Presenting LGBT Leaders in Civ Games

[SJSerio]

You know, if it's a movie about the 'person' (Alex) rather than the wars (could be called something different) they're likely to do more personal/character development type things in the movie.

The problem is that if that was the case, they should have relayed that in the trailer instead of just showing clips of the few actual battles that were in the movie. It's all about how they advertise it that leads to disappointment and irritation.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Lemon Merchant]

As a gay person, I couldn't give to flying fudges about if there's a gay leader in the game.

As a lesbian, I agree with you 100%. Who cares if there are gay leaders in the game?

Let's just enjoy the uniquness of every civ and not focus on stupid silly representation.

Yes, too much attention seems to be paid to representing everyone these days. I would rather Civ be historically accurate in terms of the leaders represented, than being picked to fill some sort of quota.

Someone else mentioned it, and yes, women do play Civ. TBH, I couldn't care less if I play a male leader or a female one. It doesn't affect my game or my play style. Then again, I don't role play either.

Remember. It's a game. Let's try not to make it more politically correct than it already is.

 

[m15a]

The problem is that if that was the case, they should have relayed that in the trailer instead of just showing clips of the few actual battles that were in the movie. It's all about how they advertise it that leads to disappointment and irritation.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

Movie trailers are known for not being representative samplings of the movie (e.g., they put in all the funniest jokes, they put in all the best special effects, they show all the scenes with the famous actor with a cameo). I guess that experience could be a lesson of that fact, but it has nothing to do with what types relationships a character has or some sort of "agenda" of the filmmakers.

 

[SJSerio]

Movie trailers are known for not being representative samplings of the movie (e.g., they put in all the funniest jokes, they put in all the best special effects, they show all the scenes with the famous actor with a cameo). I guess that experience could be a lesson of that fact, but it has nothing to do with what types relationships a character has or some sort of "agenda" of the filmmakers.

It's about relaying the message that is intended. Star wars trailer showed space battles, light sabers and the like. If only two or three scenes through the whole movie showed those things and the rest was about someone raising kittens, that would be misleading. That was the case with Alexander. If they wanted to focus on his relationships, they should have conveyed that.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[GenyaArikado]

Civ technically always had one (Alexander) but i dont think we have ever had openly gay leaders in any country or culture yet so i dont see how can they do it

 

[m15a]

It's about relaying the message that is intended. Star wars trailer showed space battles, light sabers and the like. If only two or three scenes through the whole movie showed those things and the rest was about someone raising kittens, that would be misleading. That was the case with Alexander. If they wanted to focus on his relationships, they should have conveyed that.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

Sure. That's a reasonable argument/complaint. That the movie is "a blatant force of political correctness onto the audience" is not.

 

[SJSerio]

Considering who made the film... I think it could be in that case. Oliver stone loves controversy.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Homusubi]

Has anyone else noticed the irony of this thread, created because a different one went off-topic, going off-topic like this?

 

[SJSerio]

Has anyone else noticed the irony of this thread, created because a different one went off-topic, going off-topic like this?

Lol... You are right. I rest on the issue. All that I will say is that I want to be clear that I have nothing against anybody else's beliefs or preferences.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Haig]

Who Civ 6 leaders are gay?

 

[Civciv5]

I support this, as long as the leader in question was actually a capable and good ruler and not just some leader who is average or did nothing noticeable.

Also: Make Alexander flirt with the player regardless of gender or something like that if he is ever reintroduced

 

[Atlas627]

Bisexuality =/= flirting with everyone you meet.

I am LGBT, and I don't care about LGBT representation in Civ. It would be cool if it was there, but not at the expense of having interesting leaders. I had no idea Hadrian was gay, and it doesn't matter to me that he was. But for people who do like to associate with the character they are playing as, it may help. I care a lot about that in games when I actually get to see my character and act as them, but Civ is not one of those games.

As for representing sexuality in Civ at all, I think it should only be used where appropriate. For example, Theodora and Catherine in Civ5 were very sensual because the real people were. But just because someone is bisexual doesn't mean that they flirt with everyone, and in fact there may be no good way of showing that they're bisexual. If their sexuality is not an important part of how they interact with others, why would you go out of your way to misrepresent them in that way?

If they were famous for acting sexually, then represent them that way. Otherwise, their sexuality is not relevant to Civ diplomacy. Put it in the Civilopedia, though!

 

[Mudokon Pop]

However, I do take offence with gender being somehow "more important".

Another gay poster here. In a game like Civ where Leaders appear 'in isolation', ie we don't see them interact with other people, LGBT representation is hard to gauge.

There aren't always visual cues to imply sexuality without relying on stereotypes. It can be implied, fine but I dont think it should be an official aim of the dev team.

Gender (in this case 'Cis') is straightforward to represent - both visually and aurally, as is race/culture. So in terms of representation, gender could be seen as "more important" in the sense that it's omission from the game would be immediately noticeable. This does not mean 'universally more important'.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Another gay poster here. In a game like Civ where Leaders appear 'in isolation', ie we don't see them interact with other people, LGBT representation is hard to gauge.

There aren't always visual cues to imply sexuality without relying on stereotypes. It can be implied, fine but I dont think it should be an official aim of the dev team.

I hope never to see a female leader wearing flannel and "sensible shoes", or a male leader sashaying around like some flamboyant idiot. That would just be too much.
(Astute readers will notice that I used both male and female gay stereotypes here so as not to bash anyone, but let's face it, stereotypes are ridiculous. And hurtful. And unnecessary.)

But seriously, do we as gays have to represent in this game? For me, it's enough to know that some leaders were homosexual/bisexual. Why does it have to be portrayed in the game? Who cares? Why do we have to include marginal female leaders just because they're female? Are we going to cater to every demographic possible? It's not feasible and it's not necessary.

I'm all for inclusion. I think it's great that Firaxis has really tried to have a good cross section of leaders for the games (and I mean all Civ games). They have tried hard to include every corner of the globe, and that's great. But that's enough of an effort IMHO. Civ 6 looks like it's shaping up that way too, even with some questionable female leaders (Catherine di Medici, I'm looking at you, but that's another topic.), and that's great. But I really hope the devs don't start changing leaders around just to find gay ones. That would be stupid, and in a real sense, they would be pandering to even more special interest groups.

 

[Acken]

Also: Make Alexander flirt with the player regardless of gender or something like that if he is ever reintroduced

No. Play bioware games if you want a dating sim.

 

[Civciv5]

No. Play bioware games if you want a dating sim.

Uh...I didn't know you had a monopoly on suggestions.

Bisexuality =/= flirting with everyone you meet.

I'm aware of that.

 

[Acken]

Uh...I didn't know you had a monopoly on suggestions.

I do over terrible ones, you're welcome.

 

[Civciv5]

I do over terrible ones, you're welcome.

How rude.
I'm going to ignore you because clearly you are a self-righteous person.

 

[Acken]

That must be it. Farewell. OR ELSE !

 

[Civciv5]

OR ELSE !

If it's about my signature, the last part is intended as a joke. And the first part is a reasonable criticism constructed in a jokingly manner, which is intended.