I don't quite get it. The argument is pretty badly fractured. First you want to say it's unnecessary, then you go on to explain that in the games where it's done right it's unnecessary because you didn't like the options presented to you, and then you end off by saying that attempts to bring gay characters into games will segment gamers.
It's no about having characters to relate to. It's about introducing something as everyday as homosexuality into videogames. It's about giving gay gamers the choice, if they want it. Aside from those games that use homosexuality as a selling point or those that totally overplay the gay angle, I can't really think of one valid reason why homosexuality shouldn't be an option in games. I, for one, am glad that companies like Bioware have been able to introduce the topic of homosexuality into their games without making such a big deal of it.
Rampant homophobia is not something that is limited to gaming, so I don't see why homosexuality should be kept out of gaming because a few children like to call everyone fags.
Your argument is based off of the ability to "choose" - to have an "option". By all means, that's all well and good, when you come off a base of being able to develop a character in a way you see fit.
Except most games DON'T do that. It's a pre-determined character in a pre-determined universe - that means you're not making any choices, you're viewing a character's story. With that, the developers need to structure it as such, market it as such, and portray it as such. My argument bases off that backdrop. Will Ezio's story - the over-reaching story as a whole - be any different if he was gay? Nathan Drake? Marcus Fenix?
Try not and confuse the issue - I mentioned BioWare because it's one of the only company's that actually do the gay thing, and I didn't deride them for it: they treat it like it's a normal thing, because it is. But if it's a normal thing, then why make a big deal about it - it's not that exciting.
It's not about choice - games don't give players choice over the finer details of the characters; BioWare, MMOs, et al are an exception to that idea.
The fag-calling was brought up to highlight a different aspect. The kids' abusive nature isn't a way of going "wah wah people will be mean to me" - it was brought up to emphasise the level we're at as a gaming culture - when women (who are in greater number than the gays by a massive margin) can't even be treated with a modicum of respect. The comparitive pictures were to highlight how games are marketed, pushing the same sort of point.
I understand gay gamers' desire to be represented in games - and fair on that. I understand the necessity of having this representation in all forms of media. Hell, being out and proud and all that is completely necessary for progression everywhere.
But you know what? I play games because it's NOT set in a real world. And I certainly don't need to have a gay character to identify with, relate to represent and extension of myself. I just want to shoot things with a big gun.
I don't go to a restaurant and order a gay burger and eat it with my gay chips. It's a burger. It's chips. It tastes the same. Just because it's not served on a rainbow plate doesn't mean it's any different. So why serve it on a rainbow plate?
Eish, one could write a thesis on this, because there are an abundant of persepctives and ways to approach it. As a column, it's just my view on the matter. We can agree to disagree. Or not.