David's opened the door, is anyone else going to follow?
At the risk of opening a can of worms... (because we all know how these threads like to attract the "less than helpful" posts)
We have 30 survivors. That's a pretty sizable roster, and covers a diverse selection of individuals, different ethnicities and religions, and now, sexualities too. Statistically, it would not be unusual for there to be 2-4 other non-heterosexual characters within that number.
So there's room for more LGBT+ representation, that wouldn't be out of place.
So who would you like it to be?
Existing characters, or new characters?
Gay? Bi? Is there scope for trans?
And why?
I think Yui Kimura would make a good option. Gay, bi or pan.
Kicked out of her home for flouting her mothers preferred gender stereotypes, joins up with an all-girl biker gang with a side mission of protecting women from stalkers and abusers. There's more than enough room in there for a romance with one of her biker pals. Sure it falls into a couple stereotypes, but sometimes stereotypes are true, and these aren't exactly negative ones, they're empowering ones.
Comments
,,Stereotypes" the characters story is already about breaking the traditional gender roles placed onto her,that's why.If the character being LGBT already fits it's ,stereotypes",if it needs additional writing it's ,,pandering and changing the character" idk what you people want.
A new character just would've been more effort. That's it.
It would "feel" like tokenism for some, but don't you see how doing something like a twitter post to focus in on this one thing about a character is received much differently as opposed to making a character gay and not making a big deal about the fact they are gay?
You can make the case David is tokenism as is.
I really am curious with who bhvr is gonna choose next
That doesn't answer my question. What is missing from this process that constitutes effort?
The ability for people like them to pretend the characters aren’t gay
More than saying "David's gay and here's why". That's less effort than making a new character
Still doesn't answer my question. What is missing from the process I described that would qualify as effort?
I'm curious if they are going to actively represent something other than lgbt. You know since representation matters so much.
They already actively represent a variety of people
Pretty much every non-choice social minority is represented. Women, people of color, LGBT+. And future LGBT+ characters will increase types of LGBT+ representation. What is missing?
Thats it. Anyone should be able to say after 2 years just choosing an existing character and saying "their gay" isn't a lot of effort. Even if we factor in the new lore.
Making a new character would show they made a unique character, style, personality, unique lore, or just put in more effort in general.
You're avoiding my question. If you can't explain to me what's missing that would constitute effort, then you can't really argue that there was a lack of effort. If you think that there was a lack of effort, then explain to me what is missing that would constitute effort.
I don't know, it may seem a lot harder to do so. But I think bhvr is mainly focusing on LGBT representation as of right now.
I'm inclined to believe Claudette's tome specifically also hints at her being autistic or something akin to that. So there's that too.
Good point, didn't think of disabilities.
You're expecting a lot if you think people like them can come up with an actual reason that isn't against forum rules.
I have been answering your question.
1: using a pre existing character is less effort.
2: they just made lore to justify it
There is nothing else.
You are not answering the question. I am asking you what is missing. You are not telling me what is missing.
What is missing?
Its not about what is missing, it's about what they did do. They did barely anything. That's my thing I'm saying. There is no intent to David being gay besides "let's make him gay".
So what is missing? That's something you need to think about yourself and why you think it's good representation and not bad. What did they do?
I already posted exactly what they did several posts ago and then asked you what was missing from what they did. Something you have failed to answer despite being asked multiple times.
Actively? I don't know. I don't recall the extra emphasis on anything else other than lgbt. The roster is diverse but I've never seen a tweet saying "hey here is our new female survivor because representation matters."
Asking that is like asking a rhetorical question. I can say anything as long as it makes me feel like they missed something, even if it may not make sense.
But I'll say this. Bhvr has just not proven to many people that the intent to make David gay and to include LGBT representation is anything more saying "David is gay" and making a story about it. Some people just don't like it.
Maybe sentiment will change. Who knows.
You are certainly welcome to say what you think is missing, since that would answer the question even if I don't agree with you. The thing is that you are straight up not answering the question.
That answered your question, but I'll rephrase it.
What is missing is the sentiment, feeling or however you'd like to phrase it, that bhvr did more than just say David is gay and make a story to make him gay to add a gay character into the game.
That isn't a thing missing from the list of actions that BHVR did. I'm asking what they did not do that could be seen as effort.
So ,,actively'' is defined by tweeting about it?
Like I said as long as the leave Kate alone as a hot blonde, I’m cool with it
That is also answered. Just because they did something doesn't mean someone else will say they put in a lot of effort. Simple or complex.
Them having done it that way can be said to be a good effort, but the sentiment ot feeling you get by them doing that, can still be as I said above to really see it as not a lot besides the minimum
That's why I ask what is missing from what they did that would constitute effort.
They have a pinned tweet for the pride charm and posted about David King's sexuality in the context of "representation matters." Yes, in my opinion it is.
They just could've made a new character, That's all. There isn't much else to say to answer that that goes into detail.
There's just more to be desired than that.
That doesn't necessarily mean that what was done here constitutes as the minimum.
What if they add a new character that’s LGBTQ+ as well though?
Imagine not being able to answer a simple question with a non-bigoted reason.
I agree that the twitter post was a bad move, but his tome entey was pretty great, and if it was a new character it's pretty hard to believe they wouldn't have posted anything either.
Not really, tokenism would be just putting a label on him. They made a lore entry about his pass that was pretty well written and helped us understand his character more. Tokenism would be if they just did the twitter post and nothing else.
I remember shortly after Elodie released they retweeted a video of a fog whisperer that expressed her feelings of how happy she was to see someone represented in a game that looks similar to her as this is still a very rare sight.
iirc they even pinned a forum thread with that topic.
So yeah, they have been actively emphasizing representation in their game outside of LGBTQ+.
also remember that they kinda excluded anything LGBTQ+ related while being already very diverse and had varied representation even on initial release of the game (Claudette being a black woman, Jake as Korean man).
also, one single tweet isn’t really that much of a focus either. They have 1960 tweets total according to Twitter right now and there have been around 20 tweets after that David tweet.
Doesn't mean it can't feel like that
Wouldn't change the stuff about David
Lores just there to explain it. Doesn't change much
Of course not. Why would it? It’s established official lore and won’t change.
but if they did create a new character who is revealed in their backstory to be LGBTQ+ they would show you that they are putting in effort into representation, right?
Sure, but that wouldn't change the fact with David. And I'd just say why not start with said new character to begin with
Why are you repeating that it wouldn’t change the fact with David after I have already said it wouldn’t?
just wanted to see if your problem was the LGBTQ+ representation or that they ‚changed‘ David in your mind.
so. You do have a problem with Wraith and Nurse being hinted as being a thing as well right? There was a tweet about it and cosmetic descriptions. And Wraith was very likely not created with any specific sexuality in mind..
I think this kinda boils down to the issue of retroactively giving/expanding on established character lore. retcons-rewrites-etc always run into that kind of issue, and some people feel like the content's nature makes it feel like its inherently protected from criticism.
Personally, I don't care about the topic in regards to anyone in the fog. Some do, some don't. People on the internet (and especially in this community) absolutely love to assume the worst from people that don't agree with them, while topics like this make some people put a lot more personal stake into their stance (understandably.)
The reason I personally feel it could have been handled better is because of the original point: Its not that they didn't put effort into it (they clearly did) nor that they did any research or care into it being a first step in representation (they clearly did,) but that for some it feels almost like a bait and switch.
For one, sexuality has absolutely zero impact on the trials, nor should it. I'm reminded of Rogue Legacy where there are various genetic and hereditary traits you can take that have various impacts on gameplay, then one of them is just being gay/lesbian. In a game where even your character's height or being farsighted are permutations that can affect various aspects of the game, being gay affects... nothing. Just your spouse's gender in the ending, thats it. I thought that was an outstanding way of handling it, especially because it inherently fortified the aspect that it makes absolutely zero difference to the player what your character's orientation is outside of what meaning you, yourself, provide.
With a situation like David, after all the years of the game, cosmetics, jokes in the community, headcanons people have been building over the years, it starts to feel like it was decided for the player. In the above example from Rogue Legacy, the impact would be completely different if being gay was something that was put on the player without them knowing. You know you are choosing it when you do, and thus, the impact is direct and intentional. Inclusion is important, and you'll rarely find good faith arguments that claim its not in this case. However, if it was something that was randomly or arbitrarily decided for you, you can absolutely bet there would have been controversy over how it was handled, which would lead to a similar situation like this. Sexuality is not a good topic to surprise people with in video games (or even stories in general) where it is both completely irrelevant and completely unrelated to said game or story.
In this case, again, they put a lot of work and effort into that part of the situation. This wasn't some half assed "throw a pride flag on his back and pump out more cosmetics for pride month" situation. It WAS, however, one that fell victim to a discordance in its reception due to the nature of its elements. I've heard the "we didn't want to make them paid dlc" argument, but the long and short of the matter is that the game has, for years, been structured around a "build your own headcanon" stance due to how barebones the lore started, while being slowly "caught up" with each subsequent tome. That in itself will always make controversial topics create discordance on some level. Especially when it might come off as unrelated to what was before (IIRC his original intro involved him having a girlfriend, and just being a rough and tumble ######### who got in bar fights all the time, basically the "macho british lad" stereotype.) Certainly the two are not incompatible, but like I mentioned at the start, the sheer whiplash between the two comes off as a bait and switch.
Hopefully someone doesn't try to find a way to put words or opinions in my mouth from this post, or try to demonize me for something they assume i must have been implying or something, but thats about it. I think they did everything right about it except for having it suddenly be a surprise after this many years.
I really just wanna know their motivation to be so against this story line of David being gay.
they say it’s about David not intended to be gay when he was created (which there is not even proof for in any way) but then… they also never ever complained about any other lore addition in any of the other tome story’s??
What I meant was even if they added another LGBT character, it wouldnt change the criticism of David.
I have no issue with representation at all.
When I first heard about that, I thought it was a gag, but if it turns into a thing. That would be a little weird.
My stance is not against David being gay, just not in favor of it.
Well said
They don't have an actual reason they can say that won't get them in trouble with the forum's rules lol
First of all, it's not a retcon, David was never said to be straight. Before you bring up the girlfriend point, no that does not make someone straight. People learn stuff about themselves later in life, or need to hide their status from bigoted people (eg, family/neighbors).
Second of all, sexuality/gender is irrelevant to the trials, but that's an irrelevant argument. Games aren't only about in-game content. It's representation for an under-represented stigmatized minority in real life. That automatically trumps it. Why does there need to be a reason to be anything? People are not LGBT for some kind of plot reason. There's no such thing as forced inclusion. LGBT+ people exist, so LGBT+ inclusion makes sense. It does not have to be related to the story or the gameplay. That logic is stupid. What, does there have to be a reason for straight or cisgender characters to exist? lmao.
Third, it's literally their fault if anyone assumed anything that wasn't confirmed about him. He was never ever confirmed to be straight. People upset over that can get over it. This is like saying it makes sense to get upset that you got some stranger's name wrong when it was never ever said. If people didn't realize their headcanons were only ever headcanons, that is literally on them.
Of course it's going to be a "surprise" when it hasn't been done in five years of this game's lifespan. But people who have an issue with it being added need to get over themselves.