A minority as one of the main characters, Yay or Nay?

[Makio-Kuta]

How can you say that a character's orientation is hardly ever brought up in standard adventure story RPGs and whatnot? I can think of countless instances in video games where two characters (usually a female and a male) are cast in a romantic light together. Perhaps it doesn't stand out because it's what people perceive as the 'norm?'

Examples:

Star Ocean 3 - Fayt and Sophia go on a date. Pepitta has a crush on Fayt (if I remember rightly). There's that girl and guy who both die but were very much a couple.

Tales of Zillia - Alvin and what's her face have a confirmed relationship in the past.

Castlevania: LoI - You are trying to save your girlfriend/betrothed/wife (forget the exact relationship) from the castle. Matthias is doing what he does because he lost his own wife.

Relationships (romantic, family, friendship) between characters are often a big part of story driven games.

Case A and Case B can still apply as well. You can just as easily have a queer character in the cast and have it not be a big deal to that character's development as you can have that factor be a huge part of their narrative.

((Also, for Legend of Korra, it was Asami and Korra))

 

[trouble time]

I myself voted for case B. I myself am black and I live in the south so even though I know race shouldn't be an issue, it is. I don't think it ever will not be. That's why I feel a world with some of the case B type issues will always seem more realistic than case A worlds. The levels will vary, but there will always be crappy people who try to make other people feel bad to make themselves feel superior. This is indeed a type of story that is hard to write sensitively and sensibly, but I think it pays off better than just ignoring race if you can pull it off.

Also on the subject of Barret, I kinda hate to say this but he's kinda a bit of a bad example. Every thing he does is so sterotypically black he  could potentially offend people with a thinner skin than myself since he reinforces certain stereotypes (in my case I'm not offended cause he's still a good guy and good party member).

 

[Matseb2611]

How can you say that a character's orientation is hardly ever brought up in standard adventure story RPGs and whatnot? I can think of countless instances in video games where two characters (usually a female and a male) are cast in a romantic light together. Perhaps it doesn't stand out because it's what people perceive as the 'norm?'

I think what he meant is that in most video games the orientation of the character isn't actually brought up because it has nothing to do with the game and its story. The examples you've provided are just a few examples. Not every single game has main characters looking for their partners or finding romantic interests at some point.

Also, I think it's more realistic to see more heterosexual couples in game worlds than homosexual ones, because I am pretty sure heterosexual couples by far outnumber the homosexual ones in the real world. If you had a game with lots of homosexual couples, it would look strange and out of place. Also let's not forget about the game settings. If a setting in the game isn't progressive, the chances are there will be prejudice in it towards homosexuals, so those who are indeed gay aren't likely to wear this fact on their sleeve.

 

[Foron]

I think it's prejudiced to assume that most characters are hetero.

How?

 

[Clord]

Reminds me. Some story writers just want to push romance out of the way. Like Final Fantasy games, they imply romantic relationships most of the time, than dedicate huge sections for it.


yet, just because major female character doesn't find the main guy attractive that she is a lesbian. Male protagonists often act oblivious that someone wants to be their girlfriend but they would be quite dumb not to realize it on the some level (Yuya in Arc-V.)

 

[captainproton]

Even when the player is given the option to choose their character's orientation, it's more often treated as fodder for internet rage than as a smart and subtle way to make the game more immersive and relatable.

 

[Makio-Kuta]

The argument for realism seems pretty silly when we're dealing with fictional worlds in many cases honestly.

 

[trouble time]

The argument for realism seems pretty silly when we're dealing with fictional worlds in many cases honestly.

Realism is what keeps a fantasy world grounded and believable. Granted we can have worlds where burning down the main characters hometown makes the protagonist turn into a potato and become best friends with arsonist therefore turning the arsonist into an airship that lets him fly underground to the kingdom of the drama clubs sempai who notices potato-chan ,who is now three girls and two boys, and they live happily ever after.

That's why there is an argument for realism. There's no reason not to have a plot like the one I outlined, but most good stories will have some grounding in reality because if it doesn't it's entirely unrelateable.

 

[Matseb2611]

Amen to that. Realism is not the same as reality. The game's world doesn't have to resemble reality, but it has to be realistic and believable, and make logical sense within the rules established by the setting.

 

[Athryl]

I didn't vote because I think there has to be some middle ground between the options. I have no issue playing as minority characters or characters that aren't like myself. Like anything it all depends on what your goals are in creating your game and telling your story.

Personally, I'm usually turned off by stories that are too preachy on real life issues be it race, religion, sexuality, politics, etc. so I would shy away from option B in my own game making but if your goal is to address a real life issue involving minorities then have at it. They are very polarizing issues and can really divide your audience if you aren't careful. As others have said it takes a deft hand to tackle those issues gracefully. I think there is a lot of room to touch on these issues without getting preachy or overly focusing on it and that is perhaps the safer but less impactful (I think I made that word up?) route. Maybe the story is not about expressly about racism, but perhaps an NPC reacts differently depending on a character's race, gender, religion, etc. Those sorts of things help flesh out a world and make characters feel alive.

 

[Hollow]

You know, I would somewhat agree with that logic, Matseb and trouble time, if we were talking about a modern setting based on our world as is or one very close in time to it. But, I agree with Maki in that I don't think it applies in the same manner to a fictional universe. A setting definitely needs to make sense within itself, yet why should we still apply the same societal rules in our world to one of fantasy or a setting several hundred years into the future? I don't think that there'd be a problem if one, say, made homosexuality the most predominant sexuality, and then obviously had more openly homosexual couples than heterosexual. Because it would make sense for that setting, as you said, and therefore be realistic and believable.

To be honest, feel like you can make anything believable if you write it (or portray it) well enough, regardless of whether it's "realistic" or not. ...Well, of course, if you feature some fantastical elf-centaur-dragon hybrid species that speak in a language vastly different than any we know, that would be a problem because no one can relate to that. But people can definitely still relate to LGBTQ+/female/non-light-skinned characters no matter the setting or societal rules therein.

 

[trouble time]

You know, I would somewhat agree with that logic, Matseb and trouble time, if we were talking about a modern setting based on our world as is or one very close in time to it. But, I agree with Maki in that I don't think it applies in the same manner to a fictional universe. A setting definitely needs to make sense within itself, yet why should we still apply the same societal rules in our world to one of fantasy or a setting several hundred years into the future? I don't think that there'd be a problem if one, say, made homosexuality the most predominant sexuality, and then obviously had more openly homosexual couples than heterosexual. Because it would make sense for that setting, as you said, and therefore be realistic and believable.

To be honest, feel like you can make anything believable if you write it (or portray it) well enough, regardless of whether it's "realistic" or not. ...Well, of course, if you feature some fantastical elf-centaur-dragon hybrid species that speak in a language vastly different than any we know, that would be a problem because no one can relate to that. But people can definitely still relate to LGBTQ+/female/non-light-skinned characters no matter the setting or societal rules therein.

I'm inclined to agree as well in the case of societal rules and what not. What I was getting at was that people make an appeal to realism because it can enhance the story,. Realism is not necessary but it helps. At least that was my intention. Granted, I'm horribly biased since all my favorite stories tend to take place in worlds similar to our own.

 

[Matseb2611]

If you are making such a world, then homosexuality being predominant in it will have to make sense. The reason we humans are heterosexual by majority is because we need it to procreate, and we are not going to change unless something causes us to evolve. So unless your setting either features humans that have been evolved by some cause or genetically manipulated, or if it's an entirely different species that does not reproduce sexually, then yeah, homosexuality can be predominant. For your everyday fantasy settings with normal humans and other very humanoid creatures that reproduce sexually, this wouldn't make sense.

 

[Hollow]

I get where you're coming from, but the need for procreation does not inherently imply heterosexuality. A gay man can still be gay and end up having sex with a woman to have a child--same with a lesbian and another man, it's happened plenty in our world's own history. I'm still not seeing how predominant homosexuality would be so unbelievable. 

 

[Kvich]

I Voted case A.

Personally I don't think the colour of ones skin means anything, neither in the real world, nor in the games I make.

I would never ever pull a stunt, where I want to portrait a "real world" minority as a minority in a game I make.

I make the characters in my game, as how I imagine them, with the background stories, where they grew up, etc, and would have a "black" guy have the same "rights" in my game, as a "white" guy.

I mean if it fits the story I'm writing, a coloured guy or girl would be the main character, same as I would use an elf or demon or a children eating dragon with a crush on a Dwarf King, if that's what fits the story.

In my current game, a important member of the team is a coloured guy, he is intended to be the healer, (He comes from a tropical area, where the monks and priests spend a lot of time outside praying and meditating to the sun god, hence his colour) the team enters a underground world, where everyone is a shade of pale.

In the beginning I was thinking of having the underground dwellers, treating the coloured guy differently, as a more mysteriously and exotic stranger, as it felt a little more real for the story, while it felt more real, I didn't feel it added anything to the story, and everyone is treated as strangers from the "over world" and viewed with mistrust.

Also again, if I want any form of "racism" or minority's presented in my games, I use fairytale creatues, like Elves, Orcs etc.

I think it's hard to please everyone, so personally I'm not trying, but I would have to look at myself in the mirror, and I wouldn't be able to do that, if I made the world and story I'm creating, be insensitive to a real world minority, just because of that.

If a coloured guy is the main hero of my story, and his twin brother is the main villain, it makes sense he get the same skin colour, but I wouldn't want to make the main villain "black" just because of the colour.

Edit:

Furthermore I wouldn't have any issues playing a game where the main character is of one minority or another, but I would have issues with games that have some form of racism directed at real world minorities, just because they are a real world minority.

An example: The Hero (a coloured guy) isn't welcome at a bar because of his skin colour I think is wrong, but him not being welcome because he didn't pay his bar tap, he supported the wrong guy at a earlier event in the game, or he was part of a bar fight last week, or something else entirely, I think, if it works with the story it's fine.

Or the main guy in a game is an Orc, and he isn't welcome at a Elven bar, just because he's an Orc, I'm actually fine with, since as a player I don't see it as directed at a real world minority.

(If the story is all about that, I would find it a little shallow, and probably not interesting enough, but that's a different debate.)

 

[Matseb2611]

I get where you're coming from, but the need for procreation does not inherently imply heterosexuality. A gay man can still be gay and end up having sex with a woman to have a child--same with a lesbian and another man, it's happened plenty in our world's own history. I'm still not seeing how predominant homosexuality would be so unbelievable.

It happens, but a species would not evolve like that. The reason we enjoy sex is because by nature we evolved to enjoy it, because it's important for our survival. If we could genuinely reproduce some other way, then heterosexuality will not be so common and we'd instead enjoy this other thing that helps us procreate. As I said, you CAN build your society out of species that are predominantly homosexual and for it to make sense, but this would not make much sense for your standard fantasy setting where the only way people procreate is via sex between a man and a woman.

 

[Clord]

Ironically, many publishers and what not are too afraid not to be politically correct. So they entirely brush it under the rug by playing "all white" card with optional black and/or other colors.


It's kind of stupid how big wuss fans made when Ghostbusters 3 team was announced to be all women, yet nobody sees issue when they were all male? So people went to stuff like, two of them should be men etc.

 

[Dragnfly]

(geez. Took me so long to write this while cooking that other replies showed up. Sorry if this seems out of place)
Ghostbusters being all male, all female, half male, half female or robots makes no difference to me. Having one in a wheelchair (yeah, that one) was a bit of a stretch because of their job. As the son of a paraplegic I understand this well and even my mom said they shoehorned it in to be PC. Similarly I'm currently playing Capella's Promise (so far really good) and the default party archer is in a wheelchair. Akin to Stephen King's Dark Tower series, you need to pay careful attention to stuff like that and how much of a pain it is to navigate certain terrain, and stealth goes completely out the window (thus hurting the whole archer thing a bit).

(now for what I was initially meaning to write)
I wouldn't think twice about using a black guy as a villain if it fits the character design I'm aiming for. One of my villains is clearly Asian-looking (despite no actual Asia in the game) and he's purely that way because, in my artist's design process he just look better in that outfit if he looked Asian. I also have a character who looks black (despite the lack of Africa) and he's that way because he has very thick hair and we decided it didn't look good when he was light-skinned.

One of the most fascinating things you can look at is the different drafts made for characters in a game. Quite often you see them change race and usually the change in skin tone and facial features is following a change in wardrobe. They changed the clothes, white surfer dude didn't look right in them anymore so now he's Jamaican.

It's true that "race doesn't define what you can wear" but it sure does effect how it looks on you. I absolutely adore east indan and traditional chinese clothing, among others. But I've worn one of those soft chinese shirts with the loop buttons and white cuffs and I looked really out of place in it, likely for being a tall bear-shaped white man. My girlfriend at the time tried on a cheongsam and my jaw hit the floor it looked so goods on her, really bringing out an upper-class air. I tried on a boubou and a dashiki(?) it was unanimous that I looked good in them. Sad that I couldn't keep them.

So race might not define clothing and clothing might not define race but the two are certainly connected both by our world views (japanese women looking more natural in a kimono than say a black woman because kimonos are from japan) and by our general view of colours and features. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 

[trouble time]

Ironically, many publishers and what not are too afraid not to be politically correct. So they entirely brush it under the rug by playing "all white" card with optional black and/or other colors.

It's kind of stupid how big wuss fans made when Ghostbusters 3 team was announced to be all women, yet nobody sees issue when they were all male? So people went to stuff like, two of them should be men etc.

The issue isn't because it's an all women team, it's because it WAS an all men team and NOW it's an all women team. If that makes sense. 

On the subject of black villian's well, I for one would be all for seeing a black villian as long as the implication isn't "all black people are evil" or "he's evil because he's black" the guy in my profile picture is the antagonist of part 6 of Jojo's Bizarre Adventure and probably my favorite antagonist out of all of them.

 

[Warpmind]

Ironically, many publishers and what not are too afraid not to be politically correct. So they entirely brush it under the rug by playing "all white" card with optional black and/or other colors.

It's kind of stupid how big wuss fans made when Ghostbusters 3 team was announced to be all women, yet nobody sees issue when they were all male? So people went to stuff like, two of them should be men etc.

From what I can see - there was no issue with the Ghostbusters being all male... in the 1980s. The characters would largely seem... unrealistic simply genderbent; Egon Spengler and Peter Venkman in particular. Ray Stantz *might* work as a woman (basically being the person bullied into mortgaging their home to bankroll the enterprise), and I'll admit, I can totally see Winona Zeddmore played by Whoopi Goldberg.

I was horribly sceptical of the new Ghostbusters film when the "all-female cast" thing was announced... until it was stated that this looks more like a "next generation" sort of thing, rather than a reboot, at which point it's cool.

If the Ghostbusters franchise were to be started today, though, they'd justifiably earn some scorn for an all-male team (except for the female secretary, which would be considered even MORE backwards and chauvinist by a number of critics), and an all-female team would probably also be unfairly harshly condemned as some variety of "reverse sexism" or something.

Feel free to call me cynical for that observation, by the way.

But yes, a lot of the current crop of publishers are somewhat... stuck in the not-too-distant past. Give it, say, ten years, and the then-current crop of publishers will probably be considered backwards for making all the main characters "so dreadfully 2010's" as opposed to including the harassed minorities of 2025.

It'll always be thus, I fear - big-name publishers will generally be a bit conservative in what they put out on the market; so long as their tried-and-true formula sells and doesn't get them sued over some perceived or real slight, there's no real financial incentive to try something new and daring. That is left to the Indies, who don't have a big brand name to risk, after all...