Frustrating relative lack of LGBT NPCs in this game

[LaughingBanana]

That's clearly what she thinks. You nailed it. /s

The idea that LGBT representation as "Western Idea" is idiotic though.

What does that even mean. That LGBT representation is something that Japanese people, companies, etc, shouldn't be concerned about? Eh, nah.

And if people are not comfortable speaking about this, they should take time to reflect and ask themselves why is that.

[CazzT]

The idea that LGBT representation as "Western Idea" is idiotic though.

What does that even mean. That LGBT representation is something that Japanese people, companies, etc, shouldn't be concerned about? Eh, nah.

And if people are not comfortable speaking about this, they should take time to reflect and ask themselves why is that.

NO company should be concerned about it unless that is their focus. SquareEnix makes games. They aren't a company founded, or focusing, on LGBT issues. Stop shoving your politics into everything and everywhere it has no place to be. It only results in the destruction of the company and causing division in the community, with anyone not agreeing with you being label -ists, -isms, and -phobes.
Stop it!

Also, being comfortable about talking about it or not is completely irrelevant. THIS IS A GAME FORUM! If you want "talk" about this stuff, go to Twitter. You'll find plenty of people who will reinforce your echo chamber about it there.

[WhiteArchmage]

NO company should be concerned about it unless that is their focus. SquareEnix makes games. They aren't a company founded, or focusing, on LGBT issues. Stop shoving your politics into everything and everywhere it has no place to be.

Ah, yes, the FAMOUSLY apolitical SquareEnix, who donated to Black Lives Matter months ago, who made SEVERAL games about taking down an authoritarian empire, whose game that YOU'RE playing is FILLED with politics: including the dangers of authoritarianism, the plight of political refugees, class disparity, race discrimination, ACTUALLY has LGB characters and options for player characters...

Gosh, politics have NO room in a SquareEnix game, not when 7 had a clear anti-pollution, anti-monopoly message, or every Yasumi Matsuno game ever (Yoshi-P's a big fan of Matsuno btw); Matsuno, who literally based his games on the Yugoslav War (Ogre Battle/Tactics Ogre). No, damn, Politics have NO room in video games.

(Note: I know this is a troll thread but this is just willful ignorance. People don't actually CARE when games get political, they just get mad when it's not THEIR views)

[Driavna]

Ah, yes, the FAMOUSLY apolitical SquareEnix, who donated to Black Lives Matter months ago, who made SEVERAL games about taking down an authoritarian empire, whose game that YOU'RE playing is FILLED with politics: including the dangers of authoritarianism, the plight of political refugees, class disparity, race discrimination, ACTUALLY has LGB characters and options for player characters...

Gosh, politics have NO room in a SquareEnix game, not when 7 had a clear anti-pollution, anti-monopoly message, or every Yasumi Matsuno game ever (Yoshi-P's a big fan of Matsuno btw); Matsuno, who literally based his games on the Yugoslav War (Ogre Battle/Tactics Ogre). No, damn, Politics have NO room in video games.

(Note: I know this is a troll thread but this is just willful ignorance. People don't actually CARE when games get political, they just get mad when it's not THEIR views)

I don't agree with you. I care when is no longer a work of art but propaganda. Art is open to my interpretation, while propaganda hammer the point home to ensure I recieve a very specific message.

[WhiteArchmage]

I don't agree with you. People care when is no longer a work of art but propaganda.

Art is open to interpretation while propaganda hammer the point home to ensure the viewer receive the message.

Way to miss the point. Of the critical and audience favorites we have games that are VERY political: Persona 5, Bioshock, the whole Metal Gear Solid series (in which Kojima will stop the game for 30 minutes to give a "War is Bad" lecture each game), InFamous (government overreach), Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines (the first, it takes A LOT of potshots at the Bush administration), The first The Last of Us (the whole quarantine zones, firefly rebellion, Tommy's independent settlement), and, again, this very game (Literal Shadow conspiracy pulling the threads of governments for millenia).

And people's tolerance for what stops being "art" and starts being "propaganda" is very different. If you don't agree with something, seeing it represented makes you yell "propaganda" or "indoctrination", but if you agree with it, it's "accurate representation". Heck, art is deeply political by itself, seeing as how writers and playwrights had to make nice with their sponsors (usually kings or nobility) to get funds or simply not be killed (see: all of Shakespeare's plays around the kings of Britain).

[Driavna]

Way to miss the point. Of the critical and audience favorites we have games that are VERY political: Persona 5, Bioshock, the whole Metal Gear Solid series (in which Kojima will stop the game for 30 minutes to give a "War is Bad" lecture each game), InFamous (government overreach), Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines (the first, it takes A LOT of potshots at the Bush administration), The first The Last of Us (the whole quarantine zones, firefly rebellion, Tommy's independent settlement), and, again, this very game (Literal Shadow conspiracy pulling the threads of governments for millenia).

And people's tolerance for what stops being "art" and starts being "propaganda" is very different. If you don't agree with something, seeing it represented makes you yell "propaganda" or "indoctrination", but if you agree with it, it's "accurate representation". Heck, art is deeply political by itself, seeing as how writers and playwrights had to make nice with their sponsors (usually kings or nobility) to get funds or simply not be killed (see: all of Shakespeare's plays around the kings of Britain).

Why you are assuming a lot of stuff about me for no apparent reason?

This is my way of thinking: when is so "in your face" or "the message we are trying to send is more important than everything else" I no longer find it enjoyable. That's why I never liked those religious cartoons when I was a kid. Is also why I like The Orville (even when they also have some episodes that are somewhat in your face too. For example, I did not like how they handle "social media bad" with a certain episode, even if I agree with their point of view.) but dislike any of the recent Star Trek stuff.

[Melichoir]

Ah, yes, the FAMOUSLY apolitical SquareEnix, who donated to Black Lives Matter months ago, who made SEVERAL games about taking down an authoritarian empire, whose game that YOU'RE playing is FILLED with politics: including the dangers of authoritarianism, the plight of political refugees, class disparity, race discrimination, ACTUALLY has LGB characters and options for player characters...

Gosh, politics have NO room in a SquareEnix game, not when 7 had a clear anti-pollution, anti-monopoly message, or every Yasumi Matsuno game ever (Yoshi-P's a big fan of Matsuno btw); Matsuno, who literally based his games on the Yugoslav War (Ogre Battle/Tactics Ogre). No, damn, Politics have NO room in video games.

(Note: I know this is a troll thread but this is just willful ignorance. People don't actually CARE when games get political, they just get mad when it's not THEIR views)

There is a fundamental difference between broad socio political points that are innate to the human experience over generations (I.E evil authoritarians and conflict between two kingdoms/countries over broad differences in belief) and purposefully shoe horning in contemporary political issues that wont age well.

To illustrate this, it would be really out of place if all of a sudden there was an event in game specifically about police brutality (guard brutality?) against darker skinned Hyurs and that the NPCs start talking about Guard Reform and racial justice for Darker skinned Hyurs.

It would be out of place and context for the universe and it's already established lore. It would be tacky and distasteful. If you want to incorporate contemporary politics into a piece of media, you dont brute force it. You carefully weave it via allegory so that it fits within an exisiting narrative without being so brazenly in your face. Furthermore, most times when politics are incorporated into moral tales, they tend to be broad ones that are universal. I.E - Being an authoritarian jerkwad who oppresses people cause theyre different is kind of universal nono. Again, to illustrate an example of what wouldnt work is if you all of a sudden had a 1:1 analog for, I dunno, US Conservatives where theyre portrayed evilly and outlandishly and the good and pure US Progressive fights to stop their evil. That kind of shoe horning becomes propaganda, because it is designed to sell one viewpoint without nuance or tact. This doesnt mean that the other viewpoint is correct, but that to blatently take a black and white view point that specifically props up one contemporary political side or agenda isnt typically welcome.

Thats what people mean by keep your politics out of games. They dont want to have debates over nuanced specific contemporary politics in a piece of fantasy escapism because we get enough of that in real life as it were, not everything needs to be about contemporary politics, and I would say 90% of hte time when it's done in media its a ham fisted one sided propagandist mess that fails to actually fairly or truthfully address issues. This is double so when the media just slaps you in teh face with it bluntly and disparages you overtly for having a viewpoint that may not be universal or has nuance.

[WhiteArchmage]

Thats what people mean by keep your politics out of games. They dont want to have debates over nuanced specific contemporary politics in a piece of fantasy escapism because we get enough of that in real life as it were, not everything needs to be about contemporary politics, and I would say 90% of hte time when it's done in media its a ham fisted one sided propagandist mess that fails to actually fairly or truthfully address issues. This is double so when the media just slaps you in teh face with it bluntly and disparages you overtly for having a viewpoint that may not be universal or has nuance.

I agree with your earlier points (although I still hold that a great deal of literature that has survided to our days is itself political: Richard III, Don Juan, the Divine Comedy, the Aeneid... the only thing is we now lack the political CONTEXT of them), however I will draw from my experience (which, I know, anecdotal evidence) that when people say "keep your politics out of my game" it tends to be towards inclusionary measures such as "We have added a completely optional female main character", "We added a trans character, who only outright says they're trans via a specific dialogue tree", "there are now same-sex couples in the game" and are met with the reactionary "keep your politics out of my games".

I won't contest that there ARE ham-fisted ways to do so (the ending of BlackKklansman, or the entirety of Birth of a Nation, and Citizen Kane wasn't shy about the titular character being a stand-in for Senator McCarthy), but (and I'm not saying that YOU'VE said this, but others, including the poster I was originally responding to, certainly have), but when "keeping politics out of games" is used as a stand-in for "keep people that I don't want to see in my games out of them" THEN I have a problem.

[Melichoir]

I agree with your earlier points (although I still hold that a great deal of literature that has survided to our days is itself political: Richard III, Don Juan, the Divine Comedy, the Aeneid... the only thing is we now lack the political CONTEXT of them), however I will draw from my experience (which, I know, anecdotal evidence) that when people say "keep your politics out of my game" it tends to be towards inclusionary measures such as "We have added a completely optional female main character", "We added a trans character, who only outright says they're trans via a specific dialogue tree", "there are now same-sex couples in the game" and are met with the reactionary "keep your politics out of my games".

I won't contest that there ARE ham-fisted ways to do so (the ending of BlackKklansman, or the entirety of Birth of a Nation, and Citizen Kane wasn't shy about the titular character being a stand-in for Senator McCarthy), but (and I'm not saying that YOU'VE said this, but others, including the poster I was originally responding to, certainly have), but when "keeping politics out of games" is used as a stand-in for "keep people that I don't want to see in my games out of them" THEN I have a problem.

I fully agree that there are those who have been, for lack of a better word, trained to view certain included topics to be seen as an overtly political (adding a trans character to a game, as an example) by default and that this isnt a fair position to take. However its also just as important to note that there are plenty of creatives who actually do 'hi-jack' an IP or concept to insert their own political beliefs - context to existing narrative be damned. So when you encounter the former, its cause the latter exists as well. I keep an ey eon the media industry and there are plenty of cases where creatives will do something purely for politics or their own 'agenda', even if it is narrative, world, or character breaking to do it. And frankly, if Im going to be blunt, this pisses me off because it is making story and proper development take a backseat so creatives can either virtue signal about some cause they hopped on board with cause its a trend, or to push a political point at the expense of a story, thus creating propaganda in the process.
I think the tactful approach is as I suggested - if you want to incorporate it, do it carefully and through allegory that fits the pre-existing narratives. If you cant make it work, dont include it. Doing hard 180s on characters or making big changes cause "current political topic that the creative is invested in on an emotional personal level" where in its a one sided ham fisted propaganda point isnt acceptable in media and should be rebuked when we encounter it. The key difference, of course, is as long as this is done with some forethought. Meaning, dont knee jerk rebuke the inclusion of a trans character in media as a political agenda. It is possible for creatives to write a story about a character who happens to be trans. If it turns out the creative takes a pre-existing character, warps and breaks them just to make said character trans when it has no contextual meaning to the story at large or the character, and said creative is a big activist on said topic and has openly stated that their intent was solely to create more 'inclusivity' in a pre-existing narrative by making this 'adjustment' (read forced change), then yeah we can push back and say this wasnt appropriate.