Not particularly. People point out Skyrim's gay marriage but I actually think that might have required less work. Cuz you didn't have to add gender tags to the NPCs, they were just open to everyone. I never married anyone in Skyrim so I don't know if they ever use any kind of genderizing endearments but they might even have avoided extra VO work. Bethesda doesn't have a good track record when it comes to representation. I actually think CDProjekt might be ahead of the curve here.

Here's hoping some Obsidian rubbed off on them with New Vegas though. Actually more than a little. They could use it in the writing department.

They can both use it in the writing department. If we're speaking main-story writing they were both pretty bad. NV gets away with it because it had so much crossover between quests, and different options existed for how one went about doing things.

The only good story writing was Lonesome Road, Dead Money, and Randall Clark's tale in Zion National Park.

Dead Money's story... ~fans self~

Don't get all moist on me now.

Who is "ranting?" You say these absurd things in your post about anyone that doesn't agree with you. I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss representation in a video game. I doubt anyone advocating for broader representation on this thread believes there is anything that can be done for FO4 as the game this late in development is feature locked. But this game isn't representative of same six relationships, that should be discussed. There isn't a requirement story wise for both parents to be biologically connected to the child. If the main character must be biologically connected to the child it is pretty bloody easy to explain as same six couples often have children where only one spouse is a biological parent.

The hostility expressed towards adding diverse representation is telling on these two threads. People say it doesn't matter but they sure get hot under the collar for something they claim isn't important. The lack of same six relationship representation will have zero impact on MY game as I am represented by the game. But i fully support people wanting to be able to play a character that is representative of themselves because it hurts no one. It increases diversity which attracts more more people. More people buying the game grows the industry. A larger industry means more games which meas more choice. More games mean you need people to make said games and that means more people working in the industry which means a greater chance of innovation. More innovation means better game in the long run.

People who are able to play a character that is representative of themselves often say it isn't an issue but as I pointed out in the previous thread, Rust proved the lie to that. The rage over people finding out they get a character with a random appearance that includes a random race that is tied to their steam account so they CAN'T change it was telling. Seems when the majority has representation they will say it doesn't matter but when they lose it they flip out. That seems to be strong evidence that representation in games is important.

GTA: San Andreas is one of my favorite games. I played it for countless hours on multiple gaming systems. I never once complained the main character is black and is not representative of me, a white male.

If they added a way for people to be white, asian or any other race in GTA San andreas it would have broken the story, this is exactly what you and the diversity crowd is trying to do here. Grow up and deal with it.

Also, quoting you from another thread:

"There isn't anything you can do about it except make a character concept that fits the parameters of the game. If you wanted to play a Nord wizard in FO4 cuz you know freedom to role play. You are going to be hitting your head against a brick wall. now this example is only given to illustrate that all games have restrictions and your imagination isn't the only arbiter and shouldn't be the only arbiter of character creation."

Uh, last I checked, GTA isn't a game that allows you to be whoever you want to be and do whatever you want to do. You have a set character in a set setting doing a set storyline. CJ is always going to be black person from poverty, Niko is always going to be a white Serb with PTSD and no money, and Michael DeSanta is always going to be a white guy living in a manor being unhappy with his life.

Bethesda's entire mantra is 'do what you want, be what you want, go where you want'. Don't you see how patently stupid it is to say that, yet only show the white dude? If I wasn't familiar with this series, I'd assume you could only ever play as the white dude. Seriously, it's not going to kill them to show screenshots of the many incarnations of Sole Survivor kicking ass.

Hurr durr why can't I be a female to male black transgender midget! Oh look, more entitled babies crying over matters of inclusion. Modders will make a live another life mod so who cares.

Why did Bethesda show the white character? Probably because their too busy developing the game instead of worrying about how many sceenshots they released of a black version of the protagonist. You PC users need to stop finding ridiculous ways to be offended.

And it's not like they have to devote half the team for this. Just have ONE person make a bunch of characters, post them kicking ass, take screenshots.

Seems like an unnecessary thing to do just to please a few people. Most gay people probably don't care at all.

It's 1950's america, it wouldn't really fit to have a gay couple living in a big house with a baby back then. Besides, the baby is a mix between the parents.

If your character has to be gay, just imagine it. Problem solved.

That's a very blunt way of saying it, but this is what me and mostly everyone here think.

So some people are asking for some changes. And? Why is this a big deal for you? Why do you even care? Are you afraid that these changes would destroy your enjoyment of the game?

So that means all the arguments you people come up with in the end just means "I'm a bigot".

Which is precisely what I've been suspecting, and that's in fact good, because this means your arguments are entirely pointless and we can disregard them completely

What are you talking about? The problem is not be "why can't my character be gay" but why am I locked into playing a partially predefined character in a game series that has traditionally provided a relatively blank slate character.

There are some Reddit threads where they tried to figure out the perks by looking at the Pipboy thing and the poster in the reveal trailer that has all the perks. You can't see a lot with the http://i.imgur.com/JeBQ1wU.jpg but you can see more with the little page that comes http://i.imgur.com/GvJH23e.jpg

That first one seems to be Lady Killer and if they're including that I don't see why they can't include cherchez la femme and confirmed bachelor. Assuming these are representative of the perks that are gonna be in the game ofc.

Also, I dunno if my post got deleted or I just forgot to post it or maybe even posted it in the wrong spot but: when people don't have an actual counterpoint but still find something objectionable they try and bury it in ridicule. Make it laughable so it doesn't need to be taken seriously or considered at all. It's always happened every single time inclusivity or equality has been brought up throughout history.

No, what it means is, we are tired of a tiny minority of gamers spitting and moaning that their 'lifestyle choice', or, whatever you want to call it, isn't represented in the game. Why should beth cater to YOU, but, not, for example, Muslims? I don't see any burqas for female characters in the clothing selection, and Muslims represent a SIGNIFICANTLY larger percentage that the LBGT crowd ever will. Should the Catholics out there among us start complaining that only one child 'is not representative of their beliefs', and should therefore be changed?

Face it, the human race has TWO sixes. Male, and Female. What you pretend you are, or who you choose to sleep with doesn't change that basic fact. I am actually pleased to find an instance where someone is NOT catering to the LGBT crowd, like seems to be happening everywhere else. A tiny percentage of the population, that seem to believe their rights trump everyone elses. (and THERE is a discussion that is a major no-no here, so, that's all I am going to say on the matter.....)

None of that was actually a reason not to though. An impressive amount of smokescreen (+ spitting and moaning) but you didn't actually say anything.

Even if you're planning to have a large family, you start with one child, so I don't know what that comment was about, but that aside... I am all for more options. Options are great. I fully support adding different types of clothes, food (as limited as it is in the wasteland), dialogue choices reflecting different character traits and so on. I'll take as many as possible within the budget and the narrative constraints. What I will not do, however, is say "Bethesda can't give us all the options, so they should give us even fewer." Which is what you're saying. And that's a massive argument fail, I'm afraid.

Very nicely put.

It is refreshingly amusing to see the SJWs grasping for power when there's nothing to hold on to.

I will admit I am one of those people who are disappointed over that point. I am gay and I would enjoy playing a gay character.

However to not play that game over a detail that might not even matter after 30 minutes seems really overboarding it. Fallout is so much more than just that. The world is massive and immersive. It just begs to be explored. I can also forgive being straight as long as they make the story worth it.

Hell for all we know the entire first part was just part of a massive simulation lol.

Really though I am equally interested in playing as the mother. The journey between submissive 50s housewife and badass wasteland worrior jumping into a power armor sounds like a long and interesting adventure I want to experience.

So am I disappointed that I may not be gay in this game? Of course but not enough to stop me from buying and playing. There are many, many, unknown aspects we are yet to know. And even if I am infact straight in this game I feel playing the mother will offer an interesting and compelling.

I habe very much faith in Bethesda, so much so that I even got the pip boy edition!

While I might not be getting the Pipboy edition (what am I going to do with that thing?) , what we see in the game has already convinced me to buy it.

Your answer brings some much needed reasoning to this thread. That's what me and the others battling the SJWs are saying. It's one stupid detail, lore breaking that makes no sense.

There's so much more to the game.

I fail to see how the game limits you from playing a gay character. Fallout IS based on 1950's society, no matter how much some folks want to deny it. That has been established since the first game came out in 1997. In THAT society, sure, there were indeed gays, but, they had their 'cover lives'.... wife, kids, "happy home', etc. This is no different. There is zero outward physical signs of being gay. It's not found on any forms under "six", maybe under "sixual preference" but, thats it.

All that aside, once you emerge from the vault, anything is fair game, and I would not be at all surprised if same-six relationships were indeed supported, and I just don't have a problem with that. In all reality, Skyrim was the first Beth game (that I am aware of) that supported relationships of ANY kind.

What I think really gets my goat is, is that this is some much of an issue, that it has had several threads dedicated to it. One of which being named "No gender selection in character creation.", or, the rough equivalent thereof... when that is blatantly false. sixual preference/gender identity is NOT gender. As I have stated before, if you have the twig and berries, you are male. Doesn't matter what you pretend to be, or who you prefer to sleep with.

True. People before 2077 probably had bigger and more pressing issues than whether two dudes or dudettes were bumping hips in the privacy of their own home.

People have some really funny ideas of what "blank slate" means.

Blank Slate:

You start at the character creation screen with a neutral background (no world assets).

You finish character creation and are given a choice to enter a tutorial or head straight into the game.

The tutorial is best done indoors, this is where you learn the games controls. There is no story, you just move from station to station and do what you are prompted to do.

At the completion of the tutorial you get transported to a safe and indoor location in the game world (the same place you would go if you chose to skip the tutorial).

In the game, there will NEVER be a reference to your past. The game will NEVER try to establish of connection between the player and the game's plot or even hint that there is a connection.

THAT would be a blank slate character, and that has NEVER occurred in any Fallout game.

There is always a character back story and each one of them has placed some limitations on the character. So this time around the back story conflicts with the desires of a more vocal crowd and they are voicing a certain amount of discontent. I get that.

Guess what. I have NEVER been able to play a Fallout game with a back story for my character that I would prefer to have and all indications are that I won't be able to this time. The main difference is that I don't place as much value on the character's back story as others do.