@Dark_Mits: Yeah, I grew up on those games. But that's not great game design; a lot of 80s games were designed to milk quarters out of you at the arcade. It's depressing to see game design come full circle back to that philosophy. I like games that are designed to be the best possible version of an experience that you buy and own, not games that are designed to seem like they probably would be a lot of fun if only I bought one more pack of gems for $4.99 or whatever.
Sadly, many mobile gamers would rather Nintendo had released a "free" game that gave you five lives and then made you watch ads and wait or pay to get more lives, and that had levels that were borderline impossible to beat without using consumable power-ups that you could acquire by spending real money or grinding for hundreds of hours. Paying money to own a thing, and having that thing designed to just be good rather than to endlessly needle you for more money, is so 1990s.
I saw this news on Twitter, and my first thought was, "I bet the Gamespot commenters are freaking the ferk out over this," and you guys did not disappoint.
If you never complained that having hetero characters in a game was "forcing an agenda," then you don't get to complain that having one gay character (out of 23) in a game is "forcing an agenda." If Tracer said, "Let's kill all straight people because being straight is gross," that would be anti-hetero; Tracer simply being gay is not anti-hetero. And is it "manufactured diversity"? Yes, because these are fictional characters. Literally everything about them is manufactured.
Even though I already own Battlefront, I find this news weirdly exciting simply for the fact that now I don't ever have to put the disc back into my Xbox in order to play a few matches.
Myrmecophagidae's comments