LGBTQ content planned?

[LenniTheGeek]

This is silly guys. This should be the LEAST of their concerns. Their is way to many other things they need to be focused on. People in the park is good enough.

Why is this silly? If we could give suggestions about tiny screws on the coaster, or about hat colors and how people look like, there should be room for anything.
This is the category for ideas. And all ideas are welcome.

<Residual Cleanup>.

It's a simulation game which wanna have a believable crowd. So this is not about a political statement. This is just facing the reality. And it's reality that not just "normal" familys walking in a park. Or would you also like to remove peeps with dark skin color, mix raced families and so on - because it's a game for kids?! [where is it]
So please homophobes out there. Behave yourself! World changed. Get the reality. [sulk]

 

[Coastin' Dave]

It seems this topic is such a hot topic, especially if it's already in game. This isn't a simulation about political ideologies, this is about realistic theme park simulation. So any group should be represented based on realistic population proportions. The LGBT community is 3.8% of the U.S. population for example, so the game should reflect that percentage.

Based on the US census graph here:
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur... make up a slight majority of the population.

And here's the division based on ethnicity in the US:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-f...search/Images/0/123/0826_census_race_fig1.jpg

And here's where the 3.8 figure comes from:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183383/americans-greatly-overestimate-percent-gay-lesbian.aspx

The point is, it would be nice to include as much diversity as possible, yes, but it should be based on real demographics. These numbers, of course, will vary country to country, but it's a good basis for looking at population demographics, especially considering how a good majority of the world's finest theme parks are in the US (Florida and California in particular [happy]). The in game guests should reflect real life demographics a bit better. That's the bottom line and I hope that this game will be focused on fun and realistic theme park simulation and not politics. Also, there are more guest types coming soon, and I think that's where we need to see more variety most of all.

So please homophobes out there. Behave yourself! World changed. Get the reality. [sulk]

No one is afraid of anyone who is LGBT. It is a reality that the LGBT group is about 3.8%. Any crowd simulation should reflect that. Again, this is not the place to push political beliefs; I've given some graphs of demographics for everyone's reference just to get a rough idea about guest diversity.
May I suggest someone start a new thread to discuss guest demographics as a whole, and not just one aspect? If there is such a thread, please post a link here, I'm sure these graphs and statistics will help. [happy]

 

[bogtrotter]

Again; not including diversity is a deliberate choice, and I'm glad to see the game just going for it. The racial diversity is great, and I'd love to see gender diversity in the employees - male and female mechanics, for example - when they're finally introduced. I understand these things don't matter a tremendous amount, and I understand that it requires more assets to be made. However, diversity really sends a great message and it makes the game feel more vibrant, more lively and you know, more diverse. It's not about being "correct" or about making a political statement: it's about reflecting a realistic world, one that embraces variety. We'd think it ridiculous if there weren't any children in the game; we'd think it ridiculous if all the guests preferred the exact same rides... gameplay diversity and visual diversity go hand in hand.

Going by the census results above, if accuracy is what really matters, then about 1 in 25 guests should "identify as LGBT". I'm not that fussed if the actual number in the game is bigger; I think for the sake of equality it might be interesting to make guest randomization completely random - after all, the people in your park are just a random selection of people who decided to visit your park that day. But perhaps that is a different discussion.

 

[RJGEvans]

As gay couples are already represented within the game, I really see little need for further discussion on this topic aside from gender and sexuality politics. It is a mute issue at best.

 

[Mr Deuce]

As gay couples are already represented within the game, I really see little need for further discussion on this topic aside from gender and sexuality politics. It is a mute issue at best.

That is an important issue - what about mute people? Everyone in PC seems to talk, it's very unrealistic.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

As gay couples are already represented within the game, I really see little need for further discussion on this topic aside from gender and sexuality politics. It is a mute issue at best.

Discussion is healthy. Why shut it down?




[heart]

 

[gregorburns]

As gay couples are already represented within the game, I really see little need for further discussion on this topic aside from gender and sexuality politics. It is a mute issue at best.

While there is a discussion going why would we want to stop it just because it's already made to the game? As with everything there's always room for improvement and constructive discussion. If something on this forum does not interest you, then leave it alone for those who are interested.

 

[RJGEvans]

It's not that it does not intrest me, far from it. I never stated as such. I am just fully aware of how this could go. With some now quoting persentiles of representation and alike, it can inevitably become a mess of what the programmers should do and who to entertain. I say leave it to the algorithm to just create couples with or without children. The idea that the system would be designed around strict numbers of how many, or how few, gay couples should be in the park bothers me.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Discussion is healthy. Why shut it down?




[heart]

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/...oaster-2016-05-25-01-43-14-83_zpsguqenqd5.jpg

That's a rather sweet picture.

 

[gregorburns]

It's not that it does not intrest me, far from it. I never stated as such. I am just fully aware of how this could go. With some now quoting persentiles of representation and alike, it can inevitably become a mess of what the programmers should do and who to entertain. I say leave it to the algorithm to just create couples with or without children. The idea that the system would be designed around strict numbers of how many, or how few, gay couples should be in the park bothers me.

Sorry if I misunderstood slightly then, but I think this is why discussion is important. I also agree that there is no point having a realistic demographic spread of people but I do think that there should be a good representation of all types of people in the game. Even if there are slightly more gay couples than there's "proven" to be in the US

 

[RJGEvans]

Sorry if I misunderstood slightly then, but I think this is why discussion is important. I also agree that there is no point having a realistic demographic spread of people but I do think that there should be a good representation of all types of people in the game. Even if there are slightly more gay couples than there's "proven" to be in the US

It is a well known truism that in academia the more attention you give to something, the more you play with it. Perhaps I see it as something that now it is in the game, why potentially cause unnecessary attention. I don't deride conversation, but I have become very weary (and aware) of what 'light' as it were can cause. The last thing anyone wants is special intrest groups getting their hands on something like this. There are too many people wishing to get attention over it, if you understand my drift.

 

[bogtrotter]

The idea that the system would be designed around strict numbers of how many, or how few, gay couples should be in the park bothers me.

I do agree with that. It's interesting to put in realistic variation as well, though, for example, families of six should exist, but they'd be less prominent than families with one child. Likewise, I'd love to see grandparents taking their child to the park, or single parents. The more different group dynamics there are in-game, the more interesting it is to develop the park. Depending on the rides or the advertisement, it could appeal more to single guests, it could appeal more to large groups of teenagers, or it could appeal more to families. Being able to influence the kind of people in your park like that in some way might be fun.

All things being said, the game is called Planet Coaster - a title which implies international appeal and universality. It's a large market, absolutely, but the game isn't called "United States of Coaster". Just going by US statistics and basing the game's demographic entirely on that would actually be absurd.
Creating a fantasy planet full of diverse people for whom skin color, sexual preference, gender, weight does not matter... I think that absolutely adds to the fun and the mass appeal of a game like this and it should be encouraged.

 

[RJGEvans]

I do agree with that. It's interesting to put in realistic variation as well, though, for example, families of six should exist, but they'd be less prominent than families with one child. Likewise, I'd love to see grandparents taking their child to the park, or single parents. The more different group dynamics there are in-game, the more interesting it is to develop the park. Depending on the rides or the advertisement, it could appeal more to single guests, it could appeal more to large groups of teenagers, or it could appeal more to families. Being able to influence the kind of people in your park like that in some way might be fun.

All things being said, the game is called Planet Coaster - a title which implies international appeal and universality. It's a large market, absolutely, but the game isn't called "United States of Coaster". Just going by US statistics and basing the game's demographic entirely on that would actually be absurd.
Creating a fantasy planet full of diverse people for whom skin color, sexual preference, gender, weight does not matter... I think that absolutely adds to the fun and the mass appeal of a game like this and it should be encouraged.

I agree with your arguments; naturally one would not want the algorithm to go mad, e.g., nothing but X couple or Y model, but I doubt that would happen.

 

[culley38]

considering i am gay, i do like to see lgbtq couples in the game, but yes the main focus of the game is coaster and theme park simulation, the extra walks of life are a little bonus to add to realism.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I suggest we post more pictures of the cutest LGBT couples we find in our parks in this thread.
Coastin' Dave, you're welcome to participate as well. [heart][up]

 

[Zombie Man]

Point of reference: Disney's latest park promotional videos features interracial and gay couples.

 

[gregorburns]

There's plenty of other threads on this forum discussing things that have already made it to the game. What makes this one any different?

 

[XKELX]

They should. Frontier should not worry about the opinions of bigots. And gays love theme parks! haha

 

[MetaShadow]

Sexuality and gender Identity (though really gender is biological) have no place in a theme park game.

 

[MetaShadow]

They should. Frontier should not worry about the opinions of bigots. And gays love theme parks! haha

Not approving of something you like isn't bigotry. And resorting to name calling has no place in any thread. Also wanting something in a game doesn't mean it should be put in.

 

[pwc1]

They should. Frontier should not worry about the opinions of bigots. And gays love theme parks! haha

This is very OFFENSIVE! Is it only okay for the Pro-LGBTQ groups to be mean and call people names? Sounds like a double standard to me. You want us to respect y'all, but yet you don't respect us who disagree with your lifestyle.