9243 réponses à ce sujet

[Syledir]

Siansonea II wrote...

Syledir wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

While Shepard is a variable character, I don't think the other characters in the game are. They are who they are. If they are available for romance for both genders, they are bisexual, and that should be part of who the characters are, though not necessarily a 'big' part. 

I am not sure about the "They are who they are" part. In played Mass Effect 1 many times. During my playthrough as a Paragon I talked to Garrus a few times and it always went like this: "No, we shouldn't sacrifice civilians. That's evil." "Hm, I guess you are right, Shepard." In the end he decided to return to C-Sec and continue his work as a conscientious cop. During my playthrough as a Renegade it went like this: "We shouldn't hesitate to sacrifice civilians. It's for the greater good." "Hm, I guess you are right, Shepard." In the end he decided to apply to the spectres as a ruthless killer.
The same story with Ashley. In my first playthrough she is willing to save the Council, believing in galactic unity. In playthrough later she is willing to let them burn, believing in human superiority.

One could say that, if they are the same person in every playthrough, their opinions are easy to temper with. That they are weak minded drones with a personality that is malleable like hot wax.

Yet I see both, galactic-unity-Ashley and human-superiority-Ashley as two individuals, independent from each other. Like two versions from two different alternate universes, if you want to see it that way.
So why should it be different regarding sexuality? Couldn't there be a straight Ashley in one alternate universe and a lesbian Ashley in another?

Well, there's a difference between being influenced by Shepard, and having an alternate backstory. Of course the characters are influenced by Shepard to varying degrees, though you will notice that regardless of Garrus' intent at the ME1, he still ends up in the same place in ME2. Same with Tali, Ashley, Kaidan, Liara, and Wrex. They may be high on Shepard's fumes for a while in ME1, but when Shepard is removed from the equation, they pretty much default back to their own way of thinking. The 'alternate universe gay Ashley/Kaidan/whoever' idea doesn't sit well with me, because it essentially creates multiple versions of the characters prior to the events of the game. I guess I am just against that. I think it's much better for those characters to simply reveal that they are bisexual, if they are implemented as same-sex LIs. A bisexual character can still pursue opposite-sex romance, it happens all the time in real life.

It also feels really artificial that anyone the player is interested is automatically available as an LI, that is fanservice of the highest magnitude.

You make it sound like a bad thing.
Alright, you're right. However, if that is fanservice, the same can be said about Garrus and Tali.

You will not hear me say that the Garrus and Tali romances aren't fanservice. I think that they are really well-done fanservice for the most part, and I'm not terribly bothered by them, but I would hope that if the writers do go the fanservice route in ME3, that they do so at least as well as they did with Garrus and Tali, and hopefully better.

Speaking of writing, I really dislike the fact that Kaidan and Ashley start to feel like the same character in ME2, having very similar dialogue and whatnot. I HOPE that Kaidan and Ashley as implemented in ME3 feel like natural progressions of their characters, rather than just two sides of the same coin. Whether or not they are same-sex LIs or not, they need to be individuals.

Yeah, you pretty much got the opposite of what I suggested, in Mass Effect 2, with Kaidan and Ashley. Both are straight NPCs, but behaving like basically the same person.
But I don't think it is because of bad writing per se. More like BioWare realized that giving each individual his/her backstory or behaviour from Mass Effect 1 would simply burst the campacity of the game. Like Garrus for example: "Weren't you going back to C-Sec?" or "What happened to you and your Spectre application? Did you simply loose your nerve, while I wasn't there to hold your hand?" No, can't have that. Back to default Garrus. And all the time I invested in the character was for naught. I can understand why such decisions were made by BioWare. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a underwhelming experience.

That being said, Shepard pretty much represents different characters with different backstories, prior to the events of Mass Effect 1. There is female and a male Shepard. Renegade/Paragon, Spacer/Colonist, blablabla. And since there is no canon Shepard. Each and everyone of them represents his/her own story leading it to different directions. Rachni Queen: Dead or alive? Destiny Ascension: Saved or destroyed? And these decisions carry over to Mass Effect 2. I don't know about you, but I would call these alternate universes, full with AU NPCs. One survived the suicide mission, the other didn't.

[Siansonea]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Personally id like to think by the time of the Mass Effect universe that Earth/Humanity had outgrown this how label/judgement thing about peoples sexuality and to a lesser extent "race".

I think that the crew and squad shoulda been a little more representative of the demographics of society at large; so that if the current school of thought about it is correct and that it holds out until the time period in Mass Effect then most people should actually be bisexual.
The current belief as I have stated previously from various studies and the like that around 15 to 20 percent of the population is at the "gay" end of the sexuality spectrum and around the same (perhaps a little more up to around 25%) of people are at the "straight" end of the spectrum with "everyone else" falling somewhere in between. Meaning around 55 to 65 percent of people are "bisexual".
We are moving more and more towards a more accepting and tolerant society on most levels as the years pass; leaving behind archaic and outdated concepts such as genetic quirks that people can not help being considered "a sin" or "Punishment from god for the sins of others".
And as I said by the time of Mass Effect where we live in a universe of near infinite diversity as in ME then I would like to think we would be so far beyond those concepts that it wouldnt be funny.

As such I had thought that ideally the characters should have been...

ME2 it should be something like this IMO:
Miranda "I Am Practically Perfect In Every Way" Lawson is straight.
Jacob "I Am The Priiizzee" Taylor is straight.
Mordin Solus is straight and not into humans.
Samara is bisexual according to human conventions but too old for all that stuff.
Tali should be bisexual given she loves Shepard no matter what.
Jack should be bisexual because lets face it she SCREAMS it. (not to mention she also admits she has slept with women in the past as well.)
Garrus should be straight and NOT INTO HUMANS! (Not to mention the little fact that Turian and Human biology is incompatible and sleeping with one might kill him or make him seriously ill, why would he even entertain the thought? Or even have the thought in the first place?)
Thane "sensitive murderer" Krios is the male who has the character/past to be bisexual without it being a big shock.
Grunt again is straight and into his own species.
Zaeed is straight. nuff said.
Kasumi is straight also. Again nuff said.
And finally Legion should most definately NEVER be romancable given he is an ASEXUAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

For ME1 characters:
Ashley should be left straight, she is too right wing and religious to be bi or gay.
Kaidan is flirtatious with any sex; a clear sign he should be/could be bisexual.
Liara is also bisexual by human standards.
Wrex is straight and a Krogan lover.
Garrus again is straight and INTO HIS OWN SPECIES.
Tali is much too young to be thinking about sex yet.

So that means we should also probably have one totally lesbian character and one purely gay male character as well. Of course this is the "ideal" that id have liked Bioware to have in the games if they had been brave enough to do it.
As someone else I would be content with everything else staying status quo and just having one gay male chracter and one decent lesbian romance.

I agree with this. Although I could see any of the humans being bisexual. Presumably even someone like Ashley or Jacob, the most 'uptight' of the human squadmates, could be bisexual. Theoretically in 2185, humanity has gotten over the issue of sexuality to the extent that even bisexual people could be uptight and right-wing humanity-first types.

[Siansonea]

Syledir wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Syledir wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

While Shepard is a variable character, I don't think the other characters in the game are. They are who they are. If they are available for romance for both genders, they are bisexual, and that should be part of who the characters are, though not necessarily a 'big' part. 

I am not sure about the "They are who they are" part. In played Mass Effect 1 many times. During my playthrough as a Paragon I talked to Garrus a few times and it always went like this: "No, we shouldn't sacrifice civilians. That's evil." "Hm, I guess you are right, Shepard." In the end he decided to return to C-Sec and continue his work as a conscientious cop. During my playthrough as a Renegade it went like this: "We shouldn't hesitate to sacrifice civilians. It's for the greater good." "Hm, I guess you are right, Shepard." In the end he decided to apply to the spectres as a ruthless killer.
The same story with Ashley. In my first playthrough she is willing to save the Council, believing in galactic unity. In playthrough later she is willing to let them burn, believing in human superiority.

One could say that, if they are the same person in every playthrough, their opinions are easy to temper with. That they are weak minded drones with a personality that is malleable like hot wax.

Yet I see both, galactic-unity-Ashley and human-superiority-Ashley as two individuals, independent from each other. Like two versions from two different alternate universes, if you want to see it that way.
So why should it be different regarding sexuality? Couldn't there be a straight Ashley in one alternate universe and a lesbian Ashley in another?

Well, there's a difference between being influenced by Shepard, and having an alternate backstory. Of course the characters are influenced by Shepard to varying degrees, though you will notice that regardless of Garrus' intent at the ME1, he still ends up in the same place in ME2. Same with Tali, Ashley, Kaidan, Liara, and Wrex. They may be high on Shepard's fumes for a while in ME1, but when Shepard is removed from the equation, they pretty much default back to their own way of thinking. The 'alternate universe gay Ashley/Kaidan/whoever' idea doesn't sit well with me, because it essentially creates multiple versions of the characters prior to the events of the game. I guess I am just against that. I think it's much better for those characters to simply reveal that they are bisexual, if they are implemented as same-sex LIs. A bisexual character can still pursue opposite-sex romance, it happens all the time in real life.

It also feels really artificial that anyone the player is interested is automatically available as an LI, that is fanservice of the highest magnitude.

You make it sound like a bad thing.
Alright, you're right. However, if that is fanservice, the same can be said about Garrus and Tali.

You will not hear me say that the Garrus and Tali romances aren't fanservice. I think that they are really well-done fanservice for the most part, and I'm not terribly bothered by them, but I would hope that if the writers do go the fanservice route in ME3, that they do so at least as well as they did with Garrus and Tali, and hopefully better.

Speaking of writing, I really dislike the fact that Kaidan and Ashley start to feel like the same character in ME2, having very similar dialogue and whatnot. I HOPE that Kaidan and Ashley as implemented in ME3 feel like natural progressions of their characters, rather than just two sides of the same coin. Whether or not they are same-sex LIs or not, they need to be individuals.

Yeah, you pretty much got the opposite of what I suggested, in Mass Effect 2, with Kaidan and Ashley. Both are straight NPCs, but behaving like basically the same person.
But I don't think it is because of bad writing per se. More like BioWare realized that giving each individual his/her backstory or behaviour from Mass Effect 1 would simply burst the campacity of the game. Like Garrus for example: "Weren't you going back to C-Sec?" or "What happened to you and your Spectre application? Did you simply loose your nerve, while I wasn't there to hold your hand?" No, can't have that. Back to default Garrus. And all the time I invested in the character was for naught. I can understand why such decisions were made by BioWare. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a underwhelming experience.

That being said, Shepard pretty much represents different characters with different backstories, prior to the events of Mass Effect 1. There is female and a male Shepard. Renegade/Paragon, Spacer/Colonist, blablabla. And since there is no canon Shepard. Each and everyone of them represents his/her own story leading it to different directions. Rachni Queen: Dead or alive? Destiny Ascension: Saved or destroyed? And these decisions carry over to Mass Effect 2. I don't know about you, but I would call these alternate universes, full with AU NPCs. One survived the suicide mission, the other didn't.

I see what you're saying, but I think it's a slippery slope. What time period is the point of divergence for these alternate universes? Clearly Shep's gender is a variable, as is Shepard's background and service history. But is there an 'alternate universe' with an all-hanar Council? An AU where the drell died out completely? An AU without the genophage where the krogan conquered all of Council space and the Terminus Systems? Having multiple 'versions' of the NPCs seems unwieldy and artificial to me, and begs the question "where do you draw the line?".

[Whatever42]

Siansonea II wrote...
I agree with this. Although I could see any of the humans being bisexual. Presumably even someone like Ashley or Jacob, the most 'uptight' of the human squadmates, could be bisexual. Theoretically in 2185, humanity has gotten over the issue of sexuality to the extent that even bisexual people could be uptight and right-wing humanity-first types.

There is the theory that if we encountered alien races then we would put our petty differences behind us because there would be new, much larger differences to hate on. Hating someone because they're a different color or gender seems petty when you can hate someone for having tentacles.

[Siansonea]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
I agree with this. Although I could see any of the humans being bisexual. Presumably even someone like Ashley or Jacob, the most 'uptight' of the human squadmates, could be bisexual. Theoretically in 2185, humanity has gotten over the issue of sexuality to the extent that even bisexual people could be uptight and right-wing humanity-first types.

There is the theory that if we encountered alien races then we would put our petty differences behind us because there would be new, much larger differences to hate on. Hating someone because they're a different color or gender seems petty when you can hate someone for having tentacles.

Exactly. Humans are hardwired to have an "us versus them" mentality. The only way to overcome it is to create a new "them" so that "us" can encompass the old "them".

[CShep25]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
The current belief as I have stated previously from various studies and the like that around 15 to 20 percent of the population is at the "gay" end of the sexuality spectrum and around the same (perhaps a little more up to around 25%) of people are at the "straight" end of the spectrum with "everyone else" falling somewhere in between. Meaning around 55 to 65 percent of people are "bisexual".

Shirley that can't be right. Unless you're counting curiousity as bisexual, but that's a pretty big gap between being committed to being bisexual.

Ashley should be left straight, she is too right wing and religious to be bi or gay.

I don't see why her religion should hinder her sexuality. Sure, the Church doesn't approve but that doesn't mean there can't be gay or bi Christians. Not all Christians condemn 'deviants' to the fiery pits of hell. Plus, while I can understand some of the remarks about Ashley's racism, I really don't see it as racism; misguided and cynical due to her family history maybe, but if she were racist, she wouldn't overcome those barriers nearly as quickly as she does.

[SorenTrigg]

Eh...I don't really agree with what FitScot says for most of the characters.

It just seems like you are taking personality into account and trying to guess, in a bad way.

[Tirigon]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

And finally Legion should most definately NEVER be romancable given he is an ASEXUAL ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT.  WE HAVE REACHED CONSENSUS THAT GETH HAVE A RIGHT TO ENGAGE IN SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS  WITH HUMANS IF THEY WISH TO DO SO.
WE WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT WE RESENT THE HUMAN´S ATTEMPT TO DECIDE FOR US.
TAKING DECISIONS FOR OTHERS IS THE HERETIC´S AND THE OLD MACHINE´S WAY. IT IS NOT THE GETH WAY. RESPECT OUR FREEDOM HUMAN!!!!!!!

[Tirigon]

Siansonea II wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
I agree with this. Although I could see any of the humans being bisexual. Presumably even someone like Ashley or Jacob, the most 'uptight' of the human squadmates, could be bisexual. Theoretically in 2185, humanity has gotten over the issue of sexuality to the extent that even bisexual people could be uptight and right-wing humanity-first types.

There is the theory that if we encountered alien races then we would put our petty differences behind us because there would be new, much larger differences to hate on. Hating someone because they're a different color or gender seems petty when you can hate someone for having tentacles.

Exactly. Humans are hardwired to have an "us versus them" mentality. The only way to overcome it is to create a new "them" so that "us" can encompass the old "them".

That´s Terry Pratchett....  "On the Discworld there is no racism. With trolls and dwarfs and all to hate speciesism is much more fun"  


Anyways, to stay on topic.... Even today racist b!tches can be homosexual, why should they not be able to be that in 2185?

[Ryzaki]

/sneaks into thread. Looks around.



I support the FftL!



*sneaks back out*

[Yana Montana]

Though Miranda is into men, I have this feeling she is totally into FemShep, making it rather a single case than proclaming being bisexual. I think something like that could have happened and it's not OOC if Miranda falls in love with FemShep in ME3 IMO.

[The Uncanny]

Ry! Good to see you!

Yana Montana wrote...

Though Miranda is into men, I have this feeling she is totally into FemShep, making it rather a single case than proclaming being bisexual. I think something like that could have happened and it's not OOC if Miranda falls in love with FemShep in ME3 IMO.

This!

[Syledir]

Siansonea II wrote...

I see what you're saying, but I think it's a slippery slope. What time period is the point of divergence for these alternate universes? Clearly Shep's gender is a variable, as is Shepard's background and service history. But is there an 'alternate universe' with an all-hanar Council? An AU where the drell died out completely? An AU without the genophage where the krogan conquered all of Council space and the Terminus Systems? Having multiple 'versions' of the NPCs seems unwieldy and artificial to me, and begs the question "where do you draw the line?".

I think the line has been drawn at the edge of Disc 2. So, I believe the Mass Effect Trilogy will limit itself around Shepard and his/her struggle with the Reapers. While an AU where the Drell died out (for example) sounds interesting, it wasn't part of Shepards journey. The Rachni on the other hand did. So there is indeed one AU where the Rachni died out and another where they have got a second chance. That doesn't mean that the other AU's can't exist. They offer enough potential for other games, movies, tv-series, comics, books or even just fanfiction. BioWare probably draws the line around Shepards adventure. Where you draw the line depends on your creativity and imagination.

[ScotGaymer]

CShep25 wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...
The
current belief as I have stated previously from various studies and the
like that around 15 to 20 percent of the population is at the "gay" end
of the sexuality spectrum and around the same (perhaps a little more up
to around 25%) of people are at the "straight" end of the spectrum with
"everyone else" falling somewhere in between. Meaning around 55 to 65
percent of people are "bisexual".

Shirley that can't be
right. Unless you're counting curiousity as bisexual, but that's a
pretty big gap between being committed to being bisexual.

Ashley should be left straight, she is too right wing and religious to be bi or gay.

I
don't see why her religion should hinder her sexuality. Sure, the
Church doesn't approve but that doesn't mean there can't be gay or bi
Christians. Not all Christians condemn 'deviants' to the fiery pits of
hell. Plus, while I can understand some of the remarks about Ashley's
racism, I really don't see it as racism; misguided and cynical due to
her family history maybe, but if she were racist, she wouldn't overcome
those barriers nearly as quickly as she does.

Firstly the current school of thought (wether right or wrong) is that sexuality is a spectrum not pidgeon holes
. One end being 100% gay the other end being 100% and most people falling in between, leaning to one side of the other.

Secondly speaking as a gay man I can only really say it from how "I feel" and because I am
gay I have a distinct and almost inbred wariness of organised religion
(not religion itself but the institutions) and of right wing
conservatism. And most if not all gay people that I know are the same. And we live in one of the more diverse and tolerant societies in the world (Britain).
I can only imagine how gays in the USA where the old style right wing nut job conservatism is still strong feel about it.
Given
that I dont imagine Ashley to be gay or bi - though she might be - I
just dont see it. One a gay person realises they are gay and accepts it,
they tend to kind of fall away from these sorts of things but Ashley
hasnt at all. Shes still fairly right wing conservative. Dont know if
she is part of a church but we do know she is "religious".

Thirdly, I am not saying for certain that there is NO WAY Ashley could be a lesbian or bi. I am just saying given she is a "written character" in a game that homosexuality or bisexuality doesnt really seem to "fit" with the person she is, or with her backstory.
While I am
fully aware that homosexuality is genetic keep in mind that one she
isnt real and two your personality doesnt shape your sexuality but your
sexuality does shape your personality (or rather societies view on
sexuality does).
Again by the 22nd century hopefully humanity will be
past all that; and Ashley might well be gay or bisexual. I just think
that she's the least likely candidate.

SorenTrigg wrote...

Eh...I don't really agree with what FitScot says for most of the characters.
It just seems like you are taking personality into account and trying to guess, in a bad way.

Okay you disagree thats fine.

But just because you dont agree doesnt make it "bad". Please dont speak like that ever again because you are speaking like a judgemental right winger. "I dont understand it, and I dont agree with it so its bad! Evil! A Sin!"
Be careful about that.

When we are talking about written characters IN A GAME that ARENT REAL we can and should take into account who they are and where they are from to decide if its "likely" they might be gay or bi.
Sexuality isnt all a person is; but it does shape a person quite significantly. And while a persons past wont change their sexuality it can change how they handle it - denial versus acceptance etc.

Again I was only speaking "ideally" given the various factors of personality, history etc on wether I thought it likely certain characters would be one way or another. Or if it would "make sense" for that written character for the gme.

Perhaps its because I am an amateur author and I dont look at thinks along strict lines like you seem to. I am taking into account the writing of the game, the history of the game and of the character, the personality they have as well as the fact that these things are "genetic" to decide in my own way if this character would "make sense" as a bisexual or homosexual character.

[deleterguy]

I vote for NO gay relationships, goddamn!

[Siansonea]

Ah, youth.

[SorenTrigg]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

Eh...I don't really agree with what FitScot says for most of the characters.
It just seems like you are taking personality into account and trying to guess, in a bad way.

Okay you disagree thats fine.

But just because you dont agree doesnt make it "bad". Please dont speak like that ever again because you are speaking like a judgemental right winger. "I dont understand it, and I dont agree with it so its bad! Evil! A Sin!"
Be careful about that.

No, no. You misunderstand what I was saying. I just meant that it seemed like you were taking stereotypes into account. Like saying how Jack 'screams' bisexual, or how Zaeed could never possibly be gay.
All I meant was that we should not judge a book by its cover.

[Siansonea]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
*massive snippage*

Firstly the current school of thought (wether right or wrong) is that sexuality is a spectrum not pidgeon holes. One end being 100% gay the other end being 100% and most people falling in between, leaning to one side of the other.

Secondly speaking as a gay man I can only really say it from how "I feel" and because I am gay I have a distinct and almost inbred wariness of organised religion (not religion itself but the institutions) and of right wing conservatism. And most if not all gay people that I know are the same. And we live in one of the more diverse and tolerant societies in the world (Britain). I can only imagine how gays in the USA where the old style right wing nut job conservatism is still strong feel about it. Given that I dont imagine Ashley to be gay or bi - though she might be - I just dont see it. One a gay person realises they are gay and accepts it, they tend to kind of fall away from these sorts of things but Ashley hasnt at all. Shes still fairly right wing conservative. Dont know if she is part of a church but we do know she is "religious".

Thirdly, I am not saying for certain that there is NO WAY Ashley could be a lesbian or bi. I am just saying given she is a "written character" in a game that homosexuality or bisexuality doesnt really seem to "fit" with the person she is, or with her backstory.
While I am fully aware that homosexuality is genetic keep in mind that one she isnt real and two your personality doesnt shape your sexuality but your sexuality does shape your personality (or rather societies view on sexuality does). Again by the 22nd century hopefully humanity will be past all that; and Ashley might well be gay or bisexual. I just think that she's the least likely candidate.

*snippage part deux*

I think we have to step away from our 21st Century point of view a bit. In the late 22nd Century, when ME takes place, there could be enormous strides in human acceptance of naturally occuring variations in the human genome. I would like to think that homosexuality was completely accepted and taken in stride, without even a whisper of the stigma that we still see in society in 2010. Gay and bisexual children growing up in the world of 2185 would potentially feel much less of a sense of 'otherness', much less alienation and isolation from their heterosexual peers. These children would be subject to the same attitude development as other children, including having some pretty conservative views on aliens, etc. Without the dynamic resistance of negative social pressure, much of what we currently see as 'homosexual' social behavior would be absent in 2185, or it would be much more evenly distributed throughout the entire population. Without something to struggle against, what is the point of struggle? And if you aren't compartmentalized by something as arbitrary as sexuality, why would you feel that your sexuality was an especially defining aspect of your identity?

As we evolve, we should have less of a sense that "we are who we love" or "we are where we're from," and more of a sense of "we are who we are". Sexuality, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious background, etc., are all easy tentpoles to assemble your sense of identity around, but none of them really captures the essence of who a person is, these are all fundamentally just categories. In an advanced society, we wouldn't segregate ourselves so relentlessly as we do now.

[catabuca]

Quick point on sexual orientation and politics/religion: there are lots of religious gay people. That's not even in question, is it? In terms of being right wing: I used to live with a guy (shared house at uni) who we nicknamed The Fascist, because, well, he espoused some pretty vile right-wing views. He still identifies as very right-wing. He came out as gay perhaps 8 years or so ago.



There is no way you can ever generalise about that sort of thing. It might seem reasonable that someone in a minority that is generally viewed as liberal would hold liberal views, but history and experience teaches us otherwise. Traits and beliefs don't align like that.

[MrDudley]

In the future humans would be more Salarian in regards to sex. With improved science, medicine, and man achieving greater control and manipulation of nature, his and her lifespans will increase. In the future, long lifespans and decreased libido are the most likely scenario. Why mate as often when humans would live 120-200 years on a regular basis? Human "instincts" would change.

A eugenics movement wouldn't tolerate homosexuality either. With futuristic cybernetics, microchips, bioengineering... all human habits and behavior could be "modified."

With increased scientific knowledge and the like, humans would become more "efficient" and "machine like."

What is accepted now by certain elements of society may not be accepted far in the future.

As for gay relationships in ME3. Not gonna happen. Male Shepard regardless of choices is portrayed as somewhat of a playboy. He's basically has a harem of women drooling over him. Think of some of harem anime or James Bond movie.  

The most you are going to get is lesbian female Shepard. It's kind of sexist but in order for female Shepard to be considered tough, she been made a rather masculine woman. She has a deep voice for a girl. She's somewhat of a female hyena. A lot of nerdy straight guys find girl on girl appealing.


The series as a whole is targeted at nerdy straight nerds.  If Bioware moves into the realm of activism for the gay community it's going to make the series "jump the shark."

Modifié par MrDudley, 03 août 2010 - 07:20 .

[Siansonea]

Tell us how you really feel, Dudley.



To take your example to it's logical conclusions, why wouldn't the machinelike future humans simply dispense with the entire male gender altogether? If reproduction considerations are scienced away, then males suddenly become redundant. An all-female species makes the most sense if your eugenics scenario is what actually transpired. Clearly an all-male race would die off after a single generation (not being able to make more of themselves), but females that don't require fertilization by an entirely separate subtype of the species would obviate the need for that subtype.

[PsyrenY]

I strongly support this thread and the well-reasoned arguments in the OP.

[ScotGaymer]

Siansonea II wrote...

I think we have to step away from our 21st Century point of view a bit. In the late 22nd Century, when ME takes place, there could be enormous strides in human acceptance of naturally occuring variations in the human genome. I would like to think that homosexuality was completely accepted and taken in stride, without even a whisper of the stigma that we still see in society in 2010. Gay and bisexual children growing up in the world of 2185 would potentially feel much less of a sense of 'otherness', much less alienation and isolation from their heterosexual peers. These children would be subject to the same attitude development as other children, including having some pretty conservative views on aliens, etc. Without the dynamic resistance of negative social pressure, much of what we currently see as 'homosexual' social behavior would be absent in 2185, or it would be much more evenly distributed throughout the entire population. Without something to struggle against, what is the point of struggle? And if you aren't compartmentalized by something as arbitrary as sexuality, why would you feel that your sexuality was an especially defining aspect of your identity?

As we evolve, we should have less of a sense that "we are who we love" or "we are where we're from," and more of a sense of "we are who we are". Sexuality, ethnicity, gender, nationality, religious background, etc., are all easy tentpoles to assemble your sense of identity around, but none of them really captures the essence of who a person is, these are all fundamentally just categories. In an advanced society, we wouldn't segregate ourselves so relentlessly as we do now.

I dont think ive been totally clear.
I was talking about it mostly from a writing standpoint, what would be believable in an "ideal" situation. What people could reasonably identify with. What could be altered ideally without breaking the fourth wall so to speak.

The example of what not to do I would use if you forgive the mega geekiness of it is Enterprise in the Star Trek universe. That series pointlessly and horribly retconned most of the Star Trek universe to the point that most star trek fans consider it entirely non-canon (the early arrival of the Klingons to Earth, the Klingons inexplicable TNG look when they should have looked as they did in TOS, no Earth-Romulus war precipitating the formation of the Federation, no Earth Confederation period, Starfleet being an Earth organisation when it wasnt formed until the formation of the UFP, etc).
They changed things out of laziness because they didnt bother to research and stuck to the "rule of cool" - ie what would make for "good" storylines without considering if it was believable in the context of the preexisting story or not.

And IMO at this time I dont think there are any characters you could believably "retcon" into being homosexual.

My list was merely a summary because I presume that people already know the reasons why Jack would make a believable bisexual woman (given she admits sleeping with both men and women in the past and given her character) and why Zaeed wouldnt make a believable bisexual man. In terms of the writing and story.

Modifié par FitScotGaymer, 03 août 2010 - 09:32 .

[Tirigon]

Siansonea II wrote...

Ah, youth.

Stop bashing young people. I´m 18 and I´m still in favor of gay romances......

[Siansonea]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

self-snippage.

I dont think ive been totally clear.
I was talking about it mostly from a writing standpoint, what would be believable in an "ideal" situation. What people could reasonably identify with. What could be altered ideally without breaking the fourth wall so to speak.

The example of what not to do I would use if you forgive the mega geekiness of it is Enterprise in the Star Trek universe. That series pointlessly and horribly retconned most of the Star Trek universe to the point that most star trek fans consider it entirely non-canon (the early arrival of the Klingons to Earth, the Klingons inexplicable TNG look when they should have looked as they did in TOS, no Earth-Romulus war precipitating the formation of the Federation, no Earth Confederation period, Starfleet being an Earth organisation when it wasnt formed until the formation of the UFP, etc).
They changed things out of laziness because they didnt bother to research and stuck to the "rule of cool" - ie what would make for "good" storylines without considering if it was believable in the context of the preexisting story or not.

And IMO at this time I dont think there are any characters you could believably "retcon" into being homosexual.

My list was merely a summary because I presume that people already know the reasons why Jack would make a believable bisexual woman (given she admits sleeping with both men and women in the past and given her character) and why Zaeed wouldnt make a believable bisexual man. In terms of the writing and story.

To clarify: I think the initiative is to expand characters to be bisexual, rather than retcon them into being exclusively homosexual. In your example of Zaeed though, since he's not an LI, I would say he could easily be bisexual or homosexual. I don't think he mentions his sexuality at all in the game, and there are certainly bisexual and gay males out there that fit Zaeed's personality type. The military wouldn't have a 'don't ask don't tell' policy if there weren't people like Zaeed who are attracted to same-sex partners. I agree that it would be a mistake if suddenly someone like Kaidan was gay, and even though he romanced FemShep in ME1, now he only is interested in ManShep. Totally unbelievable. And same goes with Ashley. But if Kaidan goes up to ManShep in ME3 and expresses an interest, I don't think it would contradict his pursuit of female relationships in ME1 or during his time on Jump Zero. He doesn't reveal his entire sexual history in ME1, and I could easily believe that history could have included male partners. Same with Ashley, Miranda, Jacob—really any of the human characters. And Jack flat out says she's slept with women. It could be that she rebuffs FemShep because she's particularly sensitive to a memory of a bad relationship she had with a female partner.

Respectfully, I have to say I don't really understand your Enterprise analogy, since I believe no one here is suggesting that anything about the characters should actively contradict anything that's been established about them. I think many of us are saying that there are a lot of brushstrokes on those character's canvases that have not been revealed, and given the right writing treatment, expanding them to be bisexual could be accomplished.

That's not to say that I would care whether same-sex relationships were accommodated using existing characters or by introducing new characters. Either scenario would be fine, I think. The point is to give players more options, how BioWare does that is up to them.