29 Apr, 2011
That would be the article posted yesterday by IGN editor Jack DeVries, the self-confessed “judging panel from Project Runway, but for video games.”
Okay, then.
To tell you the truth, it’s not very often I adorn my Big Gay Politics Hat™. I certainly wouldn’t willingly liken myself to Perez Hilton – surely the facepalm felt around the world.
But DeVries’ “Fake or Gay: Yoshi and Turok” – one can only assume the first in a planned series of borderline-offensive articles coming right at you from the 1950s – did get me thinking about sexuality in video games.
“Your favorite video game characters are in the closet, and we’re opening the door,” reads DeVries’ opening line. The paragraphs that follow make up one of the most pointless and humourless articles I’ve ever read. Of course, it’s meant as a harmless joke – even the smattering of words such as ‘poof’ and ‘queer’ inserted for the purpose of making the reader laugh-even-though-they-know-it’s-awful-and-they-shouldn’t don’t detract from its pure intentions. Mr DeVries is a homosexual man, therefore he is, as he so delicately puts it, “qualified” to use such terms as freely as he likes.
I don’t remember getting my certificate.
Anyway, it’s not the article itself or any of its contents that might offend – gay men and women have had to endure a lot worse – but the motiviation behind it. Speaking from the heart for a moment, I won’t let being gay define me as a person. For my 21st birthday an ex-colleague baked me a Rainbow cake, complete with Zippy, Bungle and George, immortalised in icing. Because I was the gay one, you see? I carved that bitch up with a smile on my face. The cake, I mean. A lovely gesture, yet so horrifyingly and embarrassingly misguided.
So why should a person, or indeed a video game character, have to be defined in such a way? Birdo’s reproductive organs didn’t concern us 25 years ago, so why should they now? These are the questions I asked myself while reading “Fake or Gay”, whilst also bashing my face against a dry stone wall. There are so few examples of an openly gay video game character done well; I’m still stuck with the stagnant memory of Enchanted Arms’ Makoto, single-handedly the worst example of the gay stereotype, in virtual form. But is it any wonder when articles like this go to show that being gay is something people – even gay people – will still get a kick out of poking fun at?
In a world where video game characters don’t often outwardly express their heterosexuality, or indeed their sexuality full stop, do we really want a gay character shoehorned in just for the sake of it? Just so that we can say “He’s the gay one”, or “That’s her, the lesbian character”? Maybe we do, I don’t know. I’m not gaming’s answer to Perez Hilton. I’m not even a “qualified” gay by all accounts, but let’s face it – video games, like a lot of television, film and other media, don’t exactly have a great track record of realistic portrayal of gay people, so do we really want them to try, when all we’ll likely end up with is more material for Jack DeVries’ 27th “Fake or Gay” article?
That said, I’d be genuinely surprised to see a follow-up. Whether you or I believe there’s any cause for offence or not, Twitter is ablaze with disgruntled readers and forums are cropping up left right and centre, with users expressing their disdain that IGN would allow such an article to be published. One such thread appeared on NeoGAF, with one user writing, “Congratulations IGN, you just upgraded from IGNorant to outright offensive. Looking forward to the follow ups on “Women who didn’t realise they were supposed to stay in the kitchen” and “Uppity minorities” next.”
Another said, “…it doesn’t seem to be offensive. Just pointless.” Over on Twitter, “What the fuck were they thinking when they wrote this article?” seems to be the general feeling. Needless to say it’s been re-tweeted so many times I couldn’t actually tell who said it in the first place.
What do I think? Am I offended? Shocked? Appalled? No, I’m not. However, I do believe that Mr DeVries, in trying to humour people and perhaps, dare I say it, even open up a healthy dialogue about the depiction of gay people in video games – to quote the legendary Ben “Yahtzee” Croshaw – couldn’t have missed the point harder if he’d fired in the wrong direction and the point was in a different country altogether.
From one brother to another – I wouldn’t go into stand-up, Jack.
“Fake or Gay: Yoshi and Turok” at IGN
I saw the title on said article and decided to stay away from it altogether. I’m miffed that people in general make such a big deal out of sexuality anyway. Does it really matter? I mean…call me naive or something, but sexuality is just another part of a character, another part of a person. Do we really have to keep focusing on it? Here, let’s write this article: “Shadow the Hedgehog: Stoic or All Around S.O.B.” Then there will be the argument about the differences between being hardcore, anti-social, what’s socially accepted, what’s NOT socially accepted…
It all sounds just. As. Silly.
After reading the article on IGN, I didn’t see anything that was really all over that offensive or insensitive, as you said. I just think overall that this article was unamusing and unnecessary. I mean….why are we discussing Yoshi’s sexual preferences? Why do we need to know this? I mean, whats next, we’re going to start discussing the sexuality of Spyro, Kirby, and Pikachu? Seriously now, I think there could’ve been some interesting points or topics brought up in an article about homosexual game characters and their portrayals within games. But all there was, was useless drabble that was overall unenlightening and did nothing more than waste the reader’s time and provide an uninteresting article with dull jokes and poorly used cliche’s. That’s my opinion and take on the entire thing, at least.
My thoughts exactly Lyn! I’m far more concerned about whether a character is well-written, provocative or likeable than what they may or may not get up to in the bedroom. Surely sexuality, for the most part at least, is left to the imagination anyway.
I mean, just because Commander Shepard has a penchant for blue skin and tentacles doesn’t mean he doesn’t swing the other way now and again, does it? ;D
A very interesting (and personal) perspective. Thanks for sharing this, Andy – a thought-provoking read.
Thanks Vixx! :D
I didn’t think there was anything offensive about any of the articles that were posted on in that series. If anything they were just weak, unfunny articles that used stereotypes in order to try and get a cheap laugh. Most of the comments I have seen in response to it are along the lines of how it ‘might cause offense’ which is part of the problem – people are far too worried about offending particular groups of people and being branded as a bigot. It was tongue-in-cheek and meant to entertain and just because it didn’t entertain most people doesn’t make it wrong. There were also several comments from people who found the article amusing and enjoyed reading it.
The way I saw it, the writer who himself may just happen to be the kind of gay man who is especially flamboyant and wears his sexuality on his sleeve, in which case a lot of arguements towards the article being ‘tacky’ or ‘over the top’ could by the same token then be read as ignorant or discriminatory. I’m honestly more amazed that the article has even gotten this level of attention, it wasn’t even a good one.
you are a fucktard
LOL… ouch. :P
… says the person who appears unable to spell their own name?