We get it, but chill on the “representation” in video games

Ok, you attached a LOT of subtext (whiskey and cigars and i’m assuming a lot of other stereotypical macho stuff) that wasn’t there to my statement.
AN ideal, an archetype, a general character that has nothing to do with cigars and whiskey
not THE ideal person
My example of the character that filled this role before was Roland. He was not perfect. He had flaws. But he was not a dope that fell on his face with everything he did. I don’t think he smoked cigars either
Your argument :

is that these, let’s call them “white knights” or “paragons of virtue” don’t actually exist and therefore anyone who wants that type of character somewhere in the game can go away.
The males who are most present in the story are a bunch of putzes. While the females are kicking ass every minute of the day with the exception of being wrecked by the big bads of the story
Try thinking of a Roland, John wick, or Dwayne “the rock” Johnson. . Masculine, but non-toxic

The writers were the ones that were specific. Notice that you didn’t say that I was wrong?

Regarding the evidence to support it, the majority of men are able-bodied, cis-gendered, straight men, who display masculine traits. And the vast majority of the player base is men… doesn’t this one prove itself?


Bob Ross was a soldier and has sick skills on the mic (epic rap battles), Mr Rogers was a minister and was a tv personality to millions (cultist streamer before you could stream), and if South Park is to be believed Steve Irwin fingered Crocs (what’s more Borderlands than that).

I’d say they fit in perfectly.

I didn’t, I asked you a question and you answered it. I also never said the word “hyper”. I said positive which has a slightly different meaning.

Also, I don’t need to convince you of anything. It’s a well established fact that one of the largest indicators for success is growing up in a two parent household, aka, one with a masculine and feminine role model.

Ironic that you are praising diversity (as well you should be) in one aspect (portrayal in media), then turning around and disregarding it entirely (role models).

Except the first time you were replying to me, it was regarding what I said about what someone else said about that archetype, and they listed those behaviors (whiskey, cigars) as part of it. You’re not really paying attention here.

There’s no such thing. A hero can be any “archetype.” This game doesn’t have the ones everyone is used to, and people are fighting on the forums because of it.

The entire point is that we don’t need the “masculine, but non-toxic” hero all the time. I think that’s !@#$ing great, and it’s pretty obviously done on purpose here.

That’s not evidence… that’s just you restating what you already claimed.

1 Like

When asked how many women on the Supreme Court would be enough, RuthBG said nine.

When a history of one sided ness exists, equality is not simply meeting in the middle, but accepting that occasionally a truly fair system will see the scale tip the other way. If women were supposed to be able to trust that 9 men wouldn’t make decisions to hurt them, men should be able to trust 9 women.

This aside just to point out that yeah, sometimes the course correct tips the other way because we we tired of the status quo.


Annnnnnnnd we’re done. That’s not a fact, and also has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.



Only Brick matches my criteria at all… and he is an awesome character, but he is obvious comic relief. They make fun of him for lacking in intelligence WAY to much, he isn’t a real leader nor a serious character in BL2 or BL3, Brick is supposed to be a joke, btw, the point that I was making in my original post.

The rest of the characters don’t fit at all.

Brick did have his moments though. Like when he confronted Roland at their reunion in BL2 and again Lilith in the Commander Lilith DLC. Brick has depth. (Haven’t got to meeting him in BL3 yet.)


Borderlands’ story is about subversion. Think about why that means they don’t put the typical cliche hero at the helm.


With the exception of Marcus, none of them are competant. Apparently people are saying Zane is pansexual, Rhys is bi and has basically become a damsel in distress, Vaughn… Really?

Temporary close while overly personal posts are removed.


Thread will re-open once folks have had a chance to read, digest, and reflect.

This topic was automatically opened after 68 minutes.

Okay, long response incoming - plenty going on in this thread that I’d like to respond to.

Okay. Let me try and explain. There is a certain push, especially in media circles for ‘diversity’ - which does seem to be code for ‘non male, non straight, non white’. If you want evidence of this, an Apple employee was forced to apologize when she said that a room full of straight white people could be diverse, and was sacked.

This is not just about BL3. There are people - and you can see it in this thread - claiming that sexual orientation is not biological, and is a choice. And that being straight is not the correct choice.

This sort of stuff is what people are pushing back on. It’s definitely not a majority, but it’s a very load and surprisingly powerful minority that has a lot of gaming companies by the throat.

For example - just look at this post:

See what I mean?

Bingo. And yet…this sort of constructivism is the zeitgeist in a lot of academia right now. And it’s…nonsense.

Huh? For a long time, most main characters in games weren’t ‘straight white males’. They were animals, weird pixel things and robots/planes/aliens.

Didn’t they say ‘no more characters’ this time?

I think this was meant in the context of BL3.

There are people in this thread, and certainly in this industry who would definitely say that any straight, cis male main character is problematic…

Just look at the responses to other games. I can provide examples if you want.

The PCs aren’t ‘main’ characters. They are mostly a player surrogate.

It’s…not though. It’s incorrect, but how it is homophobic?

In BL3…maybe. But you need to look at it in the context of what is going on in the industry today. There is a definite strain of thought that diversity is, in and of itself, a good thing. And this can create some very strange situations and controversies. Just look at all the flak CDPR have received over Cyberpunk not being ‘progressive’ enough.

No, this is the wrong way to go about it. I don’t think anyone in this thread has a problem with LGBTQIAP or whatever the full acronym is now existing, and to say this is ludicrous.

What people have a problem with is this new mindset in the media that says:

  • Straight white men are problematic.
  • Diversity should be a goal in and of itself.
  • Diversity means non straight, non cis, non male.
  • Everything is a social construct and thus a choice.

This is what is getting pushback. And rightfully so.

Except that when you push ‘diversity’ to a certain degree, you are going to leave people out. The majority of people. Who will then be told that them being the majority is a problem in and of itself.

Except that this is a utopian fallacy. And as we’ve seen in Cyberpunk and some other games, this quickly becomes ‘even having a gender binary is deeply problematic’.

I’m an old fart too, but one who spends a lot of time in academic circles. I’ll try to explain.

It’s the current zeitgeist, growing out of a movement that can best be described as social-constructivism, growing out of a combination of Hegelist and Marxist thought. Essentially, it posits that all boundaries are bad, everything, including the idea of biological sex and gender is problematic and that anyone who isn’t straight, white and male is oppressed. It then follows the Marxist axiom that the oppressed have a right to hate and oppress their oppressors. Extend this out, and you have the modern climate in gaming - where any game featuring a straight white male protagonist is problematic.

Honestly, the Supmatto thing was pretty concerning too - and seldom mentioned.

And this is why you are seeing pushback. This whole idea of ‘fragile masculinity’. It’s acceptable to bash and deride straight men for being straight men, and any problem that straight men have with this is further evidence of ‘fragile masculinity’. It’s wonderfully designed Kafkatrap.


And I refuse to believe that this thread was even created in good faith. It’s been a troll from the start to get people fighting about it.


So, because OP doesn’t get his straight white hero to lead the charge, there’s a problem? When can a game exist without that? Sorry, not sorry.


It actually sort of does. The thread has gone on to the whole ‘being cis is problematic’ and ‘fragile masculinity’ tripe. The topic is now pretty damn broad.

RBG was being glib. And if you tip things the other way, in a few decades you are going to need to tip it back once again.

But I guess the oppressed have the right to oppress the oppressor…right?

Bingo. But as you can see from the general tenor of this thread, your inclusion is ‘problematic’ in and of itself. As we’ve seen from the Cyberpunk controversy, even the idea of a simple binary of ‘male’ and ‘female’ is now wrongthink

Always remember the mindset that this stuff is coming from. And read some Hegel, if you really want to know it’s origins.

The Frankfurt School was a mistake…

The majority of society is straight and cis-gendered, and every study that has attempted to disprove this is complete bunko.

I’m not sure what we are permitted to link here, but from what I’ve read, the majority of shooter fans are straight males. Which is what people like Anita Sarkeesian and Bob Chipman are constantly complaining about.

Actually, there is extremely strong evidence that not having a father in your life is an indicator of potential criminality and poverty, and that having a stable, two parent household is a greater advantage than private schooling.


I’ve only really seen, in this thread and others before it, people saying that a lack of them shouldn’t be while others say that the lack of them is. This seems to be an issue of people complaining about snowflakes but wanting to be snowflakes.

Again, I’ve not read anything that says this. Rather, I am getting that people feel there should be no “wrong” choice.

Um, no. Maybe the idea that it is possible is a utopian fallacy, but most ideals fall apart in real world practice. Generally speaking, it appears that rather than “equality” what people want is a chance to hold the whip. But we’re not really talking about equality here, I was using that sentence to say that we shouldn’t be playing tit for tat with game characters. If this isn’t a big deal then we should be able to dispense with scoreboards. Which you seem to understand given this next bit:

I doubt we completely disagree, but it feels as though some of the language being used is being taken without the context that makes it relevant. In the grand scheme of things, this is a non-issue being made into an issue, by folks who are so used to being ubiquitous that they have a hard time seeing themselves less than that.

1 Like