Bioware dev talks about misogyny, racism and homophobia in games

[artemicion]

I'm not against the message, just the way it was presented. The message wasn't "gays are normal." The message was: "Hey player! Cortez is Gay! You absolutely have to know this whether you care or not! And you know what? He acts normal! So gay people are normal too! Isn't learning great? /The more you know..." So either they thought gay gamers were too dumb to go through all the romance options, or they were commentating.

Dude, did you complain when Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhuru kissed? Because I'm pretty sure they were doing the same thing in Star Trek. "Hey! Cpt. Kirk is white and Lt. Uhuru is black and they can kiss and the world won't explode." Or "Hey! Sulu is Asian and in the future Asians can do things besides build railroads and own dry cleaners." Or "Hey! Geordi is black and he's an ENGINEER! Black people can engineer. /mindblown" "Cpt. Janeway is a captain AND a woman!"

To me, yes, Cortez being gay was probably deliberate to show that, in the futuristic Mass Effect universe, people got "over" certain types of discrimination that are social issues being tackled in the present. To me, it's an homage to Star Trek, which did the same thing.

 

[irishScott]

Dude, did you complain when Captain Kirk and Lt. Uhuru kissed? Because I'm pretty sure they were doing the same thing in Star Trek. "Hey! Cpt. Kirk is white and Lt. Uhuru is black and they can kiss and the world won't explode." Or "Hey! Sulu is Asian and in the future Asians can do things besides build railroads and own dry cleaners." Or "Hey! Geordi is black and he's an ENGINEER! Black people can engineer. /mindblown" "Cpt. Janeway is a captain AND a woman!"

To me, yes, Cortez being gay was probably deliberate to show that, in the futuristic Mass Effect universe, people got "over" certain types of discrimination that are social issues being tackled in the present. To me, it's an homage to Star Trek, which did the same thing.

Yes, and it's just as pretentious and condescending as Star Trek gets from time to time. The difference is Star Trek is a TV show, with any TV show there's a tacit acceptance that you're consuming someone else's story, that's the nature of the activity. In an RPG you're supposed to be making the story at least partially your own; particularly in a game like Mass Effect that was supposed to emphasize personal choice. Bioware, in their infinite artistic integrity, saw fit to break that immersion to say "oh hey player! In the off chance that you're a complete homophobe, here's a quick lesson on how normal gay people are whether you wanted it or not!" It's like someone calling time out in a game of ultimate frisbee to preach about gay rights for 30 seconds. I never cared if Cortez was gay, the same way I never cared that Janeway was a woman when I watched Voyager as a kid; yet Bioware saw fit to break my immersion and shove it in my face, just in case. Worst part was the commentary was completely worthless. If you're going to break my immersion at least do it for something of value.

The irony is my getting ticked for 15 seconds over an immersion-breaking sequence in a video game is spawning OUTRAGE ON THE INTERNET! Film at 11....

 

[irishScott]

By not beating around the bush and establishing his character right away? A bit player that people might not even deal with that much in between missions because outside of befriending him or making him an SO he doesn't really push the story? That's being preachy? Part of the reason Kaiden has to be prodded has to do with the fact that he was a straight option for Femshep in the first game so its almost a retcon. They just realized that Straight males Shepards and most Femsheps (played straight or gay) probably killed Kaiden off. So they tweeked his story and that meant taking a character that didn't admit to being gay in the first game and getting him to admit it in the third. That should and apparently did take some prodding.

But they didn't establish it right away. You went on a few missions before you make that particular discovery, which is deliberate manipulation on Bioware's part to make the commentary more blatant. The idea being that you "bond" with Cortez as the badass shuttle pilot who bails you out of bad situations, then discover that this badass is gay; with the apparent assumption that a decent number of players will go "A gay person being a badass shuttle pilot?! NO WAI!" or something equally stupid.

You want realism? A military officer such as Cortez would never take a personal message like that in public, at the very least he would have turned the volume WAY down and done his best to keep it private, or used headphones; Shepard should never have overheard it in the first place. But that would interfere with Bioware's lame commentary.

 

[irishScott]

is it a different message than the one sent by the legions of characters across video games who mention their opposite-sex partners, though? playing World of Warcraft, I never thought the hunt for Mankrik's wife was trying to make a comment about heterosexual marriage.

And if Cortez had just "mentioned" his husband, you know, when asked or when the context was appropriate, I wouldn't mind. Hell put his husband in a mission, make us go rescue him, make it a good mission with serious meaning to the plot and have them kiss at the end. I'd infinitely prefer that, that's valid character development and plot advancement, with the potential for substantial commentary.

Forcing me into an unrealistic cutscene that lures me into a conversation that just condescendingly screams "Cortez is gay! And normal!" the whole time and then stops is just a minute long condescending PSA about gay rights inserted into my entertainment.

 

[cmdrdredd]

And if Cortez had just "mentioned" his husband, you know, when asked or when the context was appropriate, I wouldn't mind. Hell put his husband in a mission, make us go rescue him, make it a good mission with serious meaning to the plot and have them kiss at the end. I'd infinitely prefer that, that's valid character development and plot advancement, with the potential for substantial commentary.

Forcing me into an unrealistic cutscene that lures me into a conversation that just condescendingly screams "Cortez is gay! And normal!" the whole time and then stops is just a minute long condescending PSA about gay rights inserted into my entertainment.

The other thing is that, if I remember correctly, they basically give you two choices after this conversation. You can hug him and begin a gay relationship or just leave him be. Awkward doesn't begin to describe that pause after he stopped talking to me and I was looking at my dialog options.

 

[artemicion]

Yes, and it's just as pretentious and condescending as Star Trek gets from time to time. The difference is Star Trek is a TV show, with any TV show there's a tacit acceptance that you're consuming someone else's story, that's the nature of the activity. In an RPG you're supposed to be making the story at least partially your own; particularly in a game like Mass Effect that was supposed to emphasize personal choice. Bioware, in their infinite artistic integrity, saw fit to break that immersion to say "oh hey player! In the off chance that you're a complete homophobe, here's a quick lesson on how normal gay people are whether you wanted it or not!" It's like someone calling time out in a game of ultimate frisbee to preach about gay rights for 30 seconds. I never cared if Cortez was gay, the same way I never cared that Janeway was a woman when I watched Voyager as a kid; yet Bioware saw fit to break my immersion and shove it in my face, just in case. Worst part was the commentary was completely worthless. If you're going to break my immersion at least do it for something of value.

The irony is my getting ticked for 15 seconds over an immersion-breaking sequence in a video game is spawning OUTRAGE ON THE INTERNET! Film at 11....

TBH, you haven't spawned OUTRAGE ON THE INTERNET, it's more like, you spawned a crowd of vaguely curious people watching one guy having a public spasm about something most people see as a non-issue... The crowd attempts to talk sense into this man, and seeing their efforts are futile, move on with their lives.

 

[irishScott]

TBH, you haven't spawned OUTRAGE ON THE INTERNET, it's more like, you spawned a crowd of vaguely curious people watching one guy having a public spasm about something most people see as a non-issue... The crowd attempts to talk sense into this man, and seeing their efforts are futile, move on with their lives.

Well then we clearly have a failure to communicate. I thought I was engaged in a logical debate over the meaning, context and presentation of a fictional character's gayness; originally spawned from my use of this character as an example of obnoxious, useless political correctness commentary shoe-horned into a video game.

Hell my original point could be summed up as "If you're going to commentate about stereotypes, social issues, etc, don't do it like Cortez in ME3". Apparently a lot of people here have serious issues with that statement and me personally for making it.

 

[darkewaffle]

And if Cortez had just "mentioned" his husband, you know, when asked or when the context was appropriate, I wouldn't mind. Hell put his husband in a mission, make us go rescue him, make it a good mission with serious meaning to the plot and have them kiss at the end. I'd infinitely prefer that, that's valid character development and plot advancement, with the potential for substantial commentary.

I don't know how it progresses if you don't talk to him exactly (or where/when else it may be learned), but this is basically the first time Shep meets Cortez and it's revealed when you inquire about his family right around the three-minute mark, it comes about quite naturally.

If the first time you find out is when he's listening to/watching the recording of his husband's death, it's a little awkward walking into something you would expect to be private like that but Cortez's reaction (or lack thereof) means he's willing to (or maybe even looking for) someone to simply talk about it with. That's a pretty typical part of the grieving process.

 

[nageov3t]

Well then we clearly have a failure to communicate. I thought I was engaged in a logical debate over the meaning, context and presentation of a fictional character's gayness; originally spawned from my use of this character as an example of obnoxious, useless political correctness commentary shoe-horned into a video game.

Hell my original point could be summed up as "If you're going to commentate about stereotypes, social issues, etc, don't do it like Cortez in ME3". Apparently a lot of people here have serious issues with that statement and me personally for making it.

that seems fair enough. I've never played ME3, so I can't comment on the specific scenario.

but typically when devs talk about introducing LGB characters into video games, there usually seems to be a backlash against it because it's somehow a "statement" to make characters non-heterosexual or it's suddenly introducing sexuality into the game when we've already got decades of games featuring straight romances uneventfully.

 

[Topweasel]

The other thing is that, if I remember correctly, they basically give you two choices after this conversation. You can hug him and begin a gay relationship or just leave him be. Awkward doesn't begin to describe that pause after he stopped talking to me and I was looking at my dialog options.

And this is why as a straight guy I play a Lesbian Femshep. I never had to deal with that awkwardness. I did run into an issue with Jacob in the 2nd game where I had to tell him to back off not noticing that my earlier friendliness had put me in that path. So I guess social awkwardness regarding possible inter game pairings in unavoidable.

I am not saying that Bioware handled this correctly. But as an RPG where you can be of any ethnicity of human they wanted, specially as they felt safer including, to make sure they had all four major sexual orientations covered. Cortez was the easy route gay male option you find out earlier that he is gay, you comfort him, eventually the two get it on. If you didn't find out pretty early that he was gay, for people who breeze through the game, it might be easy miss this easy unlock. That's the way they always have been, some characters you practically trip over their willingness to bang you, some you have to smooth talk, some need to be liquored up.

Maybe the big issue is that we have given Bioware to much of a pass on the bad parts of their writing, because of the amount of content and their overall epic story. If anything the OG ending to 3 should prove that they aren't infallible and that what some think is some big huge social commentary is really just poor writing and execution. Maybe next time they try to write a gay male character they should bring Yaoi writer to clean it up a bit.

 

[cmdrdredd]

And this is why as a straight guy I play a Lesbian Femshep. I never had to deal with that awkwardness. I did run into an issue with Jacob in the 2nd game where I had to tell him to back off not noticing that my earlier friendliness had put me in that path. So I guess social awkwardness regarding possible inter game pairings in unavoidable.

I am not saying that Bioware handled this correctly. But as an RPG where you can be of any ethnicity of human they wanted, specially as they felt safer including, to make sure they had all four major sexual orientations covered. Cortez was the easy route gay male option you find out earlier that he is gay, you comfort him, eventually the two get it on. If you didn't find out pretty early that he was gay, for people who breeze through the game, it might be easy miss this easy unlock. That's the way they always have been, some characters you practically trip over their willingness to bang you, some you have to smooth talk, some need to be liquored up.

Maybe the big issue is that we have given Bioware to much of a pass on the bad parts of their writing, because of the amount of content and their overall epic story. If anything the OG ending to 3 should prove that they aren't infallible and that what some think is some big huge social commentary is really just poor writing and execution. Maybe next time they try to write a gay male character they should bring Yaoi writer to clean it up a bit.

Well the real problem for me is there wasn't a middle ground option. You either embrace him or ignore him. There wasn't any option for a man to man conversation about how dealing with it makes you stronger etc. Which would have also made sense seeing as they were both soldiers.

 

[smackababy]

Well the real problem for me is there wasn't a middle ground option. You either embrace him or ignore him. There wasn't any option for a man to man conversation about how dealing with it makes you stronger etc. Which would have also made sense seeing as they were both soldiers.

And that is the problem. It is either "man up and stop crying!" or "let's start a romantic relationship together, despite that your husband just died!" There was no middle ground of growing a better friendship or a stronger commander / subordinate bond. "I want you to follow me into near certain death, but I don't give a shit about your feelings or family life unless I'm trying to sleep with you!"


The biggest problem I have with gay characters in Bioware game's is that they make that their defining characteristic. If being gay (or straight) is what defines you as a person, you're incredibly boring and shouldn't be in a game. Had they simply made a character like Joker gay, it would have been perfectly fine. You discover, upon dialog options after he is more trusting of you, that he is gay. His character doesn't need a sexuality attached to it to make it him a likable or necessary character.



And the issue and options with Cortez really highlights Bioware's problem: they don't understand what grey area means. They either have it all black or all white (or, in most cases where there is supposed to be a grey area, both sides are all black...).

 

[thedosbox]

Well then we clearly have a failure to communicate. I thought I was engaged in a logical debate over the meaning, context and presentation of a fictional character's gayness;

It's ironic you're complaining about how that message was presented when you're throwing around loaded phrases like "pretentious and condescending", "shallow social commentary", "politically correct", and "bandwagon rainbow-flag-waving fluff".

All over something that affected your enjoyment for a few seconds.

 

[irishScott]

It's ironic you're complaining about how that message was presented when you're throwing around loaded phrases like "pretentious and condescending", "shallow social commentary", "politically correct", and "bandwagon rainbow-flag-waving fluff".

All over something that affected your enjoyment for a few seconds.

Huh? Pretty sure you're not using "ironic" correctly. So to be clear, you find fault with my commentary's presentation, specifically the semantics of my terminology, and find it hypocritical that I'm complaining about someone else's commentary's presentation? All right, I concede to your semantic tastes. My commentary about the content and the factual meaning of all of those terms you quoted still stands.

It is interesting that your first entry into this discussion is simply to argue semantics. I strike a nerve?

 

[thedosbox]

Huh? Pretty sure you're not using "ironic" correctly. So to be clear, you find fault with my commentary's presentation, specifically the semantics of my terminology, and find it hypocritical that I'm complaining about someone else's commentary's presentation? All right, I concede to your semantic tastes. My commentary about the content and the factual meaning of all of those terms you quoted still stands.

I'm pointing out the way you've presented your "message" contradicts your claims of "logical debate".

It is interesting that your first entry into this discussion is simply to argue semantics. I strike a nerve?

It is obvious you haven't been reading the thread.

 

[Topweasel]

Well the real problem for me is there wasn't a middle ground option. You either embrace him or ignore him. There wasn't any option for a man to man conversation about how dealing with it makes you stronger etc. Which would have also made sense seeing as they were both soldiers.

like I said one of the perks of Femshep. I got to let him basically cry on my shoulder without starting a relationship. But how is this any different from nearly locking myself into a relationship with Jacob by just having a friendly non superior conversation with him? At most that was my second conversation with him. While I admit that starting relationship while he is crying about his husband's death is weak. But its not the first time in ME that the blue conversation choice early in the game jump started a relationship.

I can't get worked up about the so called gay social agenda of Cortez when while not exactly a duplicate of any character, fills the mold of allowed significant others in their games. Specially when compared to other side characters that you can romance. Then again it would hypocritical of me to get worked up about that when his female counterpart in Traynor one of my favorites.

 

[Wardawg1001]

One of the saddest things I saw was when I recently watched Neil Druckman, the creative lead for The Last of Us come out and give this big long keynote speech and eventually he got around to talking about how originally his vision for the story and setting was that the infection only effected women, and the game was going to be called "Mankind" at that time. Several of the female employees at Naughty Dog told him that it was "misogynistic" and he said he resisted that for a long time and then came around to agreeing. He even talked about how he wanted the industry to be less misogynistic as his young daughter grows up and plays games... oh brother.

Now, The Last of Us turned out fantastically regardless.

So, some female co-workers had their voices heard and impacted a change in a game. Said game turned out to be fantastic. Therefore a travesty has occurred?

Seriously though, I get your sentiment. A person should have the creative license to design whatever game/world they want. I agree completely.

But I think you are making some ridiculous leaps in logic within your arguments. First, you and I have NO idea what really caused these female employees to label the game misogynistic. I'll never believe for a minute that the only problem these employees had with the game was that it featured a disease that had wiped out most of the female population. We don't know what the whole game world was like, what characters had been developed, what other story elements had been white boarded, what dialogue had been scripted, etc, etc, etc. Now, that said, we also don't know if the real complaints about misogyny had any validity behind them either. We also don't know what the game would have turned out like had he stuck to his original design. It could have been a flop.

What we do know is that certain elements of the game design were changed as a result of the input of some female coworkers, and we got a great game out of it. I really love this part so I'm gonna quote it again.

Now, The Last of Us turned out fantastically regardless.

I love your use of 'regardless'. It implies that the developer was able to overcome the whiny feminist complaints to make a great game, while simultaneously discrediting the possibility that the changes made as a result of said complaints might have actually resulted in a better game.

 

[irishScott]

I'm pointing out the way you've presented your "message" contradicts your claims of "logical debate".



It is obvious you haven't been reading the thread.

Logical debate and civil debate are two different things. I can call something "fucking stupid" and still be logically accurate.

As for that linked post, when I said "this discussion" I meant the discussion between me and the other posters, which you were not a part of until just now.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Just look at modern games depicting any given battle. Historically a lot of famous battles were won and lost exclusively by straight white males. But even mindless shooters like Gears of War and near-non-existant campaigns like Titanfall's inevitably have at least one black guy thrown in.

Um, what? So I guess we're just pretending that historically only European countries had wars. No wars in Africa, no wars in Asia, no wars between Native Americans, etc. There have been plenty of societies throughout history that did not discriminate against gays in the military either. Some even encouraged it.

 

[thedosbox]

Logical debate and civil debate are two different things. I can call something "fucking stupid" and still be logically accurate.

To someone who considers value judgements "logical"? Sure.

As for that linked post, when I said "this discussion" I meant the discussion between me and the other posters, which you were not a part of until just now.

I wouldn't call you getting defensive over people calling you out a "discussion". But hey, I'm sure you're having fun.