To answer your question: no, I don't believe Blizzard has said one way or another if they intend to add a transgender hero. As for homosexual characters, considering the fact that Blizzard is currently waging an (utterly futile) war to attempt to erase as much Overwatch porn from the internet as they possibly can, I'd imagine they'd prefer it if no one concerned themselves with the characters' sexuality.
They said something about there being a gay character currently in the roster, or they were working on one in the beta, but they haven't told us which one it is. For all we know, any of the characters could be transgendered/homosexual. I like that they aren't explicit with all of their sexualities.
Why cant there be a wealthy character first?
I'm so tired of being represented as amoral, fat, evildoer who looks down on everyone and lacks any social awareness. Whilst the lowerclass are being portrayed as the opposite despite constantly type-casting us and being guilty of everything they accuse us of
Everyone is saying Lucio is gay and Zarya is trans. Why?
What makes trans more important that people with dwarfism, or blind people, or amputees, or albinos? The list goes on and on.
In an attempt for sjw's to bring balance to everthing where does the line get drawn between total equality and practicality?
What makes some person that decided they didnt want to be the sex they were born with anymore, more important than someone that was born deaf for instance?
Nothing is the answer. Its just impractical to expect anyone to try and place every single ailment, condition or life choice into every single piece of media, which is what sjw's are trying to do.
Seriously, Roadhog is a mega bear that is ramming Junkrat on the down-low, and it's more likely that Symmetra, Widowmaker, or Tracer are MtF. Hell, perhaps theres a FtM trans individual among the male characters, you never know since the technology in Overwatch is so advanced as to create fully-functioning replacement limbs and even bodies, I'm sure reassignment is much easier and more complete than by today's real-world standards. Hell, McCree, Reaper, Junkrat, or even freaking Lucio could be FtM and it'd make sense given the technology in the game's world.
Zarya's all-natural and was born female as far as I see. Masculine features do not equate to maleness. Most trans people today put in a lot of time and effort to pass as their preferred gender, so let's not forget that with the game's level of technology and world's setting, any member of the roster could be LGBT in any combination at a moment's notice and we'd never know unless or until it was confirmed. Ideally I don't want their sexuality and gender identity being made a focal point because that gets heavy-handed and obnoxious. I don't want any chars hitting on each other. Friendly banter and maybe a flirtatious compliment delivered with respect (And ambiguously as to be easily mistaken for just friendliness) goes a helluva lot farther than "OMG I want to touch stuff with you".
Guys, it's clearly Winston. If you have Mercy and Winston in a match Mercy even asks if Winston is having any issues with his genetic therapy, to which he replies 'only a crippling addition to peanut butter'.
what's dictated by your genes? sex! therefore Winston must be the trans character.
This also proves that there's a link between being trans and liking peanutbutter, which must also be genetic, and also means that Mercy is potentially altering the gender and food prefences of every character shi heals / 'boosts'.
#100%completelyandtotallyun-indisputablefacts
Exactly where i was going.
We woulf need a much larger portion of the cast to be a forced game volume mute (add permanent vision through objects) or black screen (but all sounds are much more distinct and noticeable) before we even start to see some trans crap. In the real world, i fully support anyones right to be anything they want to be (if you identify as cat have fun, just dont go to jail for molesting an innocent domestic animal) but there is no reason to be "inclusive" for the sake of inclusivity. That seems much more like a slap in the face to force claim someone is trans rather than having it be something that happens naturally. Especially if they claim one of their already established characters are trans after everyones already gotten used to each others personalities and now they change the dynamic of their interactions.
The more heavy-handed and forward characters' sexuality and gender identity becomes, the closer it comes to them being a token character that's more of a stereotype than a fair representation. You don't want people of color being typecast in subservient or uneducated roles, you most definitely don't want women being weak, frail, and dependent, so why would you want an LGBT character constantly screaming about how special they are because they are/were/going to be something or other and being obnoxious to their peers?
Tasteful and discreet goes a lot farther than gaudy and loud.
Im 38 years old . This is EXACTLY how i feel.
I want gaming to go back to the 90's where the challenge was real, you needed real skills to beat certain games.
Now we have these people playing candy crush taking over our hobby , somehow thinking they have some sort of skills playing blizzard games like overwatch and current day wow and treating them like mobile games.
Its disheartening and very sad.
Unfortunately you can't, not without a partial memory wipe. One of the reasons that games seem easier and easier is due to an ever increasing knowledge and reflex base on the part of the gamer. You start with Doom, take what you learn from that game on to Quake, then Halo, and so on, and sooner or later a game that would have been more complex and required mores kills out of you than Doom had it been released at the same time now feels easier than Doom was way back when.
That's not even getting into how as the years go by your idea of what constitutes skill or difficulty can, and often does, change irrespective of your knowledge base. Back when I started gaming just upping stats as part of the "difficulty" settings was perfectly fine with me. These days they don't really serve to increase game difficulty at all while the only skills they require increased usage of are almost always the ones associated with mitigating the increased stats. IOW, math skills, not game playing skills.
Of course that can be fixed with a partial memory wipe as well.
Honestly I want a character who doesn't fight at all because violence is wrong and studios should stop propagating such content.
Give me a my little pony, and sure make them transgender while at it, who has a moveset that does no damage and sings kumbaya and hakuna matata for right and left click. Maybe wave a sign advocating peace, throw flowers in the air, or give a soft yet warm hug for specials. Im thinking an ulti where the pony talks about its feelings towards the other players sounds pretty nice.
This is probably the real reason why they'll never put a full-throttle LGBT person in the game.
A character like that would be just be an exaggerated caricature of an LGBT person; it would be offensive to the LGBT community at large, because it would misrepresent what a 'normal' LGBT person is for real.
...why (if things like putting in such a character) is so important to some people. Why can you just pick one of the 21 characters in the game already and call them "gay". ....like Lucio (the gay DJ), Mei (who did a lot of "experimenting" in her college years), Zarya who looks like a Dimitry sketch brought to animation....Roadhog, would be excellent choice, quite a juxtaposition.
Make a new game mode as well where all guns shoot marshmallows for no damage and you can't perform melee attacks only hugs and kisses please Blizzard.
So confused with this thinking that all trans people want to be labeled as is that their entire identity is about being trans and everyone has to know about it. A TRUE trans character in any game would be a regular guy or girl that might once give a hint in dialogue or backstory that they were trans, if it even made any difference to their character at all, because thats all trans people are, regular guys and gals that used to be the opposite gender to what they present themselves as now.
Hell, for all we know, Zenyatta might actually be a lesbian female trans-gendered omnic. I mean, I think he's the only omnic character in the entire roster, right? Do they have female ones? Do they look "female" compared to the obvious male ones we've seen?
Plus, as others said, they haven't really gone into many of the various character's backgrounds in great detail, at least when it comes to sexuality, which means it's a nonissue and you can say that the McCree you play is secretly a former woman, or that D.Va is actually a young Korean boy who accomplished his dream of growing up to be a full-fledged pro-gamer woman and mecha pilot.
A game I use as an example - and it's one that people disagree with me on - is Dragon Age Inquisition. A character like Dorian is a character that is defined by his sexuality, and I hate that kind of character. Conversely, a character like Iron Bull, his sexuality is one small facet of himself and not his overarching drive. He's bisexual, and when asked, he explains it matter-of-factly that "that's just how it is over there in our society." I think Steve Cortez in Mass Effect 3 is another good example, as his sexuality's a larger part of him than with Iron Bull, but it's not dominating over the rest of the character or the primary trait behind him.
But in a game like this, it doesn't matter what sexuality they are. Until we get an animated short video that shows two heroes, or a hero and a civilian, in any sort of an interpersonal relationship that isn't blood ties and is of a sexual nature, then it's a nonissue.
Do games add mentally handicapped people into the roster? No, mental issues get overlooked.
Personally, I hope that the world will finally put an end to this trans thing, you were born a boy, you follow boy rules, pee in boy bathrooms, change in boy locker rooms. Gay men have to do it, so should tans people. Doesn't matter what you identify as, as it only affects you, can't force your views on others. You get a boob job and pretend to be a lady, cool, but i'm sure if you whip out your twig and berries in a ladies room actual women will get freaked.
And just because a trans wants to feel like a woman won't make her a biological woman, and it's not fair to real women that a born male is intruding in their comfort zone.
SJW people make me sick
People complained about Kung Jin because there was a one-off comment about him being gay. Seriously. Go look at the MKX boards and put "gay" in the search bar. Look at how many threads there are of angry homophobes.
People complained about that trans character in the Baldur's Gate xpac that came out recently, even though once again it was just a random comment that you didn't even have to ask about.
People complained about the trans character in Assassin's Creed Syndicate, even though it never comes up in game. It just was mentioned by Ubisoft.
People complained about the trans character in DA:I, saying it was pandering even though it only comes up like, once and you choose to ask about it.
There was a thread on the Persona 5 boards - "do you think there should be a gay romance option?" and a majority said no, there shouldn't be a gay -OPTION-. Not requirement, but an option. In a game about placing yourself in the protagonist's shoes and immersing yourself, they said no, gay people shouldn't get that option.
What you say is frankly untrue. People complain on both sides. Don't act like it's only the minorities.
1) The LGBT community by definition is not normal. because it's a very small minority. the Norm is all of the straight people. You may argue but it's the truth. Normal by definition is conforming to a standard or expectation. pretty sure there are a vast majority of straight people so "normal" by definition is male and female, not male and male or female and female or cross gender apache llama butterfinger gender.
2) I believe the LGBT community should have basic human rights like marriage and such, so I'm happy the courts passed that and any slander, hate speech and such should be treated as crimes.
3) The LGBT community is trying to push their views on straight people, and calling someone a homophobe for not feeling comfortable around abnormal actions like males kissing males, or males who think they are females in female bathrooms is just as bad as reverse racism. Just because we are straight doesn't mean we "have" to accept your life styles, and not accepting your life styles doesn't mean we are bad.
Hate speech is hate speech, regardless of individuals religious beliefs. Religious people need to understand that there IS a seperation of church and state, and basic human rights are a state affair, which every person needs to follow.
They can be against gays, and judge them if they want, but they can't hurt/abuse/slander/harass because those are crimes and everyone regardless of orientation or belief has to follow them.
On the flip side the gay community needs to understand that there will be people who dislike them for their choices, and they need to accept that and not make a big fuss of it if a Priest or church suddenly turns them down for being Gay. Religious entities being non state have the ability to discriminate. But they are virtually the only exception due to the separation of church and state clause.
They can be against gays, and judge them if they want, but they can't hurt/abuse/slander/harass because those are crimes and everyone regardless of orientation or belief has to follow them.
On the flip side the gay community needs to understand that there will be people who dislike them for their choices, and they need to accept that and not make a big fuss of it if a Priest or church suddenly turns them down for being Gay. Religious entities being non state have the ability to discriminate. But they are virtually the only exception due to the separation of church and state clause.
Fair enough - I've had a similar mentality where I think it should be left up to individual churches, priests, pastors, etc. to determine if a "gay wedding" and the like are allowed in their halls or not based on their religious views, or if they choose to preside over the ceremonies even if held on public grounds. Good to know that I'm not the only one who can see that divide being something that, while not ideal for everyone, is still important enough to have a distinction made to respect as many people as possible. And... I probably didn't word that as best as I could. You probably get what I'm saying - sometimes, you can't float everyone's boat, and sometimes you need to let them float their own boat, even if it means you're not entirely happy with the situation, so long as you're not slighted against.
Reverse racism would be... let's say you have a group of people you're playing kickball with. Yes, grown adults playing kickball - just roll with it. You have a group of people to pick from - we'll say a black guy, a white guy, an Asian, a Native American, and an Arabic guy. You know Person X is really, really good at kicking s*** and running. You want him on your team. However, he's the same race as you. Do you pick him because he's the best, and risk being called a racist because you didn't pick someone who "doesn't look like you," or do you pick someone else to not appear like you're racist and risk the other captain getting that guy on their team? Picking someone else for fear of looking like a racist otherwise would be an example of reverse racism - you're still picking based on race, but not the traditional reason for picking based on race - literally the opposite.
Another example would be promoting the Latino guy in your office instead of the black guy who's a harder worker with more productivity under his belt, because promoting the guy with better performance could be seen as showing favoritism or racism, especially if the office is primarily black workers. Not saying all black guys outperform Latinos - just using an example for this situation.
Another example would be promoting the Latino guy in your office instead of the black guy who's a harder worker with more productivity under his belt, because promoting the guy with better performance could be seen as showing favoritism or racism, especially if the office is primarily black workers. Not saying all black guys outperform Latinos - just using an example for this situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Public Comments