, if they managed to keep non-queer gamers on their side or at least neutral. Which just proves my point.
Some people don't want to be inconvenienced at all, most people don't want to be inconvenienced for no good reason. There is a big difference.
Yes, what you are doing now seems to be working great. Best of luck with that.
So outside of visual novels, are there good queer games where you get hit on first? I’m in if the story is good and the gameplay is engaging. I am straight but not narrow, and games are fictional.
By making the player make the first move, they empower the player to choose.
The problem often becomes that the entire sexuallity of mechanically bi characters or all characters in the game are often under player control. In a some circumstances games with this mechanism will have the characters who are not chosen as romantic options pair with no one ever or defer to straight behaviour. This is in deference to games wanting to have it's cake and eat it too.
Examples of this in action :
Stardew Valley where if you don't choose a same sex option to romance - no other characters ever have any romances ever. The one exception is Leah who has an ex who shows up late in the romance pursuit who tries to win her back. However, the ex is whatever gender the PC is so if it's a hetero relationship, it still appears to be a hetero relationship.
Harvest Moon Mineral Town (later editions) give the player to options to romance same sex options... But everyone you don't choose pairs up in hetero relationships and no other characters.
In both games there is no other queer rep so the player essentially opts in or out to all queer representation in the game. Blanket Heterosexuallity or bi-invisibility until given player approval is the default.
Indy games are generally the leaders for actual queer rep that isn't optional to the game's plot where characters sexuallities are not revealed by the player opt in.
Okay, I definitely agree with you on the player being the only romance option for NPCs... for the most part. Looking at it, I do see plenty of existing romances in Skyrim, Fallout 4, and Cyberpunk 2077 — the examples I gave — and I think they're mostly straight. In Cyberpunk, Judy Alvarez, an established lesbian character who will only romance you if you're female, has a female ex who is a main character. You meet her before you meet Judy. She's the one who gets you the heist gig, sort of. The one who hires Dex, who hires you and Jackie. It may not be obvious at first, but if you follow Judy's story, even as a male character, it will be obvious. And Fallout 4 had a romance with two robots, but that's mainly played for laughs and most people will never see it. (You have to go to the school in Diamond City and speak with the female robot, who will ask you about love. Give the most heartfelt answer and, the next night, you will see her wed a male robot outside the all-faith chapel, if you're there for it — you could be elsewhere and you will miss it.) But that's a robot relationship, and it's hetero.
I do want to say one or two of them had a couple gay/lesbian romances.
Going a bit off-topic, Animal Crossing — largely considered a kids' game — actually has a bunch of stuff just beneath the surface that most people will overlook. Flick, the bug collector, is considered by many fans to be FTM trans. He identifies as male but appears to be AFAB. There's a peacock who identifies as female — peacocks are specifically the male of the peafowl species. Peahens are the females, and they don't have the big feathery thing. So that's a female character who was AMAB. Plenty of other characters rock the trans flag as well. Kids would never notice this, and being a Japanese game, they have to be very careful as that country is super conservative. (There's actually a pretty deep rabbit hole on that game's lore. Some characters hint toward the game being a game, breaking the fourth wall. There are also hints the game takes place in a post-apocalyptic world and you're the last human.)
I'm with you though, in that I would like to see more same-sex relationships and LGBTQ+ representation in my games.