Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Niall Hoenn

LGBT in Dragon Quest?

Recommended Posts

Social justice is ruining creativity? What's so creative about the same characters, same situations, same tropes, over and over again?

 

Short on time, but that's the thing, though. They're only "the same" for superficial reasons. Change isn't coming from creating a better product. It's being demanded and nagged over trivial things and it's making bland, boring stories. Tell the story you want to tell. If it's good, people will enjoy and talk about it. You can't create when you're always worried about pleasing or offending this particular group. It's like the Idol singer trying to make Simon Cowell happy. Cowell will always hate you. Focus on the people who do like you instead of fixating on the minority that doesn't.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Social justice is ruining creativity? What's so creative about the same characters, same situations, same tropes, over and over again?

Short on time, but that's the thing, though. They're only "the same" for superficial reasons. Change isn't coming from creating a better product. It's being demanded and nagged over trivial things and it's making bland, boring stories. Tell the story you want to tell. If it's good, people will enjoy and talk about it. You can't create when you're always worried about pleasing or offending this particular group. It's like the Idol singer trying to make Simon Cowell happy. Cowell will always hate you. Focus on the people who do like you instead of fixating on the minority that doesn't.

And yet it's the developers that do what they want to do like Naughty Dog choosing to make Ellie (spoilers)gay(spoilers) or DontNod choosing to focus their story on two teenagers girls growing up.

 

Meanwhile, it's the big companies that are focus-testing their games into the ground. Trying to fit their game into a sterile mold that pleases their "target demographic" which comprises mostly teen boys. The reason people have to demand and nag is because no one will listen otherwise. There's no creativity there. Ironically, it's the big companies making shoot-bangs and more angry, gritty protagonists that's tipping and toeing hoping to please children who want to blow things up and gawk and digital boobs. Meanwhile, and I keep going back to this example, Neil Druckmann has to demand to get female focus-testers.

 

And it's a good thing change is being nagged, because, jumping into a different industry, had people not nagged Marvel, we wouldn't have gotten a character like Kamala Khan, a character that was created for the sake of representation, and look how it's worked out for Marvel. She's one of the hottest new comic creations of the last few years behind, gasp, Miles Morales, who was also created for diversity's sake. Marvel knew they were going to become irrelevant soon if they didn't change with the times and now they have these amazing characters and a lot of goodwill from people that previously lambasted them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then they went on The View, the worst of television, and made a big deal saying, "Thor is a woman now! Aren't we progressive? Please like us!" It reeked of desperation.

 

And then the real Thor will eventually reclaim the mantle and the whole publicity stunt will be shown to be a pandering sham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it like this, if a story can be written in such a way that gives some creative and intriguing tales with some comedy without caring if the story is PC or not, then I wouldn't see why not; however, I'm not familiar with how Eastern culture looks at this, perhaps in a comedic way?  Western audience, probably, Eastern, not too sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents on the topic has always been that drawing attention to things such as sexuality and making it a point of interest for a character makes it seem like sexuality has to define a person. If the goal is inclusion then it doesn't need to be made a big deal out of, who's to say any random NPC you talk to in any DQ game couldn't be gay since it's never brought into question?

Edited by Meinolf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then they went on The View, the worst of television, and made a big deal saying, "Thor is a woman now! Aren't we progressive? Please like us!" It reeked of desperation.

 

And then the real Thor will eventually reclaim the mantle and the whole publicity stunt will be shown to be a pandering sham.

And then they went on Colbert and announced Captain America was black and told Entertainment Weekly that Iron Man was going to be a douchebag. Very recently they killed Wolverine and revealed his female clone was his replacement. And before that they revealed to a website that Professor X died the day before the issue came out, and Dan Slott egged everybody on by killing Peter Parker in the most humiliating way possible and then bringing him back in time for his movie. It's almost as if Marvel has a history of pulling publicity stunts.

 

Marvel's made it no secret that Female Thor isn't long for this world. Aside from Loki's series heavily hinting at it, the main Thor series confirmed it a few months ago.

Edited by eal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iron Man having a douchebag personality unlike his classic incarnation is a pretty awesome Civil War thing that has stuck after the movies. Even if they sometimes downplay it.

 

Which is an example of real character development, not just a gimmick. Publicity from gimmicks is why comics have big events every summer that change everything but never stick. Not good storytelling and not something anyone should be encouraging even if it falls under an ideological umbrella you happen to support.

 

The View taping was pretty much the penultimate example of how far they have fallen as a company.

Edited by En Garde
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like gimmicking shows just for political correctness.  I heard not only did Fantastic Four suck, but it was gimmicky as all get out, it turned out to be a major flop.  I haven't seen it and don't care to see it ever.  The first two Fantastic Four were enough for me and they were mediocre at best.

 

However, I do like the Last of Us in how they deal with it... they leave the player thinking that Ellie may be a lesbian, and also Joel's old friend Bill is gay in the series, but those were just little facets of the game which weaved it in quite well. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody's saying don't include different characters (LGBT, women, whatever) in games.  Just don't include them solely due to pressure from whiny groups that will never be pleased, anyway.  And don't let their sexuality define them.  I strongly agree with the point made above that it is difficult to use characters from one of these groups of people because they aren't allowed to be dumb, weak, or get beaten up, lest there be backlash.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again:  There will never be true equality until every group of people can take a joke, representation, or indeed, outright criticism equally.  I mean, we ARE still going for the equality thing, right?  Sometimes I wonder.

Edited by Griever
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like someone to rattle off a list of shoe-horned characters that were put into a game because the developers were pressured into it. Tamodachi Life counts I guess, but that just allows YOU the ability to make a character gay if you want. Who are all these gay characters and women developers are putting in their games to silence nagging activists?

 

As for Ellie, there was no "maybe" about it. She was more or less confirmed to be gay. Neil Druckmann's actual words were "who cares?" Isn't this the attitude you guys would like to see. A Youtuber said to her voice actress "if only I could've seen this when I was, like, 12 years old" during a panel at Momocon.

 

And in regards to Iron Man becoming a douchebag, in this case it was not because of who he is as a character. It was the result of a spell that inverted his personality. Meaning it made him the opposite of who he is. During a comic book event. He turned into a douchebag and Sabretooth became a hero among a few changes. After only 9 issues he's going back to his original personality because his Superior Iron Man series was terrible and poorly received and writers didn't know what to do with him. So in this case, it was a gimmick.

Edited by eal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's a difficult list to make considering no developer is ever going to admit "yeah, we put X in our game due to SJW pressure".  I will say this, however.  You can go to nearly every game forum on Steam and see the same "why aren't there any X characters in this game?" threads.  Go check it out.  I'm looking at one right now asking why there are no black characters in The Witcher 3.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And then they went on The View, the worst of television, and made a big deal saying, "Thor is a woman now! Aren't we progressive? Please like us!" It reeked of desperation.

 

And then the real Thor will eventually reclaim the mantle and the whole publicity stunt will be shown to be a pandering sham.

And then they went on Colbert and announced Captain America was black and told Entertainment Weekly that Iron Man was going to be a douchebag. Very recently they killed Wolverine and revealed his female clone was his replacement. And before that they revealed to a website that Professor X died the day before the issue came out, and Dan Slott egged everybody on by killing Peter Parker in the most humiliating way possible and then bringing him back in time for his movie. It's almost as if Marvel has a history of pulling publicity stunts.

 

Marvel's made it no secret that Female Thor isn't long for this world. Aside from Loki's series heavily hinting at it, the main Thor series confirmed it a few months ago.

 

I don't get your argument. Are you saying that these terrible storytelling choices are acceptable because there are a lot of them?? None of those are really acceptable. The reason that there's such a backlash against the Thor change is because it's blatantly transparent what group they're pandering to. It's a bit different than just writing an unpopular element into a story to sell issues. The Thor controversy was started because Marvel was trying to target a very specific demographic, a demographic which has a history of bullying artists into appeasing their interests. This demographic has done this many times before in several other mediums as well. It's much easier to lash out against a change like that because the group it is pandering to is very unified and is much easier to criticize. Killing Peter Parker in a humiliating way may be an unpopular decision, but it's one that wasn't made to appease any one group and the only underlying motive there was to cause a controversy and sell books, which comic readers are used to.

Edited by AustNerevar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying singling out one instance as some desperate cash grab and an attempt to seem progressive when that's been the Big Two's major moneymaking strategy for a decade is incorrect. It was not some targeted attempt to seem feminist. Marvel has blaunched over a dozen female-led books over the last two years that's garnered them goodwill from feminists long before they decided to create the female Thor.

 

Well, that's a difficult list to make considering no developer is ever going to admit "yeah, we put X in our game due to SJW pressure". I will say this, however. You can go to nearly every game forum on Steam and see the same "why aren't there any X characters in this game?" threads. Go check it out. I'm looking at one right now asking why there are no black characters in The Witcher 3.

Then you have no basis to say that activists bully and nag developers into bending to their whims. Multiple developers have shown they're happy to make women and gay characters.

 

And I can go on any reddit, pro-GamerGate, or GameFAQs forum and find poster spouting off about SJWs ruining games. Y'all think gays and women are pushing an agenda? Least they dial the death threats and stalking down to a minimum unlike those guys in regards to women in the games industry....

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, and there probably never will be. There wasn't a gay bar in III and no homophobia in II.

 

And for future reference, LGBT folks are fine and welcome here, but I won't tolerate Tumblr nastiness. For example, the constant demand for X, Y, and Z in the games when it doesn't matter. Alena's costume in DQ Heroes, etc.

 

WOO HOO, preemptive anti-SJWing!

 

 

Around a year ago, a screen shot was going around of a comment somebody had written. They used the Monkey Island games as an example, explaining that the reason a lot of writers stick to traditional characters is because they are allowed more freedom with them. If you took the Guybrush Threepwood character from Monkey Island and made him a woman, the writers would be crucified. Guybrush undergoes constant torment and humiliation as a means of comedy. You just couldn't do that with a female character in today's age of Misogyny Witchhunting.

 

And I think we all remember the Batgirl cover controversy from last year. That one was ridiculous.

 

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

 
It's called the Galbrush Paradox.  As defined elsewhere:
 
 
The Galbrush Paradox is an attempt to explain the frequent exclusion of female characters from video games.
 
It hypothesises that the lack of female representation in gaming is due to the over-scrutinisation of female portrayal in the medium, and that in an effort to avoid this scrutiny, many developers would rather choose to omit a female character than include her, for fear of backlash.

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B320XBWCEAARjSJ.jpg

Edited by KiTA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

WOO HOO, preemptive anti-SJWing

 

Here's what I mean by that. Everyone is welcome here as long as they engage in friendly discussion. This isn't NeoGAF. I won't delete posts or ban you for having a different opinion than me. I will delete posts and ban people who're antagonistic, create drama where there is none, label others, and drag the place down for everybody.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw man, I just realized that this thread is a powder keg waiting for a spark.

 

Back to the original topic and away from the hugbox:  There hasn't been much LGBI stuff in Dragon Quest.  Japan's views on LGBI stuff are considerably different than ours, to the point that LGBI people in Japan consider America some sort of mecca for gay rights.

Edited by KiTA
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in the camp of saying SJWs are ruining gaming, but there's certainly constant pressure being applied by them to developers.  Why isn't there an X in this certain game?  Because the artist's vision didn't call for it, that's why.  It should be as simple as that, yet it's not, and we all know it's not.  That's the only point I'm trying to make.  I can't really speak for comics as I haven't read them since the '90s, but it seems like there's some pandering going on there, as well.

 

As far as the death threats go: yes, there are some crazies out there, but using them to try to dismantle my argument/defend the SJWs isn't really applicable.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As if games ever end up like the creator's vision in today's modern game industry. The only devs that escape constant mandates by the publisher are indie devs, and no one tells them what to do. If anything, publishers alter the creator's vision more then any activists do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Least they dial the death threats and stalking down to a minimum unlike those guys in regards to women in the games industry....

 

I won't allow somebody to attribute the actions of third party trolls to an entire group. There are trolls on both sides of that debate that sent out plenty of death threats and doxxed plenty of people. It isn't wise to use the blanket accusation of Harassment as an attempt at witchhunting.

Edited by AustNerevar
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and if one of said publisher's mandates demand the inclusion of certain minority characters?  Where do you suppose that demand ultimately comes from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

WOO HOO, preemptive anti-SJWing

 

Here's what I mean by that. Everyone is welcome here as long as they engage in friendly discussion. This isn't NeoGAF. I won't delete posts or ban you for having a different opinion than me. I will delete posts and ban people who're antagonistic, create drama where there is none, label others, and drag the place down for everybody.

 

That's really refreshing. I'm tired of seeing forums or communities censor anything controversial or anything that the moderators might not agree with.

 

I personally loathe confrontations anyway. But I also am very opinionated about the discussion of gender issues and the whole GamerGate thing. Fortunately, it seems like this forum is for the most part very accepting and level-headed about these discussions.

Edited by AustNerevar
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in the camp of saying SJWs are ruining gaming, but there's certainly constant pressure being applied by them to developers.  Why isn't there an X in this certain game?  Because the artist's vision didn't call for it, that's why.  It should be as simple as that, yet it's not, and we all know it's not.  That's the only point I'm trying to make.  I can't really speak for comics as I haven't read them since the '90s, but it seems like there's some pandering going on there, as well.

 

Oh, more than some. I'll give you an example from the book I'm making. Some people are big proponents of changing everyone's ethnicity. Just 'cause! And they think the character stays the same. Well, actually it doesn't. Doing that can often rewrite the entire character. Their backgrounds, motivations, interactions, etc. Two of my main characters are a mean old man and a big dopey hippie in Texas. The mean ol' man yells at the hippie, like, all the time! If I changed the hippie's skin color, a lot of readers would see a racial subtext. I want it to be clear that the main character yells at him because he's a big, doofy guy; not because he's racist.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I'm actually sad to see the Justin Beiber topic removed, as that was more fun to discuss.  This becomes a more emotionally charged topic right off the bat, especially for anyone who feels sensitive about their self-identity, and those who feel sensitive for those who have issues with how they self-identify.

 

Plenty of research into the various mindstates of people depending on how they identify sexual orientation and life orientation, but that said, the thing is, I hate the idea of changing or forcing characterizations just to fit a political standard, and to make people feel accepted, or to shine a light on those elements of life and how people act and feel themselves to be, that for most is completely separate from how they identify.  At the same time, many of those in the LGBTQ...etc. communities, have had a pretty rough time of finding at least public acceptance until the recent era (though the public chastising and hatred is historically recent, as most societies and philosophies were geared to let live, so long as it's not in your face, and people aren't forcing you to exist around a lifestyle, but it was generally accepted that whatever you did behind closed doors, and in the privacy of your own life, was perfectly fine.  It's not even a matter of simply not wanting to know, and wanting things in the closet, so much as it is rude to force ones viewpoint and desired lifestyle, outside the boundaries of the classical elements of life: eat, sleep, work.

 

Though there certainly have been groups that have hunted down, cut down, destroyed, or removed, since time immemorial, unwanted elements, typically sexual and lifestyle orientation, has been present in the vast majority of human culture, despite LGBTQ...etc. insistence this is patently false.  Yet you've had men dressing as women, prostituting themselves in ancient China, Japan, Rome, Greece, various North African city-states and countries such as Carthage.  You've had people who identify directly with animals, and see themselves as animals, even if often within situational elements, such as warrior quests, or when hunting, or when attempting to identify with nature, there are still people who, within various cultures, and societies that see themselves as animals, or brothers with animals.  There are NW Native American tribes where Shaman's must spend years out in the wild to feel the call of nature, and find their place amongst the spirits of the forest.  People who dress up as animals, and who are today classified as Furries, are an offshoot of these practices, in a more mellow, and less warrior centrist culture.  Yes, today we are FAR less warrior centrist, and more cultural/art/entertainment centrist.  Within marriages, and within circles of power, gay men and women were well known and their choices in sexual orientation perfectly permissible.  Even during early church times.  It wasn't until St. Francis De Assisi, that we suddenly see a change of direction for lavish lifestyles, and a push for celibacy among the priesthood, while a push to condemn sexual acts.  Prior to this, it was well accepted that Priests could marry, and there were even Female's not necessarily taking roles in the priesthood, but being respected speakers.  Even then, it wasn't until the Inquisition that we see outright and open attacks, hangings, torture, and the like against those deemed strange, ungodly, devil worshipers, etc.  This firebranding was clearly carried with greater force and alacrity with the reformation, as many Catholics saw the debauchery of the church as a sign that only a life of total denial of any pleasure as the ultimate goal to varying degrees, and hedonism in any form, and anything that can be classified as some variant of hedonism, animal worship, animal love outside of seeing animals as purely workable dogs, and anything seen as sexual outside the bounds of marriage, including expressions of public love, were deemed disgraceful to varying degrees, depending on which group of christians we're talking about.  Some had very strict laws regarding property rights, where property could only be owned by women (Puritans...yes, who we usually think of as the religious nuts who killed Native Americans...which they didn't), or that only women could divorce on grounds of sexual satisfaction (yeah, seriously, women had all sexual rights in a marriage in many Christian denominations, borrowing from orthodox Judaic views on a man needing to please his wife, but not a wife needing to please her man...LOL).  A ton of funny $#!&.

 

History is really awash with many examples of any side you want to take.  Like evidence that parents HATE their children.  You've evidence that parents also unabashedly loved their children more so in the past than they do so now.  One could even make an argument for more open sexual promiscuity in the dark ages, in Europe, AFTER the reformation, and before the enlightenment.  It's all pretty crazy stuff, depending on what source material is chosen.  Even between various towns, you have entirely separate attitudes about a number of things.

 

It's really funny, considering such beliefs today that most people, pre-Coppernicus, saw the earth as the center of the universe.  Others believe it was just in the Church that the earth was the center of the universe.  Then we have the false belief that flat earth theory was, at any point previous to the 1800's, was popular, when the majority of cultures, and even theological/religious and scientific scholars all over the world, and even Shamans and similar constructs in more primitive cultures, knew well, and openly discussed how the world was round, and this was well known, and for most, the earth revolved around the sun.  Yes, even in the Church, at the time of Coppernicus and Galileo, it was more popular to believe the Earth was round and revolved AROUND the sun.  Then again, some of histories most brilliant minds have fallen prey to outright lies about false history, such as Thomas Jefferson, who was one of the first to assert the belief that Flat-Earth theory was ever popular or common.

 

My point is that revisionist history is pretty common, and a lot of what we see today, in a lot of pushes, are built around a lot of false notions and pretenses of historical events.  Granted, there's some truth, but some truth doesn't mean the whole notion of hatred towards various groups, or that they're even present within human culture and society until recently, is a myth.  There have always been people who identify as gay, sexually, even when they marry to assure their gene pool continues, their choice of sex at all other times is separate from the occasional romp with their husband or wife, depending.

 

So now, we have this push from various social movements, who have smelled blood in the water, with the recent turn of events where virtually all lifestyles are being pushed onto the public, and the perception of past maligning, hatred, abuse (which again, is actually historically inaccurate, as this has only been for a VERY short period in history for most of the world, and even then, it's regional or during periods of intense conflict when men in power needed something to blame for the woes and "afflictions" God was enacting, or maybe nature, or the lack of scientific explanation).

 

It's just really really funny, but at the same time, isn't it damaging to ultimately force down the throats of others, changes to characters?  I think it's great that people want to see more expression of something that demonstrates who they are, but there is no limitation on artistic expression.  I think it's always best to create your own characters, or find groups who want to create that character, a new independent character, that fits their mold.  Don't ruin or change other characters just to fill a political need or narrative.  That stomps on the memory and concepts that are, and just create the very token elements many seek to avoid in the first place.  Often these characters are required to fill in roles of typical stereotypes, because people need them to be instantly believable, and often aren't written or created by people who are members of those various communities, so it's like building characters off of secondary knowledge.  Afterall, any expression of self and viewpoint of how others see a person, is entirely built off the viewpoints of that individual doing the creating.  So basically, the best work a person can do is to craft something that fits the mold of how they see themselves, because it is easier to draw upon those elements, find sustenance, and craft a more enjoyable storyline and romp.  So, seriously I don't get why people need to feel like an identity must be placed in, when it is not at the discretion or desire of the original artist.

 

That said, Eal's point, if true, that few characters who are female are allowed to be placed in due to fears of production studios of alienating audiences, is something that I can't agree with.  If true, but I really don't see or hear about that on a common basis, and often people like recurring characters whatever they may say, because it creates a recurring and continued storyline.  It's why people watch bond movies today, and Craig helped resuscitate due to the direction the studios took with the movies after the Brosnan era.  It's just better storytelling, but in the end, people watch because it's Bond.  I don't know how the new Bond will be taken, but I don't like the idea of casting a black man.  It's like putting a white guy in the role of Shaft.  I like Shaft as a black man.

 

Has anyone poked fun at this?  Like taking a white guy who is supposed to be a famous character, then turning him into a black chick?  Or a Latino Chick, but his soul remains a white dude, and he recalls, the morning before, being a white dude but is suddenly thrust into a totally new body?  That would really illustrate the ridiculousness of destroying iconic characters by playing politics with them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like putting a white guy in the role of Shaft.  I like Shaft as a black man.

 

Bullshit. If they rebooted Shaft with Michael Cera it would be the best movie of our generation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often self-identified as Shaft...  does that count?  I've always felt that I was Shaft, just trapped in a non-Shaft body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...