Now that FF16 will feature LGBT+ characters, can we get some rep in FF14 too?

[Zanarkand-Ronso]

But why are LGBT+ characters always treated as side characters, and not the mains?

Why do they Need to be mains?
Does Final Fantasy need a game centered around LGBT? Because thats the only reason to make an LGBT Character a Main Character.

If the character HAPPENS to be Gay or such while being a Good character. Cool.
But if being LGBT is the entire focus of their character, then leave them out. It serves no purpose other then to get attention. Which, a videogame should get attention for BEING a Good Game with Good Characters. Or a Movie or a book should get attention for BEING a Good Movie or Book with Good Characters.
Not because it has an LGBT Character, or because of Representation.

[Wingale]

It's ok to have variety in the game, but I have question...
Is it foreced to be in the game?

[Ghost_of_Ebina]

Does FF14 clearly mention that the main characters are heterosexual?

[DontReadThis]

I'll believe it when I see it, but I'm not expecting much from FF16.
There has yet to be a AAA game with a canonically gay male main character whose sexuality is actually represented in-game.

People are perfectly fine with straight romances in all their games, but make the main love interest a man and they suddenly lose their minds, calling it political and claiming it's "forced" and "being shoved down their throats" despite literally everything else about the relationship being identical to a straight one.
Even in this thread, on a forum for a game as LGBT-friendly as FF14, you have people asking for a reason for a character to be LGBT, because for some reason they are the only characters who "need" a compelling reason to justify their existence.

[Velvet_Lunarfang]

LGBT this, LGBT that... how about they focus on just writing a good story. Not score diversity points to appease the Twitter crowd??

I agree I am so sick and tired of hearing about it

[Seraphor]

If the character HAPPENS to be Gay or such while being a Good character. Cool.

There is no winning with this btw.
If you write any kind of romantic arc to their character to actually 'show' their sexuality, it's labelled as too "in your face" and "centred around their sexuality"
If you just 'mention it' without showing it, then it's tokenism or "this character didn't need to be gay, it's unnecessary"
Meanwhile if you don't mention it overtly, it's pandering or queerbaiting, like Dumbledore.

Ultimately there is never a right way to write a LGBT+ character, because if it isn't deemed offensive stereotype by the LGBT+ community, then the self proclaimed majority will always find fault with it.
Minorities are not allowed to be centre stage, it upsets the heteronormatives. We are reminded that queer is not "the norm" and therefore has to be relegated to sidekicks.
It's not allowed to not be an issue, if a queer character exists, there is some kind of problem somewhere, and it is only tolerable if it's easy enough to ignore.

[UkcsAlias]

There is no winning with this btw.

And this is caused by themselve though.

In movies characters were usualy just chosen because they suit their role. Its skill that decided who would take a certain position. Skin and sexual preference were irrelevant for the movies. A gay person does often still show certain things that identify that, but that is a natural way of it being shown.

These days however, movies are often forcing this as a political statement. Pushing politics into something that should be enjoyable is often a bad idea. Stereotyping on that however is a diffirent story (if someone needs to act italian, there are simple tricks to do so, even if the actor is american), its also the reason why bad guys often originate from certain countries, as that country can be used to enforce that. It adds to the story.

But noone can explain me why its realy needed to make a certain character black, gay or whatever when the original film/books/game had good reasons not to do so. It removes immersion for political reasons which is extremely bad. Its made worse by those communities, because they shout about their achievement, making something that might not have been designed to be political, still something that is used like that.

They made it that bad, people just want a basic and simple situation, which means the original standard that was used in movies for a long time, is the standard again. That its a white male... thats just how it is. But i can also already tell that if you would put Samuel L Jackson in a movie, regardless of role people like it, because again: its the actor thats doing the good job. David hasselhoff, no diffirence. Most of the actors in recent movies do their job horribly, and thats why people get sick of it.

[Aword3213]

Ultimately there is never a right way to write a LGBT+ character

To think there's not even a single LGBT writer can create a story of note to represent LGBT. it must be so HARD to get it right.

But we are special. We make demands. And you will cater to us.

[Kazhar]

In movies characters were usualy just chosen because they suit their role. Its skill that decided who would take a certain position. Skin and sexual preference were irrelevant for the movies. A gay person does often still show certain things that identify that, but that is a natural way of it being shown.

When was this? Because the token minority character was already very much a thing in the 80/90s.

People here acting like movies and books were all political-free until 10 years ago...

[Denji]

is there anything more gay than two husbands (thancred and urianger) raising their lesbian daughter who ends up dating a big titty goth gf
(i'm kidding, if you can't tell.)