Star Wars’ ‘Gay Planet’ – The Non-troversy

It’s been 35 years since Star Wars became a thing. In that time, we’ve seen six movies, a few dozen games with stories and about 170 novels and novellas. There are also a bunch of comic books that I don’t feel like counting right now.

In all of that content, there is only one item in which we learn that a character is gay, the e-novella “Legacy of the Force: Sacrifice” in 2007. Before that point, there were just no gay people in Star Wars. LucasFilm always seemed scared of the idea, and “Sacrifice” was them putting their toes in the water to test it. They certainly weren’t ready to open the floodgates, and to date there have been no more openly gay characters written.

It’s logical, then, to think that when BioWare was putting together Star Wars: The Old Republic with LucasArts, they were given the mandate to avoid same-gender entanglements. And when we saw a Bioware community manager say in 2009 that the words “homosexual,” “gay” and “lesbian” “are not terms that exist in Star Wars,” that mandate was made plain.

Same-gender romances did not make it into the base game. And so now we have the biggest game in history already built without them, and SWTOR’s executive producer Jeff Hickman has admitted that changing the infrastructure of the existing game is problematic and will take time. That makes sense, because a fundamental alteration to existing characters would require far more than a simple coding change. On the contrary, such a project would be an immense undertaking and may not be financially feasible.

In the meantime, though, BioWare has crafted new story content in the form of the Rise of the Hutt Cartel digital expansion. And in an attempt to start satisfying those who have been clamoring for same-gender romances in the game, they are adding some on the new planet featured in that expansion. Somehow, there are those among us who believe this is a bad thing, not because they are anti-gay, but because they are in favor of having same-gender romances in the game.

Out of context, they say this is BioWare “exiling” gay characters to a single planet and putting them behind a paywall. But when we work within context, the situation looks different. We can see, for example: if this expansion had four new planets in it, there would probably be gay characters on all of them; it’s safe to assume that there will also be gay romance options in future expansions in addition to this one; Rise of the Hutt Cartel is not a “gay expansion” but rather just a regular story expansion that happens to include same-gender romance.

Given Star Wars’ past relationship with gay folks, it’s a shame that some people are interpreting what is a very big and positive step for LucasArts as a negative. This development doesn’t exist in a vacuum, though, and we can’t act like it does. Context is important. And it’s telling that this was no controversy when Hickman actually announced that the new planet would feature SGRs two weeks ago, because the game’s actual community was not up in arms about this move.

LucasFilm is being dragged kicking and screaming into the present, and BioWare is finally able to do what they probably wanted to do all along, and what many of us wanted them to do. And yet some who are actually on our side want to vilify them for making a legitimate, good-faith effort?

Progress doesn’t come all at once, usually. BioWare and LucasArts made a mistake before. Now they are beginning to correct that mistake, but it feels as if some of my very vocal brethren are discouraging them when they should be supporting a move like this. Gays in Star Wars is a HUGE deal. We must recognize that, above all else.

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

44 Comments on Star Wars’ ‘Gay Planet’ – The Non-troversy

Axetwin

On January 17, 2013 at 11:36 am

Where does it say, that every entertainment medium NEEDS to include and lesbian characters? As Phil pointed out, Lucasarts is being dragged into this kicking and screaming. So I have to ask, why? If its a topic they dont wish to cover, then why force them to do so anyway? Since when is forcing someone to accept something theyre not comfortable with considered bringing them into “the present”? If anything, that shows a lack of tolerance from the other side. Then again, Im a big believer of letting everyone just feel what they want to feel, and just leave each other the f*ck alone if they disagree with one particular way.

Hellblazer

On January 17, 2013 at 11:59 am

romance do not have it place in the Star Wars universe!

Matt

On January 17, 2013 at 12:27 pm

So every bioware game now is trying to make a social political statement instead of just being a fun game, I think I will pass.

MPSewell

On January 17, 2013 at 1:06 pm

It isn’t a political statement, children, unless you’re so pathetic as to view normal human relations in such a light. It is you who creates it as a problem, not those who are born as homosexual individuals. To recognize homosexuality in a medium that espouses sexual relationships between its characters is as innocuous as it is to have a black character amidst the crowd.

The sole statement being made, by anyone, is the bigoted bile issuing from your fingertips and onto my screen, where I can be as repulsed by it as I am when I Google “stormfront”.

Stay 19th century. We’ll move on with or without you.

Freedonad

On January 17, 2013 at 1:09 pm

Ilhamas are a thing. Ilhamas exist in our current time. Some people like Ilhamas, and like talking about Ilhamas, while some don’t and others just don’ t give a flying f*ck about it. Yet those who don’t like or otherwise don’t care are not being forced to talk about the ed Ilhamas as far as I’m aware. So why should one be forced to talk about anything else just because it’s a thing from the current times?

Mark Burnham

On January 17, 2013 at 1:27 pm

HEAR YEA: Wesker1984′s comments were deleted for excessive jackassery. Everyone is entitled to an opinion on Game Front, and we encourage debate and sharing different views.

But personal attacks, bigotry, racism and general jackassery will not be tolerated.

Game on!

Mark Burnham
Managing Editor, Game Front

CatmanStu

On January 17, 2013 at 1:58 pm

The original films were larger than life and naively idealistic tales that followed the dogmatic religious approach to morality; this is good, that is bad; and had no politics, social or sexual, as that would have introduced ambiguity to a film aimed primarily at kids in an era when kids were a lot less clued in than they are now.
I’ve always maintained that the biggest problem with Episodes 1-3 was that they lost that sense of wonder when they introduced political intrigue and scientific explanations for the force and that wonder was, for me, the essence of Star Wars. Sexual preference/choice has as little place in that universe as science and politics for the exact same reason; the closer you get to reality, the further you are from imagination.

Maay

On January 17, 2013 at 2:44 pm

I for one, think it’s a good thing that romance was introduced from the beginning. And having jumped from MassEffect to SWTOR, I was actually surprised that SGR were banned. Having the possibility to play your characters in any way you want is a big plus in my opinion, and it makes the game universe more realistic. Ever since the first movie, I wanted to immerse myself in the star wars universe, SWTOR gives that opportunity and every step in making this universe closer to reality is a good step.
I therefore fully agree with Phil that introducing it now is a huge plus. I also realize that introducing it now, and on limited areas only, is probably more awkward than it should be. Had it been present from the beginning people would have probably bickered less, the concept had been introduced in the past by Bioware already.
So I firmly believe that Bioware should be thanked for that move, so they feel supported to let their imagination soar and bring us lots of new features later on.

Realist

On January 17, 2013 at 3:15 pm

MPSewell – you can call people ‘children’ for opposing your views all you like. It doesn’t alter the fact that a videogame is designed as a tool for fun, not a tool to force your overbearing ‘progressive’ ideology on people at the expense of narrative. I suppose you’re the sort of fool who thought Shepard ‘needed’ to have romance options retconned into his character in the third instalment of a three-part story just to appease the PC-centric neo-liberal parasites. Never mind the fact that it completely altered his character and opened a ton of plotholes. As long as it makes you feel better about yourself, so be it.

There are no greater children in society than people like you who throw mud around and demand change while inferring a non-existent prejudice because your barely-established demands aren’t met with unrealistic immediacy.

ThePrion

On January 17, 2013 at 3:40 pm

The problem is that being is still commonly portrayed as a more sexually driven behavior then a passionate or platonic relationship, and doesn’t help that in this case, the medium in discussion is one that you are expecting intercourse or at least a makeout between the romancing characters, so it ends up being no significant addition to the formula, or a big “step into progress”.

Progress talk is still just like the indian and the railroad, he doesn’t really need it, but it’s called progress anyway. I completely agree that Star Wars doesn’t need this, not even heterosexual RPG flirting we are so used to play in other contemporary games. I rather think of Star Wars as an asexual universe, with that element of wonder @CatmanStu mentioned, or even innocence I would say.

It’s really more of a corporate move of a company trying to be popular (read: profitable) and dancing along with hypocritical tendencies of the political correctness that rules our beloved 21st century industrial society.

Hope I did make sense.

ThePrion

On January 17, 2013 at 3:43 pm

“The problem is that being * is still commonly portrayed as a more sexually driven behavior then a passionate or platonic relationship”

*being

Hellblazer

On January 17, 2013 at 4:01 pm

Aaaah! The censorship had massacred my comment. I didn’t say ”romance do not have it place on the Star Wars universe” i wanted to say ”same-sex romance to not have it place in the Star Wars universe”. I doesn’t care if we have same sex romance in Mass Effect or Dragon Age but in my opinion it doesn’t have it place in the Star Wars mythos.

Wesker1984

On January 17, 2013 at 4:15 pm

What??? My comment was deleted just because i was honest in my saying? Or it was because i said BEEP you gamefront? Because my comment was not so different than the comments of hellblazer or Matt.

Tss.

Roy Batty

On January 17, 2013 at 5:00 pm

@MPSewell

I understand the anger there are “bigots” to be sure but you label all who disagree as bigots, I am not sure how helpful this is. You also state “Normal human relationships”. I would question the validity of this not simply because homosexuals are a minority but also because it is impossible for homosexuals to have children so how are the genes passed on if there is no progeny? (Humanity would “burn out” if homosexuals were a majority and this type of relationship were “normal”)

I have no problem with because it is a choice and I can ignore the choice. I do wish Bioware would come clean…it is not a social statement it IS a marketing ploy to generate both publicity and open a new channel of revenue.

In ME3 I thought Steve was a shallow character as were many of the characters (though I helped him anyway). In DAO Zev is not homosexual, he is bisexual but I still liked his colorful (well written) character.

I lost interest in SWTOR though…just thought it was boring.

Peace

Monkey Rage

On January 17, 2013 at 5:03 pm

“Realist”: what the hell are you talking about? You’re example makes no sense at all. Shepard has had romance options available in the ME franchise from the very first game; each subsequent game expanded the possible romance choices, so I have no idea how any were “retconned” into the third game. I’m almost curious to have you explain what you mean, although I suspect it will actually just be some paranoid -phobic screed, judging from the rest of your commentary.

As far as the issue actually raised by the column, I actually have no issue with same-sex romances not being available in SWTOR… provided no romances at all are. As others have said, Star Wars operates perfectly fine without romance/relationships as a component. That being said, if romances are indeed available in the game, then they should not place any limits on your available (sentient) partners. While it is indeed disappointing that Bioware/Lucasfilms did not include options for same-sex relationships from the start, I’m definitely pleased to see them take steps in the right direction.

And for the morons arguing that having the option for same-sex romances available in the game translates into “forcing a liberal/leftist agenda upon the world,” that’s completely imbecilic. You don’t want to participate in such a relationship, then don’t. Problem solved. To actually be forcing an agenda, same-sex romances would have to either be the ONLY option in the game, or would have to be portrayed as superior to heterosexual relationships are. You know, like how 99% of media has portrayed heterosexual relationships historically.

CatmanStu

On January 17, 2013 at 5:48 pm

Off topic (sort of) if any GF staff member reads this, would it be possible to change/modify the software that edits posts as it can lead to confusing sentences.
Eg. in the first sentence of Axetwin’s post I think the word ((g*a*y) if deleted) is missing; it could be a typo but judging by the rest of the post I would say unlikely.
Another eg. In a previous post I typed the word comulative (spelt wrong on purpose) and ended up with ulative (the first three letters spelling a common term for man juice) creating a completely confusing sentence.

Ps. If I was correct with the first example, you also have an amusing example of unintentional hypocrisy when you consider the title of the article and subject under discussion.

GazH

On January 18, 2013 at 10:53 am

Star Wars is the standard fantasy movie. You have the Hero fighting the Dragon, in this case Luke fighting against Darth Vader, you have the Hero and the Princess, here it’s Han and Leia, you have the hordes of faceless bad guys, Stormtroopers.. it’s fantasy in a futuristic setting. So why do we expect to see something completely out of place in standard fantasy?

Do you really want Han Solo rescuing Prince Charming instead of the Princess? I’m sure the minority would love it, but unfortunately, you’re the minority. In my eyes, homosexuality has no place in a fantasy universe, be it Star Wars or Dragonheart. Fantasy is fantasy, full of Princes battling great evils to rescue their fair Princesses. Leave it at that and take the alternate sexuality elsewhere please.

DrChannington

On January 19, 2013 at 9:11 am

@ Phil Owen, MPSewell, Monkey Rage:

Keep fighting the good fight. According to these comments, unfortunately, it’s an uphill battle.

Inconvenient Logic

On January 19, 2013 at 9:24 am

DrChannington – it’s an uphill battle for a good reason. I simply won’t accept this fatuous attitude you and the others you named have that any criticism of tokenism is based on bigotry. I want to see well-considered, contextualised storytelling. If homosexual or lesbian characters are part of that, then that’s fine. What I have a problem with is it being cynically forced into a narrative to appease the LGBT brigade when it isn’t necessary or, in some cases (e.g. Shepard in Mass Effect 3 suddenly being homosexual for no explained reason even if you had a heterosexual romance in previous games) actually makes the story and characters incoherent, inconsistent conduits for political point-scoring.

Convince yourself all you want that you’re ‘fighting the good fight’. What you’re actually doing is advocating insincere, contrived storytelling for selfish purposes. I won’t ever accept that as a good fight, especially when it isn’t your fight to begin with.

DrChannington

On January 19, 2013 at 12:49 pm

I don’t see how “the liberal agenda” is being forced into this story. Is it all up in your face now? Whenever you play the game or surf the Internet, is this issue like all up in there and people are slapping you with plastic homosexual bats? Man, some white people must have felt the same way you do back in the day when black people were all nagging about fair treatment an equal rights. Or just being represented AT ALL alongside their marginally different peers. **** that liberal agenda, right? And if you mean equal rights and fair treatment by “liberal agenda” then I’m all for it.

All sarcasm aside, I don’t agree with you, but I will respect your opinion on this because I don’t want to be arguing in circles about this. Which is what would happen, be honest lol. Personally, I prefer to fight this fight by voting.

And mass effect 3 wouldn’t be a shining example of cohesive story telling…

DrChannington

On January 19, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Also, this thought just struck me… If the addition of homosexual characters detract from a story, like in mass effect, it has everything to do with the writer(s) and nothing at all to do with the sexuality of the character. IMO.

Inconvenient Logic

On January 19, 2013 at 1:06 pm

It’s not even about whether we agree or disagree – it’s the fact that you still seem to think this is an issue of my own prejudices. I don’t need to explain or justify my opinions on homosexuals to you, because they’re irrelevant to a debate on storytelling. For what it’s worth, I’ve befriended many lesbians and homosexuals and fully advocate equal rights for them and for everyone, including marriage (I’m also an atheist so religion is no barrier for me). That doesn’t mean I want to see quotas of them shoehorned into things that don’t necessitate them.

Again, if your story calls for a lesbian or homosexual character (for some reason I think g-a-y is censored on here, hence why I’ve not been using it), it either needs to be treated with proper respect and context or treated as being no big deal. Mass Effect 3 actually pulled off the latter pretty well with Cortez and Traynor. I didn’t see g-a-y characters, I just saw characters. The problem was that they then gave male-Shep the option of entering g-a-y relationships with Kaiden or Steve, and on neither occasion did it ever occur to BioWare that they may need to provide a reason why an explicitly heterosexual Shepard was suddenly in bed with a male crewman. Conversely, with this whole ‘ planet’ thing, if that’s really what this is about, it sounds entirely like they’re just forcing it into an IP for the sake of pandering to the far-left. It comes across as really cynical.

Like I said, I’m all for equal rights and would never even dream of voting Republican, but there comes a time when egalitarianism manifests as reverse-bigotry and favouritism towards the ‘right’ groups. For me, this is no less odious than homophobia.

You come across as a good person and I won’t be fuelling this any further. At least we can both agree that Mass Effect 3 was stupid.

DrChannington

On January 19, 2013 at 1:27 pm

@Inconvenient Logic
I still don’t see how homosexuality is being shoe-horned into Star Wars. I find it hard to believe there is not ONE g-a-y human or alien in that entire universe. It would be fine if everyone was completely sexless (like in the prequels haw haw), but that isn’t the case. With Bioware, I’d give this whole shenanigan a 50/50 chance of being pulled off in a way that wouldn’t make it tacky and horrible and fitting of the title “something something agenda”.

But I misunderstood your first post, and for that I apologize. Probably threw it in there with the passive aggressive just-kind-of-sort-of bigots (w/ disclaimers) I read earlier that completely ignore the romance between Han and Leia, and Bioware’s penchant for throwing sex into absolutely everything.

Side note, I thought all of the romance options were done terribly in the third Mass Effect. Everything was just… so… not tasteful.

GazH

On January 19, 2013 at 5:04 pm

Quote: “The problem was that they then gave male-Shep the option of entering g-a-y relationships with Kaiden or Steve, and on neither occasion did it ever occur to BioWare that they may need to provide a reason why an explicitly heterosexual Shepard was suddenly in bed with a male crewman.”.

Now while I agree that the whole thing with ME3 was tacky at best, and while I don’t actually agree with just throwing random homosexuals into a fantasy setting where it doesn’t belong, I have to disagree with what you’ve said here. It was never explicitly mentioned that Shephard was straight, it never came up in any conversation I can remember. You’re basing that entirely on the romance options. However, it was completely possible to go through the entire of ME1 and ME2 without striking up a relationship with anyone, so this could be perceived as the character having no ‘options’ available. In fact, I remember playing a female Shephard and having a conversation with Ashley where I chose an option that had her say she wasn’t interested.

Inconvenient Logic

On January 19, 2013 at 5:16 pm

DrChannington – I’m glad we’ve reached an amicable conclusion. I will of course reserve total judgement until I see it for myself, and I hope I’m proven wrong on this, but given BioWare’s past history (especially since being bought by EA) I’m not overly optimistic. And I agree about tacky romances. They just seemed like they were ‘there’ in the third game. I guess I’d rather they were there than not, but there didn’t seem to be any real development other than “I fancy you” “cool.” Really, the most advanced romance was between Garrus and Tali, and you had to actively scout their intercom conversations to experience it.

GazH – technically you’re not incorrect. However, the point I was making was that you had the options to enter a homosexual romance with a male Shepard even if you were ALREADY in a heterosexual romance before that. I actually had two on the go, Miranda and Liara, and yet I accidentally told Kaiden I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him! I realise that can be chalked down as a technical oversight, but at the same time it seems like it should have been seen as a possibility and made an aspect of Shepard’s character. How interesting would it have been if Shepard had said he was bisexual, or that he’d been a closet g-a-y the whole time scared of coming out? Instead, they just made it another one size fits all dialogue option, and as a result it came across really badly. Also, I’m pretty sure Mike Gamble or someone else close to the top at BioWare specifically stated that Shepard was always designed to be straight. I don’t know where that source is, but it’s mentioned in one of Smudboy’s Youtube critiques of Mass Effect 3.

I also agree this whole thing’s a ‘non-troversy’. I’m not bothered that they put g-a-y character in Star Wars (which I can totally accept in such a vast, diverse universe) as much as I’m bothered by the insinuation that they ‘had’ to do this.

DrChannington

On January 20, 2013 at 12:58 am

I just read on another gaming news site some more details on this, and it sounds horrible. Oh, Bioware.

Glowyrm

On January 20, 2013 at 9:53 am

@Axetwin

I agree with you somewhat. A line has to be drawn though. If someone believed that killing children was fun would you just let them “feel what they want to feel” and just leave them “the alone”?

I realize that is an extreme but it illustrates my point well. In this case it’s Lucas feeling like it’s “risky” to do same gender relations. Why would it be risky? The whole point of the author saying dragging them into “the present” is because these days most people don’t care and more often, quite the opposite, EXPECT that kind of thing in a game. There should be no feeling of risk at all. That feeling stems from some idea that they think it’s wrong, or they think that WE think it’s wrong.

If they feel either of those ways, I will NOT just “let them feel what they want”, because it’s wrong.

We’re at the point now that it’s considered just as natural as heterosexual relations. If a game had NO relationships at all it would be just as weird as this situation. Something is missing and it’s obvious to people.

Since it’s just as natural there should be no problem with it being implemented. This is the first step towards integrating this type of romance into the game. The author is right that it would be a pretty big undertaking to do this in the already established game. I mean, technically you could put a few references here and there (mostly text since a lot of voice stuff could be costly) and then add a few NPCs, but it may not come out right as if it was built from the ground up with that in mind.

So, I doubt their intent is to “exile” anyone. It’s simply a case of them taking the first step in the right direction with some new expansion content that just happens to be 1 planet.

Maybe they will slowly behind the scenes start to alter things here and there about the main game to insert some same gender relationships.

Finglan

On January 20, 2013 at 9:50 pm

Why is the inclusion of non-hetero characters always construed as political and preachy, especially when engaging in that content is completely optional? It comes off as an obvious attempt to re-brand a form of human expression into a political agenda in order to demean a group of people. It is as if some people think every non-hetero person is a firebrand political activist who only lives the life to rock the boat. People of any persuasion live that life because that is who they are.

Why should there a ‘no “___” people allowed’ bar placed on a setting? Especially a setting that has one of its main female characters forced to be a scantily clad “sensual” slave some time after she kisses her brother on the mouth. Star Wars takes place across an entire massively diverse universe, its completely absurd that the entire universe is female/male romance only. It doesn’t have to be the central theme of the story, I don’t even care if they include it or not, but the slight-to-moderately hostile response to its inclusion just confuses me.

And to clarify for a particular comment made earlier, non-hetero does not mean childless and/or incapable of having and raising children. The hypothetical about “if everyone was that way then the human race would end” is ridiculous on so many levels that I could devote an entire comment to that rebuttal alone.

Riterdando. zip

On January 23, 2013 at 4:51 pm

Oh, yes, s in Star Wars is SUCH a huge deal! Let us all celebrate!
I’ve little against homosexuals in principle, but as Axetwin asks, why is the inclusion of romances perceived as mandatory in games? The author even goes so far as to say BioWare and LucasArts made a mistake :O! Maybe they should be tried at the U.S. Supreme Court? And then let’s include romance options in Super Mario games, shall we?
To hell with this political correctness …

Riterdando. zip

On January 23, 2013 at 4:57 pm

Jesus Christ, I just saw that this site filters the word “g a y”. Are you for real?! The word is featured in the article,the title no less, but filtered in the comments? What’s wrong with you, people?!

Phil Owen

On January 23, 2013 at 7:28 pm

Let us think about this a bit more. SWTOR is a game that allows you to choose who you will have sex with. That is a fact, and it is something that will not be changed.

Furthermore, there are folks out there who are playing this game. That being the case, why should they not be allowed a sexual option that matches their orientation?

This is not shoving ideology down anyone’s throat or a display of political correctness. To say it is is to have no empathy for people who are different from you.

Furthermore, the addition of romances allows players to role play in a new way. Why should we not be in favor of having more options?

This is, after all, just an option. You don’t have to make your character , after all. That being the case, I don’t really see how any person has grounds to complain about options being included. That’s like being upset that the game supports resolutions you won’t use.

GazH

On January 24, 2013 at 10:15 am

“This is not shoving ideology down anyone’s throat or a display of political correctness. To say it is is to have no empathy for people who are different from you.”

I would agree with you but this is Bioware we’re talking about. I played through ME1, I was friends with Kaiden, I saved him over Ashley, ME2 we meet again briefly, ME3 I’m travelling with him again, my old teammate. I say he’s a great guy and suddenly I’m hitting on him with no option to escape that line of conversation. That was probably the most awkward bit of the game and I nearly quit after drifting down the wrong dialogue options.

Bioware lack any subtlety when it comes to this stuff, they give no real warning, Kaiden seemed like a cool straight guy all through the series until ME3, then suddenly he’s someone I don’t even know. It was just ridiculous, it turned the whole buddy team building thing into a tiptoeing session, carefully avoiding options so you don’t hit on the wrong people. The focus became less about the team and more about who you wanted to screw.

MPSewell

On January 24, 2013 at 1:53 pm

Clearly my original statement was entirely correct, as the responses bore out. The only opposition to the concept of homosexual relationships is from the most bigoted and fully ignorant in our society (Bioware’s handling of such relationships is usually piss-poor, though, so that objection is fully understandable).

The bigots that litter American society are legion, and they will forever work to squash those in the minority to the best of their capacity. Feel free to stay on the wrong side of history, you’re going to be just like the embarrassing grandparent who spits out racial slurs at interracial couples.

MPSewell

On January 24, 2013 at 1:59 pm

@Riterdando.zip

Let’s try your exact comment out, but let’s pretend that the year is 1963 and let’s see what that does for it:

“Oh, yes, blacks in Star Wars is SUCH a huge deal! Let us all celebrate!
I’ve little against blacks in principle, but as Axetwin asks, why is the inclusion of interracial romances perceived as mandatory in games? The author even goes so far as to say BioWare and LucasArts made a mistake :O! Maybe they should be tried at the U.S. Supreme Court? And then let’s include blacks in Super Mario games, shall we?
To hell with this political correctness …”

You’re on the wrong side of history, and recognizing normal human relationships that have existed for the whole of human history, and not treating them like they deserve to be ignored and marginalized, is not “political correctness”, it’s being a decent person.

Sick of Scum

On January 24, 2013 at 3:18 pm

MPSewell – your ideological blinkered are frankly embarrassing. There is literally zero bigotry evident in any of the comments ASIDE FROM YOURS. You’re the one stereotyping people as ‘little Americans’ for not sharing your tokenist views. You’re the one throwing mud around because people don’t agree with you. You are, in fact, the complete opposite of a ‘decent person’ – you’re the perfect example of everything that is wrong with modern politics. You spew rhetoric without self-moderation or even cross-referencing it with what others are saying, cling to straw man arguments, call people names and twist peoples’ words in appeals to emotion.

Nothing you’ve written in any of your vapid, manipulative comments even comes close to independent or informed thought. It is, in fact, pure prejudice. You’ll now prove me right by resorting to more personal attacks instead of forming valid or relevant arguments. Pathetic.

TheDog

On January 25, 2013 at 10:12 am

Sick of Scum@ I have to agree with you. Most post have not been offencive or attacks of any kind, just oppinion. Oppinion that doesn’t agree with some. She can call me a biggot all she wants. My g.a.y friends will tell her she’s full of it. We’ve been friends for many years. They know I don’t like there lifestyle, but I don’t throw it in there face, in fact we don’t even talk about it. We talk about things friends talk about. If they have a problem, any problem, they know they can talk to me if they want and they have. I don’t judge them for it. I have friends of just about most every race, cread or color out there. Yet I’m a biggot because I don’t agree with this person. Wow, what a revelation. My friends will be very suprised to hear that.
MPSewell@ You have shown more biggotry and hate in your few statements then most anyone else on this thread. Insults and name calling are usually reserved for children. Doing it simply because they dont agree with you, well thats something I expect from a grade schooler. Just saying, don’t cast the first stone before looking in the mirror.
Oh yeah. As to you other comment. How many black people have you seen in a Mario game. Maybe we should get a hold of the supreme court. You tried to use this as a slam, a comparison for @Riterdando.zip. Only problem is, it sucked. Made you sound worse than Riterdando did. I understand what you were trying to say.(my motto is, “know what I mean, not what I say”) You just didn’t do a good job of it. You seem to take person offence from everything said here and respond emotionally, not logically. If you want to get realy heard, step back, take a deep breath. Emotion can fuel you, but let logic and calmness be your words. Just saying.

TheDog

On January 25, 2013 at 10:24 am

OMG Sick of. It cencored the c.um right out of your name. This cencoreship BS is more of a joke than there bleeding articles. Scum Scum Scum. This is a test. If I’m right, the c.um should be gone leaving just the S. This is a test. This is just a test. Do not be alarmed. I’m actually suprised it lets me keep test as that could lead to test_icles. Just saying.

Brutalisus

On January 25, 2013 at 10:33 am

I just read “” and “Planet” and decided that I’m not playing SWTOR anymore.

GMax

On January 25, 2013 at 10:50 am

Man, I really wish that someday someone would release a hugely anticipated, AAA game with only same-sex romances, just to see all you “I’m not a homophobe, but…” types squeal like the bigots you are.

MPSewell

On January 27, 2013 at 2:03 am

@Sick of Scum “There is literally zero bigotry evident in any of the comments ASIDE FROM YOURS”

Oh Really? Let’s find a few, then.

And I already know you’re going to caterwaul that these aren’t bigoted, so when you read them, instead think of them in the context of someone discussing a black character being included in a Star Wars game, or change the words “/lesbian/etc” to “black” and read them in that context. The bigotry is clear.

“Where does it say, that every entertainment medium NEEDS to include [...] lesbian characters? ”
“So every bioware game now is trying to make a social political statement”
“not a tool to force your overbearing ‘progressive’ ideology on people”
“It’s really more of a corporate move of a company trying to be popular (read: profitable) and dancing along with hypocritical tendencies of the political correctness that rules our beloved 21st century industrial society.”
“You also state “Normal human relationships”. I would question the validity of this not simply because homosexuals are a minority but also because it is impossible for homosexuals to have children so how are the genes passed on if there is no progeny?” (also shows a gross ignorance of biology)
“Do you really want Han Solo rescuing Prince Charming instead of the Princess? [...] homosexuality has no place in a fantasy universe”
“Oh, yes, [g-a-y]s in Star Wars is SUCH a huge deal! Let us all celebrate! [...] To hell with this political correctness …”
” I don’t like there (sic) lifestyle”

So, once again, imagine all of the above said in the context of including a black character, having interracial relationships, and so forth. And you tell me that isn’t the most rank bigotry imaginable.
“B-b-b-but you’re a bigot against bigots!” Sure, fine, I’m non-tolerant of bigots, you found me out and exposed the darkness of my character. I’ll go beg the people at stormfront for forgiveness.

Face It

On January 27, 2013 at 2:27 am

Keep talking yourself into that hole, MPSewell. Attacking Americans as being inherently ignorant because they don’t like the idea of forcing your childish quota rubbish into all areas of media is in itself inherently bigoted. Resorting to name-calling is also childish, something else you’ve accused others of being. You are no more than a self-contradicting, self-righteous bore. Without you, the majority of these comments have been concise, analytical and reasoned. With you, they’ve devolved into aimless, sanctimonious mud-slinging.

You are, simply, a liability to the debate.

GazH

On January 27, 2013 at 3:07 am

“So, once again, imagine all of the above said in the context of including a black character, having interracial relationships, and so forth. And you tell me that isn’t the most rank bigotry imaginable.”

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say something you’re not going to like. Actually, I don’t like saying it either, I’ve nothing against personal choice, but it’s simply a fact that can’t be denied. Homosexual relationshops aren’t natural. Remember, I have nothing against it personally, but where I say natural I mean in the literal ‘nature’ sense. Men and women have roles, the man gets the woman pregnant and the woman births a child. That’s cutting it down to the very basics. That’s how it is almost through the entire of nature, males and females, child bearing, etc.

So that said, how can you place the comments people have made in the same context as a black person or interracial relationships? Black people are natural, they simply have different skin colour, they are exactly the same as White people just with different colouring. Being racist is completely different to being homophobic.

MPSewell

On January 27, 2013 at 8:34 pm

>Homosexual relationshops aren’t natural

Wrong, they’ve existed throughout history, there are evolutionary benefits to having them within a society (the same as the “Grandmother Effect”) and they exist in hundreds of species.

Your proposition that they “aren’t natural” is based on no science whatsoever, and is nothing but your own bigoted views skewing your capacity to perceive reality and evidence. Homosexuality has existed throughout human history, across all cultures, and across many all other hominid / great ape species. It exists within more species than I could count, and accounts for both pleasurable sexual relationships, dominance patterns, and even basic communication. You simply do not know what you’re talking about, and it’s sad that your rank, hate-filled, vile views are actually considered rational.

Only the most base ignorance (particularly of biology) can inform such a view.

>Men and women have roles
First off, your notion of binary genders is horrifically wrong. You’re far too stifled by western gender norms as were primarily defined by religious conviction. Many species do not work by your silly standards, including humans, within whom there is a clear capacity for non-male/female gender normality as you wish it to be.

Reality or “nature” (which is everything that exists, despite your assertion that there are things “unnatural”) does not abide by the cultural tastes of 1950′s white america.

> the idea of forcing your childish quota rubbish into all areas of media
Yeah, every time I see a black person or an asian on television I scream and throw my tv out the window. Forcing me to look at people who aren’t pure white, straight, and christian is so awful and evil, stupid quotas.

GazH

On January 27, 2013 at 11:45 pm

“First off, your notion of binary genders is horrifically wrong. You’re far too stifled by western gender norms as were primarily defined by religious conviction. Many species do not work by your silly standards, including humans, within whom there is a clear capacity for non-male/female gender normality as you wish it to be.”

Really? Let’s stick two men in a room and tell them they can’t come out until they’ve made a baby. Let’s see your ‘clear capacity for normality’ in that situation.