Serious question and I say this without any malice: Was the thread starter influenced by the concept of "white guilt"?
The problem I find with this statement is that there is no way to currently know if this character is actually gay. At this point, I feel you're merely projecting on to a character that we know little to nothing about, except that he seems to be the antagonist.
On an unrelated note your edit to the OP isn't exactly going to stifle healthy discussion, it just matches up to me with your unwillingness to address dozens of posters who brought counter-arguments to your position.
For those of you asking why I assume he is gay or what not, I don't.
Antagonist is a bad gay stereotype (which sure some people might be that way IRL), OP doesn't like stereotypes and hopes that this isn't a character based on one.
Because it's colonialism, any depiction of colonialism is racist. That's why I threw out my history textbooks.
Honestly, I really doubt this is true. Not only have we not "lost" any characters to people's public criticism (because there has never been a significant change to a game character as a result of these types of critiques), but it's not like throwing together edgy, offensive characteristics has ever made for a good character. By that reasoning, Postal 2 has excellent story and characters.
Are you trolling right now?
Minimum is one word. Basest is another. Because what can be communicated through a single image is limited, what one should infer from it should be limited. Box arts are not for the NeoGAF demographic. They are for a demographic largely not sympathetic to OP's reservation.See, but they release the box art to evoke an emotion in you: desire. It's supposed to give you a feeling of the games they'll show you in the future and push you towards its purpose. Box art as an image is crafted, they aren't just throwing anything out there. This is Uibsoft saying, "this is the best minimum representation of our upcoming product."
What could you infer from this? America, fuck yea. Shoot the (brown) people maybe, and get the 10/10 girl. Ugh. How offensive and stereotypical. Sure the game was not a success in the end, but that interpretation (totally valid from the still image) is inaccurate. Why? Because the game exists.
But box arts are sometimes like movie trailers. The directors don't always have input. The exist as a disparate entity but can be considered fair game in a holistic analysis. But that can only be done after.Criticizing an image or trailer related to a game is possible, even if those criticisms may not extend to the final product. The content creator released them. If they wanted to show a different tone, they could just as easily release something different. The image is the complete context until Ubisoft decides to release more.
Oh wow, this is how it is going to be from now on? We drum up hysteria over nothing? What for?
Villain Guy wears flashy clothes - game is homophobic
Victim Guy is 1/16th of a shade darker - game is racist
My eyes are rolling so hard they may leave my head.
Leave him out of this.
Obviously we already achieved a perfect utopia in gaming already right. Did you also thing the Miiquality was also disgusting? Just curious.You see this thread, you see the Mario Kart thread, and some people still believe political correctness isn't a cancer?
All the professional whiners of today very obviously never grew up with the story of "The boy who cried wolf", otherwise they would understand why these ideas and clickbaiting nonsense do nothing but to muddy the waters and make matters worse. Disgusting.
Stereotypes are bad. Period.
Straight people aren't stereotyped in movies and video games like gay people are, plain and simple. They have the privilege of being the majority in media and having plenty of representation. When you (mostly) only show gay people as villains or punchlines or stereotypes, that is problematic.
Why is Niko here.
We do it all the time. Trailer --> OMG! Greatest game of all time! Image --> Look at those shots!
That's a large number of threads on GAF. Having a negative reaction isn't really that far out there, especially within the context of our admittedly strong positive reactions.
But of course, how you present your opinions matters as much as the opinions themselves.
If you're just joining me--please read all of my timeline from today! Ignorant white people have been retweeted, immensely! So much hatred!
Nope! Not at all! You cannot be racist to white people!
Are you trolling? Do you go on twitter? Racism and Homophobia funneled to these guys and gals is a given mate. Unless OP is talking about on neogaf. Then yeah I don't think so.Are you trolling right now?
I'm so glad you picked this Veerender Jubbal to help you make a point!
https://twitter.com/Veeren_Jubbal
You pretty much torpedoed your whole point with that clown.
you are the one that is stereotyping here... you are the worst offender right now.
That villain does not look gay at all. Why is he gay, because of the outfit? That seems like very narrowminded.
And since when are gay people shown as villains?
Stereotypes, whether positive or negative are bad in general. Are some gay guys well dressed, into fashion, and "effeminate" acting? Sure. Are they all? No. But the big problem is when you take nearly every part of a stereotype for a gay man and make a character out of it.
I didn't realize I had to get up to date with new and "non-judgemental stereotypes" before I say that something appears to be a potential stereotype.
This has to be a joke/satire thread.
And since when are gay people shown as villains?
Why did you even make this thread?
We know what happened when gaf got upset about the drm thing.
I love the people screaming 'No, YOU are sterotyping!' I'm just rolling in the aisles. False equivalency guys. If Bay creates racist characters, and people point it out, are people on both side sterotyping?
I love the people screaming 'No, YOU are sterotyping!' I'm just rolling in the aisles. False equivalency guys. If Bay creates racist characters, and people point it out, are people on both side sterotyping?
This has to be a joke/satire thread.
What damage and why does the existence of a particular fictional character represent something other than the character itself? If a gay game developer created a flamboyantly gay character, does that somehow make it better or okay? Is there is some line of dialogue a gay writer could write that a straight one could not? If so, fiction wouldn't work, no? What's worse, no gay characters or one you don't approve of? Is the idea of a flamboyantly gay character you disapprove of but one that is memorable, compelling, and liked by fans an impossibility? I'm not trying to gish gallop you, just curious.I don't have a problem with flamboyant gay men, no. I have a problem with externally defined (i.e. made by hetero dudes) flamboyant gay man. That's where my issue lies: non-queer folks making an exaggerated stereotype that potentially does damage to the people it's intended to represent.
Stereotypes are bad. Period.
Straight people aren't stereotyped in movies and video games like gay people are, plain and simple. They have the privilege of being the majority in media and having plenty of representation. When you (mostly) only show gay people as villains or punchlines or stereotypes, that is problematic.
I never said they were bad simply that tropes that portray homosexual or even effeminate men as villains are not uncommon.