I’m confused by the assertion that there is an agenda at all. I’ll take the homosexuality of the lead character, as an example. Homosexuality isn’t unusual. Isn’t more ununusal that it’s so rare in games? This isn’t an agenda, it’s an opportunity to have a narrative niche simply by including a massive segment of the population in a storyline. It’s clever because it feels fresh by default.
I do also feel very strongly that it’s the right thing to do though. Games should represent everyone. If straight males can’t handle playing as a gay female for one superb game, I wonder how they’d feel being a gay female gamer playing 99% of games.
Personally, I like when the character I’m playing as has a different experience/perspective than my own. That’s what makes it interesting. I think most people think that way when it comes to most things, otherwise most games would have main characters that work in offices or in trades...but they don’t, they feature space marines, zombie hunters and organized crime bosses.
The “agenda” seems to be on the other foot, so to speak, here. Why try to criticize the creative license of game makers? Their game, their choices. What’s being represented here is life, not a political agenda. Simply showing ordinary relationships isn’t evidence of an agenda. Is seeing two heterosexuals kiss in a game part of an anti-homosexual agenda? No, obviously not. If you view people living their lives as a political agenda, then your own political agenda has probably gotten the better of you.