Why wasn’t more done with Soldier 76 when the writing staff pulled him out of the closet? Why was he turned into an insulting virtue signal instead of coming out with a story to go with it, like having him and Reaper been lovers at the start of the Omnic Crisis, thus adding an extra layer to the revenge arc.
4 Likes
Idk why but im pretty sure everyone on the forums didn’t want them to make such a big deal about it because then it looks like they’re just forcing it.
3 Likes
With “virtue signal” you mean his coming out in bastet?
Whaat? O.ó
the problem is that it is quite difficult to talk about “narrative forcing” when you have enormous narrative slowness like OW. It is also true that with Tracer her coming out in 2016 was not “so soon”, if we think that everyone knew that she was the icon of OW since 2014.
but the love story of soldier 76 is not even denied in some way: the recipe book mentions his relationship with Vincent (litterally “boyfriend”), and I think many have misunderstood a rather delicate topic that S76 touched on: the stories that ended badly, perhaps because of prejudices .
but if I have to “understand” the community about his reaction to things he was proposed, I would say the bad timing that OW had in revealing it: it was the beginning of a long period in which events had become super monotonous, with zero news at the gameplay, still no new map (which would have been Paris) and above all in the midst of a GOATS crisis. any information would have been an “excuse” to sensationalize, and if we have to be even more honest, Bastet than the other stories has limited himself to “put order” on the events that already knew each other (ARG di sombra, the saga of Ana etc. ), almost the same flaw that research has in its wanting to mention other narrative events at all costs.
let’s think if they had said that pharah has a brother or if in reality ana and soldier were in love: many people would still be angry with the accusation of "forcing narrative to sensationalize "in a period in which OW was not doing well in terms of novelty.
3 Likes
“but the love story of soldier 76 is not even denied in some way: the recipe book mentions his relationship with Vincent (litterally “boyfriend”), and I think many have misunderstood a rather delicate topic that S76 touched on: the stories that ended badly, perhaps because of prejudices .”
My problem with it is that it felt forced. Soldier’s story is one of Vengeance, cold, hard, simple vengeance. Him being straight or gay had no baring on it. If you are going to add a sexuality to a story, it should be to enhance a narrative like in the example that I was giving. Emily’s introduction, and being Tracer’s lover made sense. Tracer was a hero struggling to continue to be a hero after heroism was rejected. Emily was like the MJ to Peter’s Spiderman. She was Tracer’s hope, her love, her emotional anchor. She adds to Tracer’s story. Bastet, and Vincent, felt tacked on. They could have done something with him to expand the lore of the verse, maybe had them be lovers until Gabriel Reyes killed Vincent during the betrayal. Or presented Vincent as still being alive and the only thing that’d keep Soldier from putting the pulse rifle barrel in his mouth and pulling the trigger after everything is over. They could have done a thousand interesting things with this. The way they presented everything just felt like an attempt to grab Twitter’s attention and a slap in the face of gay representation. I can’t believe i’m saying this, but it felt like lazier writing than all 3 Star Wars Sequels and Kurtzman’s Star Trek shows rolled into one package.
And i’m saying this as a gay man. I enjoy being represented, but organically represented instead of feeling like it was forced in to put another check on a list to get into an awards show or to get a twitter mob off their backs. All that I ask is that some time and effort be put into integrating such decisions, and doing something with it, instead of seemingly saying ‘How can we get twitter users to start playing’ then rolling a metaphorical d20 to see which male character is gay and doing nothing substantial with it.
4 Likes
Sexuality is not a plot device.
And she would have still added to Tracer’s story if she was Eric instead of Emily. Tracer’s sexuality is irrelevant to this.
Bastet wasn’t about Vincent, he was barely mentioned. The point of bringing him up was to show how Jack is too dedicate to his cause (whether that’s the omnic crisis or running Overwatch or hunting down Reaper) to settle down and have a family the way Ana did with Sam, and Gabriel did with his wife. Vincent could have been Vanessa and it would not change anything.
Gay people can exist without “doing anything with it”. They don’t have to have a reason to be gay.
12 Likes
That was on dec 2018 - jan 2019.
Try searching for something like the Blitzchung thing but around those dates and you have the answer.
“Guys, we are good people, see?”.
1 Like
There’s value in just having a gay man EXIST in the narrative instead of his gayness somehow being plot relevant. Part of the issue is that Jack’s relevance to the overall plot going into OW2 seems to be minimal, so there likely isn’t going to be much for him to do as a character at this stage. I won’t presume to tell a gay man how to feel about this, but it seems to me like the greater objective of representation isn’t “make a character’s ethnicity/gender identity a key element of their story relevance” but instead “this character doesn’t get treated differently from any other character, because being Egyptian/gay is a complete normal thing and doesn’t make them special in some way.”
1 Like
completely disagree with this statement, if you allow me. the only contribution that Emily makes is the “family” factor, someone who waits for her at home. the only difference between her and vincent is that soldier no longer has hir love for him in his home, just as ana will not return to her husband Sam and hypothetically (it is implied in bastet) that Gabe will not return to her family . but in no way does Emily add anything else to the Tracer’s life / mission / lore (even in London Calling), and Vincent himself. there are two ways of telling a story, that ended well and one that didn’t go on. frankly i don’t see any Narrative problems, but i find it somewhat exaggerated to esaltate emily just because she had more space to appear in the lore. 
2 Likes
There’s really nothing in Emily’s interactions with Tracer, whether in Reflections or in Tracer’s own recent comic series, that suggests she supported Tracer’s efforts to be a hero when Tracer herself felt down about it.
You’re reading something into the character that isn’t there, in order to make Emily into a device that justifies Tracer’s narrative. The point is that you could make Tracer a male character and nothing about the relationship with Emily would change: the partner trying to get a last-minute present in Reflections, or carrying around a picture as a memento on missions, or catching moments together between all of the other stuff happening during London Calling.
And that’s the real point: it’s more of a disservice to Tracer (and Soldier) to make the gay element relevant in some way, rather than simply treating it as something that’s completely normal. Lena has someone waiting for her back home, someone she’s fighting for. Jack does not, specifically because Jack left that behind in order to fight his war.
2 Likes
finally someone who defines the term “equality” well without going to forcibly search for subtexts that must necessarily be written in a precise and explicit way.
really, thank you 
3 Likes
Anything can be a plot device if you want it to be.
Had it been Jack being accused of having a relationship with a girl while strike commander in overwatch-you could reveal he’s gay w BF and BAM all accusations dropped and being gay served a purpose.
Okay, sexuality shouldn’t be a plot device.
Why not? As long as it’s used as a one off thing and done tongue in cheek I honestly don’t see a problem with it? Bonus points if Jack’s parents are in the room at the time of the reveal and it makes things super awkward.
The sexuality of a character isn’t important. Soldier’s ex was mentioned very briefly and it wasn’t to announce his sexuality, it was to state how he was more devoted to Overwatch than to a personal life.
People got way too excited over a detail that means very little. He’s gay? Cool. There isn’t a need to make a fuss about it.
4 Likes
Sexuality shouldn’t be important to the plot?
I agree! It depends on the focus of the story.
Then, why it is always important when it’s heterosexuality?
Saying it is unimportant always when the discussioun is about characters that are lgbt+ is a dog whistle at this point.
But back to the topic.
In the past I would’ve argued that it was just poor timing by the developers. However, since the overwatch’s writing consist of just justifying plots and relationships in retrospect, by not planing the plot and making stuff up as they go on. I reserve my right to, in retrospect, agree that it could be considered virtue signaling by the writers,devs and company. They had years of development, and almost 5 years of the game out to write and make more content, and insted, they decided to work on a lore sequel where they’ll just repeat the same cliché stories we’ve seen in popular culture for decades, but now with overwatch characters.
2 Likes
wait, what’s an instance where it’s important that someone is heterosexual?
1 Like
Ask that to all the movies, books, series, comic books, theater plays, cartoons, songs, video clips, commercials, games,ads, marketing materials, and many others. That have a heterosexual couple in them all the time, just because, when it doesn’t serve any purpoise.
2 Likes
That’s the opposite of important.
1 Like
If it’s unimportant then why they always dedicate time to that?
The point of showing them isn’t that they’re straight, it’s that they have relationships with people.
1 Like