-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why women criticise sexualised character designs |OT2| I have no pants and I must scream (READ OP)
- Thread starter Persephone
- Start date
- OT
- Status
Mass effect also lack in the Queer department with the Trans coming out in very bad way and taking queer characteristics to a cis character.
I believe they are referring to the trans woman npc in Andromeda. I never played ME:A so I don't know how prominent of a character they were, but to reveal that she was trans, the writers had her deadname herself.
Unless I'm misremembering there's also a gay character who, if not romanced by Male Ryder, marries a woman because he wants kids.
i think jesse is such a good character and the game/remedy treated her well.Yo, Jesse from Control outfits are pretty good.
edit: and that gold suit is DYNAMITE.
He doesn't marry her. She's his best friend and he donates his sperm for her to have kid and becomes a father - and he does it if romanced as well.
They did actually consult with trans people on that one , and then edited it twice with updates when wider trans community didn't like it to get it right so they did at least listen on that one. They also had a trans actress voice Jien Garson an important lore NPC who featured in the marketing. MEA screwed up in parts for LGBT but they did make more of an effort and fixed it when they screwed up by listening and changing it with patches. Like making Jaal romanceble by male Ryder so gay players had more choice and could do the romance achievement with all gay romances. When you compare it with Assasin's Creed Oddessey where they screwed up and then never really fixed it despite having a much bigger budget for post launch support then MEA had, I'd say it shows they do take it seriously even if they don't always hit the mark. And MEA is better at dealing with minorities than the original Mass Effect triology was, it just wasn't as good as Dragon Age Inquisition.
It's always an excuse whenever another gay or lesbian is butchered in media. Apparently the LGBT community exists to be killed in media.
Hey!
The important thing is that straight people can sit around and talk about how powerful and sad it was. Don't try and take that away from them!
Bury Your Gays is bad but [the example I'm defending] is fine because reasons.
Like, even if it is (and I do hope it is), it still is using that trope for cheap drama points in the trailer.
Yeah, it's disgusting. Especially those who are going "the setting is bleak therefore it's fine". Like, these guys do know that LGBT relationships can be as rocky as straight ones right? You can show an unstable, unhappy LGBT relationship rather than just (allegedly) killing someone off.
Threads like that only further demonstrate that this place isn't well equipped for queer women like myself. 🙃
There is a fairly obvious darkly comedic joke to be made here but for the sake of the people in the thread I won't say it
it's fine, the last of us has great writing, and that's why doing "killing off a female character to make the protagonist sad" for the third time is good, actually
The Asexual thread I made in EcetEra is slightly better but man even that one has some questionable posts. There is just a lack of desire to actually listen to marginalized groups and address them, rather instead coming up with excuses on why they continue those stereotypes in the mediums they work on.
Yep, regardless of the end result even teasing shit like that is disrespectful and in poor taste. Sony/Naughty Dog know what they are doing.
I fucking can't stand that justification.
😬 You have my sympathy for how a thread like that turned out on here. This forum is full of cishet men that are progressive and open minded when it suits them.
I mean, to be fair, the trailer doesn't explicitly spell out anything, and the narrative the viewer constructs is one through omission of meaningful connective tissue showing anything of substance.
Sure, it's possible that Dina is killed. But it's just as possible, given how deceptive the trailer is, what the theme of the game is, that it's Joel who is killed. TLOU1 trailers were deceptive as well.
Is it cool to rely on the viewers expectation of a well trodded trope? Nope, not at all.
But I don't think the game should be critiqued for the trope as if it's a done deal, because it's likely not the case. We also had another (mostly mediocre) game that was criticized for a fridging trope pre-release but it wasn't a thing at all in the actual game.
Sure, it's possible that Dina is killed. But it's just as possible, given how deceptive the trailer is, what the theme of the game is, that it's Joel who is killed. TLOU1 trailers were deceptive as well.
Is it cool to rely on the viewers expectation of a well trodded trope? Nope, not at all.
But I don't think the game should be critiqued for the trope as if it's a done deal, because it's likely not the case. We also had another (mostly mediocre) game that was criticized for a fridging trope pre-release but it wasn't a thing at all in the actual game.
OP
OP
You Foole. You Absolute Buffoone. How can you not see the genius of the writing? It's a post apocalyptic game! They HAVE to kill the lesbians! They have no control over the story or the number of minority characters they include! The cishet white dudes are the victims in all this!!!
I made a post in that thread that addresses this actually. Even if she doesn't die and it's all misdirection, it's like Naughty Dog pretending to slap us and laughing when we flinch.
Why listen to us when they can pretend to know what's best for the marginalized?
I mean, that's fair. I have no intention of defending the trope even being used for marketing purposes.
I simply think there's lots of ambiguity in the trailer to believe that what we are being fed is highly deceptive, and done to mask a simple fact:
That it's Joel who gets shot and killed in the opening.
An important thing to remember about the TLOU discussion is that all we have to go off for the entire game right now is the seeming death of Dina. Right now that represents the totality of The Last Of Us 2 for players because the game is still being marketed.
And as pointed out by numerous posters it is a deliberate decision to frame the trailer around Dina getting shot and that being the motivation for Ellie's rampage.
And as pointed out by numerous posters it is a deliberate decision to frame the trailer around Dina getting shot and that being the motivation for Ellie's rampage.
These dense fools can't get it through their thick skulls that fiction is fiction, and everything that happens in a story is a decision made my those in creative control.
I've been leary of The Last of Us Part II since the interview the writers did at last year's E3 which foreshadowed this.
"We're aware of it, but we're making the best decisions for the story." They know they are probably going to do something harmful but don't care for the sake of the sacred art.https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5k388/the-last-of-us-2-kissing-fridging-interview said:
They don't want to have to write a LGBT relationship though, they just want the attention for including one and then they kill one of them off right away so they don't have to deal with it.
I feel some of this is a bit too extreme. Yes, it's problematic that the trailer vaguely implies Dina dies, but they wrote a relationship in Left Behind. There's easier ways to do token representation than whatever this is.
And then Riley died too, because TLOU was about Joel's man pain.
This is such a mis-assessment of the DLC. Joel isn't even present in the DLC outside of two small scenes. And the DLC focuses entirely on Ellies relationship with Riley and how she feels survivors guilt because she almost didn't want to be immune in such a shitty world.
I'm glad I wasn't the only one smelling something fishy since E3. It sucks to constantly be used to this.
I'm saying that we've already gotten the story of what happens when Ellie's girlfriend dies. Does it need to happen again?
Sure but you could have just seen them as friends and then as soon as the relationship is "confirmed" oops she died.
The jokes about people wanting ally bags write themselves really
Something I've come to realize when it comes to stuff like that or the idea that "offensive jokes were okay back in the day" is that they should come with the addendum of "okay for the majority who have never had to question them."
No, and as I've said, I don't think it's the case. Note how deceptive the trailer is. You only see Dina once out of the camp, and then Ellie calling for her. The gunshot is after the fade to black and all the scenes are out of context. No one is ever shown getting shot, and the games synopsis simply refers to it as an event. Tommy shows up to comfort Ellie rather than Joel and Ellies confused as to why Tommy isn't going out with her.
The games theme is hate, resulting from revenge gone too far. I believe that the trailer is simply hiding the fact that it's Joel who is killed, because that would prompt a tirade of revenge in the way we are seeing in this footage and in the initial reveal. And certainly more so than any other death possible (Dina included).
I'm not saying she didn't die. I'm saying that they wrote a relationship, which is different. A developer messing up on one or two things doesn't mean that suddenly everything they do is god awful shit.
We knew Riley died in the base game. We knew Ellie was suffering from survivors guilt because the person she cared about died in front of her while she's surviving in this miserable world. The usage of a trope doesn't imply that they are unwilling to write a relationship when the entire DLC is based around that relationship.
OP
OP
I'm craughing at the dudes going "well no one complained when they killed all the black characters in TLOU so You Darn Homos have no right to complain!" like. people complained about that then too Kevin. The first game has a woman and POC problem! Some of us have been saying this all along!
What's especially annoying about that "Grimdark" excuse is the idea that the LGBT somehow is against bad things happening to LGBT couples. Which is of course not true. There is a whole boatload of issues that can be shown in LGBT relationships that don't involve one of the two in the relationship off.
And yeah, that thread certainly has some hot takes. There just seems to be this disconnect of actually listening to what marginalized people want and instead thinking their ideas are just as or more valid. Even had a "stop alienating your allies" post which is like, dude, if you're erasing me, your a lousy ally at best.
It's kind of hard to fathom. This is like the most common criticism of Naughty Dog's works, that they are basically the ultimate colonialism simulators with how many nonwhite people the main characters kill or watch die
Did I wake up in one of those mandala effect worlds where the uncharted games don't exist?
As I've stated above while it's all well and good that the trailer might be a fakeout the problem is that:
- All we have to go on right now is a trailer based on the idea that Ellie's revenge is based on the death of Dina.
- As Persephone put it, Naughty Dog is basically pulling a fast one on us if Dina lives, raising their hands to slap us and then laughing when we flinch.
That dude's a tool.
Uh...Craughing? Never heard that before. Looking up though I am in absolute agreement.
Yay! My picture is being shared around!
"Oh, you just want overly perfect minorities who never, ever die."
*links to article about why writing decent non-white/cis/het dudes is Actually Bad For Minorities*
You can't ask, does it need to happen again, and then discount an answer that raises the possibility that it might not happen again, just because it's a point of marketing.
If the criticism is aimed at the marketing, yea, no argument, marketing with the implication of the trope is not cool. But it's not by any means a foregone conclusion.
- Status