[center][img]https://media0dk-a.akamaihd.net/97/45/f0f4da348339c4be0d0c09712095e07b.jpg[/img][/center]

So as of the 'important' revelation that Tracer is gay, I've wondered just what the importance of the revelation is. Seems like there are angry videogame players (people who are not part of the 'fandom' but rather just play the game) who are angry that their (favorite) character is suddenly gay, but on the other hand also LGBT people who are thrilled to have representation.

Seems wonderful innit. 

I think we can all agree that being mad over a character you like being gay is rather stupid since A) that character is fictional. What were you hoping for, to bone that fictional virtu-puss? And B) the artist ultimately decides what sexuality (if any) the character has. So already we can assume that those that are angry are mad for either a stupid reason, or a reason entirely different.

And that reason is, in my opinion, the same reason why LGBT people should be dissatisfied with the execution of this otherwise good thing. Cause it seems very much like the inclusion of Tracer as an LGBT character was done not to promote the values of diversity (getting along and such) nor to show of representation (that would imply the game was meant to show off all sides of society, which would be a nice argument if it weren't for the fact we have a sentient talking gorilla walking around, or the robot shooting orbs at people left and right) but rather as a business end idea implemented with a positive PR spin.

My reason for thinking along these lines is that they chose Tracer, who has acted as a flagship for Overwatch more or less since day one. So clearly, her gayness would have a large impact and (in theory) a larger reach. Now this is not really all that bad I guess, since it's entirely possible she was designed as a gay character, and then later on, the decision was made to have her be the figure head.

But consider also that the inclusion of LGBT characters was hyped up since the reveal, and with the approach being more of a hyped up game release than an actual release of information (which would've come unannounced, much like say patch notes, or a video released on their channel or something similar) it seems like Blizzard wanted to reach a large part of the community (both those that play the game and the fandom, who don't necessarily play the game.. at all) so as to make sure that everyone knew about it.

So that already seems to me like they made her gay because, well, diversity. It also made it feel slightly tacked on in the sense that the character doesn't really need a sexuality in order to function.

Her gayness won't affect her in game accuracy.
Her gayness won't affect her in game ultimate.
Her gayness won't affect her in game .. anything.

So what even is the point of going through the trouble of giving her a sexuality? I don't really see the added value here except for diversity, and the way it was done makes it seem like diversity for the sake of business PR and not for social awareness. 

The fact that they opted for diversity is not good or bad in my eyes, it's the intent behind it that decides whether it is good or bad, at least in my eyes. 

Like when we had that Harry Potter theatre show, and they casted a black Hermione. I don't really consider that pandering because as J.K. Rowling herself said (she was involved in casting IIRC) the woman was chosen for her acting capability, not the color of her skin.

This doesn't feel the same way. 

Furthermore, I wonder why they didn't opt for other characters. Making Zarya be gay would be stereotypical and somewhat insulting, but it might've been interesting to see male characters be represented as homosexual. Why? 

Because to me that would've shown a genuine support to the cause - female homosexuals do not quite face the same level of abuse as male homosexuals [i]especially[/i] in gaming because there are just very few homosexual men in gaming, like the community itself. It'd have made a far greater (and believable) point if they made McCree gay for Genji or something. 

Instead it seems to have been the case that they made a conscious decision to make the flagship woman a homosexual - her being a lesbian limited the fallout from the mostly male heterosexual in-game community (who likely don't care as much), her being a lesbian and thus gay improving the vision of the largely LGBT fandom. Or just the LGBT community in general (people not even involved in the game have probably taken notice, no?) 

And to me that again signals a business decision, not a social awareness decision.

[hr]

Now why is this an issue to begin with? I don't think the fallout from the community was big, at all. Overwatch is a gigantic game, with a gigantic community, and those few threads on Blizzards forums were hardly representative of all players (and I can say with moderate security that I am also sure a lot of them were sarcastic..) and I think most people do not actually give a fuck about the sexuality of the character (let alone are aware of it).

Now here's where I have to admit I am not sure what I think on the issue - it depends entirely on the intent and naturally I do not think Blizzard will openly admit they made their flagship character gay for business purposes. So I am left to make a judgement on what I feel were their motives.

If they honestly made her gay for social awareness - I don't really care, don't play the game enough to care, and don't have any real connection to the character, so good on Blizzard for representing homosexual characters I guess. I wish they had made a big a fuzz about Symmetra being autistic - that went largely under the radar, nobody gave a fuck about it, nobody really talked about it. 

If they made her gay for business purposes, which I do believe they did, I feel like that's somewhat questionable behavior. For starters, that meant that a characters' gayness was used as a commodity to increase support of a product. Second off, it feels like forced diversity, which in turn feels fake. 

And if anything the LGBT community should be upset at that if that is the case - after all, you are people, not tokens to be used as 'fun quirky characters' that you can use at your whim and will to enlarge the popularity of your product. Not that I intend to tell you how to feel - but that is more or less what it is. You are being used as a business commodity - really, you're not seen as anything other than a source of popularity to be exploited. A fandom to pander to. And if they made this decision as a business decision and you are still satisfied with their choice - congratulations, you're a bit of a cop out. 

So in conclusion, you could really say that the entire discussion is more or less entirely based off of the thought of whether or not they did this as a way to show social awareness, or as a PR/business move. And if it was the former, you kind of have to question why they did it the way they did it, no? Because in the end it shouldn't matter if she is gay or not - so why parade it around like some show horse? Really makes it seem like 'look at us, we're so progressive'.

[center][img]https://media0dk-a.akamaihd.net/90/82/bd0e7a05d28a3a74da9cdceb071dfa94.jpg[/img][/center]