Well this is a bit of a minefield a no mistake, the news that Ubisoft have added male transgender character called Ned Wynert, who will dispense quests. The question is, why?
Well, obviously to be inclusive, but according to Eurogamer “It’s important to note that Wynert’s story does not involve his gender and, in the scenes we saw, is not even remarked upon.”
Inclusion is great, shoving in a token lesbian, gay or trans character is not. I really can’t see the point of this other than it being a box ticking exercise, if it’s not mentioned or part of the story in anyway then why publicise it? Practically any NPC character could be gay, lesbian, bi, or transgender, it really doesn’t matter to the game, it’s just words on a press release.
Look at the way Naughty Dog included Bill in The Last of Us. They didn’t need to talk about it and you only discovered he was gay via the story. Bill is a great ‘gay’ character because he’s so ‘normal’, you only discover about his love and loss as the game progresses. If Ubisoft had followed their lead then I wouldn’t even be writing this story, it would be – and it should be – a non event, discovered by gamers as they play.
To be honest, if Ubisoft were going to include alternative characters then this lot seem a hell of a lot more fun.
“Rebecca and her daughters,” a group of male-to-female cross-dressers, battled throughout the Welsh countryside destroying road toll barriers, which were making the poor even poorer. These warriors also adopted the names and identities of women.
Maybe that could be DLC, who doesn’t want to rampage through the Welsh valleys wearing a red and white checked gingham dress, matching bonnet, and pigtails*?
*Mr. Flibble’s very cross. What are we going to do with them Mr. Flibble?