Glasswolf: @Klumpen0815: I haven't read any of your posts but your last one, and I don't really think you're homophobic; you're fighting for an artist's rights to depict thier art however they choose to without it getting changed. And that's perfectly valid; an artist's work is thier self expression.
I think the main reason people want to change these artistic depictions is two fold; first, these games seem to be made as retail products first and foremost, and art second. Design choices are discussed and manipulated beyond the original creator's original intent to help make it sell more; look at DLC that changes the core experience, things that are cut or added in the design process, etc. That seems to comprimise it's integrity from the get go, similar to block buster films and the mainstream music industry, thus removing that 'shield' of artistic integrity in the eyes of many. Many don't see it as pure art; it's a product.
The second reason is because, far more so than any other art form, video games are truely interactable. They go beyond what a book, a film or show can produce; they make you take a role and be part of it. It's likley this, and to a lesser extent the sense of 'ownership' that stems from being a manatory part of the art's function, is why some people want the art to change, so it truely reflects them.
Bring these together, and you get a situation where a game is devalued as a piece of art in regards to its integrity due to it being seen first and foremost as a product, yet the art still has impact; more so because it *needs* you, and thus leaves a deeper effect on the 'viewer' than a static piece would.
When people take a role in a game, they want one of two things; to take on the role of a character, or take on the role of themselves in this media. The latter is why a lot of games that aren't character driven have a lot of character creation in them; if you're a black woman, you may want to be portrayed as yourself, and this customisation allows you to realise yourself in a decent fashion. Sexuality however, isn't something as cosmetic and obvious, but most of the time is irrelevant. Unless romance is a feature of the game. In situations where romance plays a key part of the experience, and you can realise yourself in one manner, but not the other, it can create discord and dissapointment. You would loose immersion. It can be frustrating, and some take it as a reminder they are not thought about (or to an extreme, 'accepted') by society. It's these sentiments, compounded by the strange view of video games as art we feel ownership of, that lead to people wanting things in these games. People want to more acurately depict themselves, and enjoy themselves on par with thier straight counterparts.
Is it the game designer's right to deny it? Yes, of course; thier product. But it would be kind of silly to do so if only from a financial standpoint; you'd make a lot more sales by catering to everyone than not for no reason (there doesn't seem to be any religious or cultural basis for this situation; it's more a case of Nintendo being culturally insular and clueless about certain things it's home society doesn't really deal with. Japan just doesn't think about gay people in a real world context, so Nintendo doesn't know what to even think with this sort of request.)
Best post I've read for a while and your other ones are good too.
