9243 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

jedishephard wrote...

i think it was explained that the illusive man wanted to bring back shep as he/she was...miranda even tells you if she was the illusive man then she wouldve put mods that wouldve controlled shep so he wouldnt have his free will...just saying...

Cerberus is known to have failed before. Also, Shepard awoke earlier than planned. Maybe the part of his brain that contained his heterosexuality wasn´t finished yet during the attack and so he´s Bi now:wizard:

[Tirigon]

MisterDyslexo wrote...

FataliTensei wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
It took forever for me to admit my inventory fetish...

At least you took that first step, now you can get help.

There's nothing wrong with an inventory fetish

Inventory fetishes are sexy. You can scroll through my upgrades anytime

Inventory fetishes suck. They ruin games.

[Tirigon]

Fanbus wrote...

 What if Male Shepard has a very close connection to one of the designers? What if Male Shepard is a reflection of one of the designer's own personalities? We haven't discussed that angle. Perhaps that designer sees himself as Shepard going around the galaxy conquering deus ex machina villains. Perhaps that designer isn't comfortable with taking a relationship far with another man? Perhaps that designer likes lesbian porn, but has a problem with homosexual activity?

If that´s true this writer is an idiot...

Anyways, BioWare said that Shepard is OUR character, not theirs. So we should have the option to play him / her like WE want. That may include a homosexual Shepard.

[Fanbus]

Tirigon wrote...

If that´s true this writer is an idiot...

Anyways, BioWare said that Shepard is OUR character, not theirs. So we should have the option to play him / her like WE want. That may include a homosexual Shepard.

Wait, so a writer with a particular point of view would be an idiot if it differed from ours? So every writer, creative person, etc has to conform to our view of morality, any negative view he/she may have would peg him or her as an idiot?
Just wish to point out that some of the greatest artists out there had points of view which we deem controversial now days (such views as anti-semitism, pro socialist or facist views, etc). They are still great artists none-the less. Sorry I don't think I understood, perhaps you can elaborate. Then again that would fall under the thread derailment catagory.

Where does Bioware say Shepard is our character? Perhaps that would inform me better so I don't make hasty generalizations in my future comentary.

[Top55]

Nordic Einar wrote...

Why, exactly, do you feel that way? That the characters "don't lend themselves to being bi or gay"?

The characters, to me, have always felt as though they were just characterised towards being more hetero than bi or gay.  Maybe it's just me.

[KillTheLastRomantic]

Fanbus wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

If that´s true this writer is an idiot...

Anyways, BioWare said that Shepard is OUR character, not theirs. So we should have the option to play him / her like WE want. That may include a homosexual Shepard.

Wait, so a writer with a particular point of view would be an idiot if it differed from ours? So every writer, creative person, etc has to conform to our view of morality, any negative view he/she may have would peg him or her as an idiot?
Just wish to point out that some of the greatest artists out there had points of view which we deem controversial now days (such views as anti-semitism, pro socialist or facist views, etc). They are still great artists none-the less. Sorry I don't think I understood, perhaps you can elaborate. Then again that would fall under the thread derailment catagory.

Where does Bioware say Shepard is our character? Perhaps that would inform me better so I don't make hasty generalizations in my future comentary.

I can't be arsed to look specifically, but in many of the videos advertising ME2 one particularly line emphasized repeatedly was something like "Shepard is YOUR character" and "This is YOUR story".

Also, if a writer can't write a homosexual romance because they aren't homosexual/don't feel comfortable, they aren't very professional, or good at their job for that matter.

[KillTheLastRomantic]

Top55 wrote...

Nordic Einar wrote...

Why, exactly, do you feel that way? That the characters "don't lend themselves to being bi or gay"?

The characters, to me, have always felt as though they were just characterised towards being more hetero than bi or gay.  Maybe it's just me.

Because of preconceptions that Mass Effect are encouring.

[Siansonea]

For me, discussing the motivation of the developers is something of a waste of time, since it's an unknown quantity and therefore the discussion will always be 100% speculation. Sure, some of them probably have negative views of homosexuality. But let's face it, we're not weaving the Bayeux Tapestry here, it's a video game. It's primarily a commercial product, and a collaborative one. Yes there are artistic elements, and the finished gestalt can be considered an art form, but it's primary purpose is financial. A product like this exists to satisfy consumers. To use 'artistic integrity' as a reason to exclude s/s content is rather silly when you think about it. It's also a big fat pile of hypocrisy if they ever actually do try to play that card. It is abundantly clear that Garrus and Tali romances were included to satisfy the fans who clamored for it. What we are asking for is no different from what those fans were asking for. BioWare successfully integrated many of the fans suggestions in ME2, we're hopeful that our suggestion will be integrated in future content.

I think that the race analogy holds a lot of validity, but I don't think it's a productive conversation. Ultimately, there are people who still believe that homosexuality is or is not X, Y or Z, and since those variables can't be agreed upon by all parties, the conversation is always going to stall. But the broad strokes are pretty similar: A group of individuals experiencing a system that favors another group of individuals. Someday (hopefully) we'll all look back at this period in our history as the time when we simply had mistaken ideas about homosexuality. Much like we view the period in our history when slavery was practiced, or the time when women weren't allowed to vote, or when people believed the Earth was flat. It is only after enough time has passed and enough hearts and minds are won over do we see what should have been obvious at the time. Right now we are too close to the issue, and few people can address the subject dispassionately. At least that's what I think.

[Siansonea]

Top55 wrote...

Nordic Einar wrote...

Why, exactly, do you feel that way? That the characters "don't lend themselves to being bi or gay"?

The characters, to me, have always felt as though they were just characterised towards being more hetero than bi or gay.  Maybe it's just me.

It may be that you think bisexual and gay people are fundamentally different from heterosexual people in some clearly discernible way. This line of thinking would result in the idea that if a character was gay or bisexual, it would be obvious in some way. Perhaps you haven't met a wide variety of non-heterosexual individuals, but in truth there is a tremendous range of expression in such individuals, and many would not exhibit traits that are easily identifiable as bisexual or homosexual. I'm not trying to bash you, mind, just demonstrate that perhaps you should review your ideas on the subject based on this information. If your sole objection is that Shepard didn't set off your 'gaydar', then perhaps the realization that gaydar isn't 100% reliable will negate your objection. Make sense?

[Quething]

So, Fanbus, you're essentially making the argument "the devs are probably homophobes, don't ask homophobes to do respectful s/s content, that's infringing on their creative freedom," is that right? (As you're not saying they're simply unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with homosexuality, but rather that they're actively unwilling to reconsider or try to change that.)

Because I... can't really agree. If BioWare's track record doesn't speak for itself, if Zevran and Sky and the fact that they're the studio that snuck s/s content into Star Wars of all things (forum snafus aside, that's more than anyone else in the EU had managed) doesn't make it pretty clear that this is not a studio with many homophobes running around, there's always the fact that the Mass Effect team themselves have twice now written, recorded, scripted and coded s/s content into the Mass Effect games. And did so before anyone in the outside world even knew the games were going to exist, so there's no possible reason to think they didn't do it of their own accord.

By telling them that we support that content and want it re-implemented, and offering ideas for how that implementation could be least intrusive to people who aren't looking for it, we are in fact, as far as any of us can tell, supporting their creative vision, telling them that they shouldn't change or compromise it because there are a whole lot of gamers out here with perfectly functional wallets who like that vision quite a bit.

Though I have to say, even without the evidence that s/s romance was originally part of the ME plan (and frankly, for all my qualms about Liara and Kelly, still is), I would still find "asking for s/s content is asking homophobes to not be homophobes and therefore wrong" to be a pretty questionable argument. I mean, a) I think asking homophobes not to be homophobes is actually pretty important, and I like to believe the best of people, rather than starting from the default assumption that they have severe character flaws. Trying to defend the game's shortcomings by insulting the devs, rather than treating them like professionals who, like all artists of integrity, like intelligent feedback on ways to make a good product better, seems like an odd choice. (I suppose if you don't consider "homophobe" to be insulting, you'd disagree; that perspective puzzles me, though, to say the least.)

If we've wandered off-topic, I guess I'll just reiterate that the colored-text-indicates-romance is the best idea ever, for s/s and o/s romance. If they had put that in the base ME2 game I could actually have gotten to know Jacob.

augh razzum frazzum why does Quick Reply mangle formatting so badly

Modifié par Quething, 02 septembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Tirigon]

Fanbus wrote...


Where does Bioware say Shepard is our character? Perhaps that would inform me better so I don't make hasty generalizations in my future comentary.

One of their big bosses (I believe Ray Muzka, not sure anymore though) said it in an interview.

[MisterDyslexo]

Top55 wrote...

Nordic Einar wrote...

Why, exactly, do you feel that way? That the characters "don't lend themselves to being bi or gay"?

The characters, to me, have always felt as though they were just characterised towards being more hetero than bi or gay.  Maybe it's just me.

Bo offense, but I don't see where you're getting it from. True, while none ever gave any intimation that they were gay, no characters really gave any hints they were straight either. Wrex could be considered straight, maybe even forcibly so, because of the genophage. Miranda is genetically engineered to be "perfect", and if homosexuality is a genetic trait, then she probably wouldn't be gay either. Thane was married to a woman, but that doesn't rule out bisexuality. Jack had a boyfriend, but that can be countered by the fact that she way part of a love-triangle with a woman. Kaiden said he had feelings for a girl, Rana, while he was at biotic training, but personally he seemed like a very open-minded guy who could be bisexual.

All the other characters don't really to give off any traits or hints that would suggest one or the other

Modifié par MisterDyslexo, 02 septembre 2010 - 06:48 .

[Tirigon]

MisterDyslexo wrote...

Miranda is genetically engineered to be "perfect", and if homosexuality is a genetic trait, then she probably wouldn't be gay either.

I disagree. To be perfect she needs to be bisexual.

[Top55]

Siansonea II wrote...

Top55 wrote...

Nordic Einar wrote...

Why, exactly, do you feel that way? That the characters "don't lend themselves to being bi or gay"?

The characters, to me, have always felt as though they were just characterised towards being more hetero than bi or gay.  Maybe it's just me.

It may be that you think bisexual and gay people are fundamentally different from heterosexual people in some clearly discernible way. This line of thinking would result in the idea that if a character was gay or bisexual, it would be obvious in some way. Perhaps you haven't met a wide variety of non-heterosexual individuals, but in truth there is a tremendous range of expression in such individuals, and many would not exhibit traits that are easily identifiable as bisexual or homosexual. I'm not trying to bash you, mind, just demonstrate that perhaps you should review your ideas on the subject based on this information. If your sole objection is that Shepard didn't set off your 'gaydar', then perhaps the realization that gaydar isn't 100% reliable will negate your objection. Make sense?

Thank you for being respectful in your anlysis instead of bashing.

[HCS01]

Quething wrote...

So, Fanbus, you're essentially making the argument "the devs are probably homophobes, don't ask homophobes to do respectful s/s content, that's infringing on their creative freedom," is that right? (As you're not saying they're simply unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with homosexuality, but rather that they're actively unwilling to reconsider or try to change that.)

That statement seems to be a bit harsh.  I took Fanbus' arguments to echo mine, in that the artists have a right to creative freedom.  The reason why this option is excluded does not matter.  The fact that it was, for whatever reason, happens to be the decision that was made.  

This is an issue that many people are passionate about.  I am indifferent to homsexuality personally.  I do strongly support creative freedom, though.  This has generally been a civil thread discussing the possibilities for inclusion, and arguments against, as the OP asked that sensible reasons why be presented.  The fact that this is the 5th thread discussing this does seem to be forcing the issue on the developer to present options and views that agree with some, without respect for the right to create and present what the developer chooses.

[Poaches]

Creative freedom is a very flaky subject to begin with, there's really no such thing as "abiding to the creative will of the developer". Consider, the amount of people working on a game, each is free to have their own creative freedom on what they are working on; there will be conflicts, and there will priorities. Can you even define who specifically does this creative freedom is owed to in the end product? The suit who is financing development? the lead developer? the marketing department?

Creative freedom should be reserved for the domain of *fully contrived pieces* of art. So there's no point to discuss this for mass effect.

---------------

To say its forcing the issue just because there has been five threads has no relevance. Which you should be reminded, they were closed for various reasons unrelated to "forcing the issue" as you say. If you so have such the urge to say this is "forcing the issue"; then 90% of this entire forum giving their opinion is without respect for this "creative freedom shtick" you like to use.

Besides, you have no concept of what the developer wants; more like you're implicitly transposing what you want onto what the developer wants, as many a legion of dead horses have done so in this thread already.

Modifié par Poaches, 02 septembre 2010 - 07:40 .

[Quething]

HCS01 wrote...

That statement seems to be a bit harsh.  I took Fanbus' arguments to echo mine, in that the artists have a right to creative freedom.  The reason why this option is excluded does not matter.  The fact that it was, for whatever reason, happens to be the decision that was made.

The reason matters a great deal, in fact. In the broader sense, because racism/sexism/homophobia/ablism/whatever is never an acceptable reason to do anything and any person of conscience should attempt to identify and discourage behavior that springs from those -isms whenever possible*; perhaps especially when it's the ubiquitous, subtle -isms of "that's just how things are" or "I've never really thought about it because it doesn't affect me and therefore I don't have to." In the more specific sense, because the specific goal of the people posting in this thread is to achieve respectful s/s content in the ME universe, and if we know the reason it got left out, that makes it easier for us to put forward our own arguments in an effective way.

Again: nobody here is advocating putting BioWare devs in manacles. We have no control at all over what goes into future ME content. All we can do is talk. We could make six billion forum threads and that would not, in any way, even remotely impugn on BioWare's creative freedom; nobody is putting a gun to their heads, and no degree of polite discourse, heated words, spam, or anything at all we could do here exerts the least bit of force on them whatsoever. To propose otherwise is a really bizzare misreading of the power dynamic between corporations and minority fanbases. Yes, "creative freedom" is a good thing. I am absolutely in favor of it, to an extent that might surprise you. However, it is important to remember that "freedom of choice" is not "freedom from consequence" or, most especially, "freedom from criticism;" freedom is a two-way street. BioWare is free to make whatever choices they desire in the creation of their games; we are free to tell them how we think they could do it better.

* Though, again, it should be noted that the pro-s/s folks here seem to be the ones arguing that BioWare isn't acting out of their own homophobia. I'm simply saying that "they're homophobic" wouldn't be an acceptable reason to exempt them from criticism, even if I accepted that they were, which I don't.

Also: have some more semicolons! ;;;;;;;;;;; Because there weren't enough in that post.

Modifié par Quething, 02 septembre 2010 - 08:18 .

[shootist70]

Fanbus wrote...

Wait, so a writer with a particular point of view would be an idiot if it differed from ours? So every writer, creative person, etc has to conform to our view of morality, any negative view he/she may have would peg him or her as an idiot?
Just wish to point out that some of the greatest artists out there had points of view which we deem controversial now days (such views as anti-semitism, pro socialist or facist views, etc). They are still great artists none-the less. Sorry I don't think I understood, perhaps you can elaborate. Then again that would fall under the thread derailment catagory.

A western writer or creator doesn't have to conform to anything except the law, Fanbus. It's not about conformity, it's about integrity. It's more about treating a subject fairly and honestly. That doesn't have to mean treating it nicely, not in the slightest, but if they're fair, honest and true with their portrayal they'll generally be fine. Generally.

Getting it right can be a real learning process if a creator's social awareness is limited. Getting it wrong is painful. They'll be turned on - by their market, by their peers, and by their peer critics. And that isn't down to moral policing (usually), It's about having creative integrity. That's why things like misrepresentative stereotypes, exploitative stereotypes and biased portrayals tend to get jumped on. They're neither fair nor honest.

That doesn't mean to say you won't see it. You'll see it all the time, but the creators probably aren't having the best of times from their peers and critics for it. How much they can ignore those things depends on how much of an ivory tower their money and influence will get them. But such people are fairly rare. Alternatively, they might be above such things if their creative medium doesn't have a strongly defined sense of subject matter integrity, which is pretty much were I see the video games industry.

Anyway, I'm waffling, but I hope that might explain...something.

Modifié par shootist70, 02 septembre 2010 - 08:03 .

[Siansonea]

Top55 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Top55 wrote...

Nordic Einar wrote...

Why, exactly, do you feel that way? That the characters "don't lend themselves to being bi or gay"?

The characters, to me, have always felt as though they were just characterised towards being more hetero than bi or gay.  Maybe it's just me.

It may be that you think bisexual and gay people are fundamentally different from heterosexual people in some clearly discernible way. This line of thinking would result in the idea that if a character was gay or bisexual, it would be obvious in some way. Perhaps you haven't met a wide variety of non-heterosexual individuals, but in truth there is a tremendous range of expression in such individuals, and many would not exhibit traits that are easily identifiable as bisexual or homosexual. I'm not trying to bash you, mind, just demonstrate that perhaps you should review your ideas on the subject based on this information. If your sole objection is that Shepard didn't set off your 'gaydar', then perhaps the realization that gaydar isn't 100% reliable will negate your objection. Make sense?

Thank you for being respectful in your anlysis instead of bashing.

You are welcome. I hope you will give my points some thought.

I believe that discussions among persons of opposing viewpoints can be very productive and thought-provoking for all parties involved. The more often people on opposing sides of an issue seek to understand the opposite viewpoint, it becomes that much more likely to reach a productive compromise.

[Siansonea]

Quething wrote...
*snipped*

Also: have some more semicolons! ;;;;;;;;;;; Because there weren't enough in that post.

Mmmmm semicolons. Nomnomnomnomnom.

[shootist70]

Poaches wrote...

Creative freedom is a very flaky subject to begin with, there's really no such thing as "abiding to the creative will of the developer". Consider, the amount of people working on a game, each is free to have their own creative freedom on what they are working on; there will be conflicts, and there will priorities. Can you even define who specifically does this creative freedom is owed to in the end product? The suit who is financing development? the lead developer? the marketing department?

Creative freedom should be reserved for the domain of *fully contrived pieces* of art. So there's no point to discuss this for mass effect.

That's mediocre. Corporate creativity being diluted by a 'designed by committee' approach and saddled with a creatively conservative outlook is a weak justification for excusing them from artistic scrutiny. If that scrutiny is addressing the integrity of the treatment of its subject matter than it is just as relevant here as it is in any other medium. By your logic any corporate creation could be excused from unfair handling of its subject matter.

[Poaches]

shootist70 wrote...

Poaches wrote...

Creative freedom is a very flaky subject to begin with, there's really no such thing as "abiding to the creative will of the developer". Consider, the amount of people working on a game, each is free to have their own creative freedom on what they are working on; there will be conflicts, and there will priorities. Can you even define who specifically does this creative freedom is owed to in the end product? The suit who is financing development? the lead developer? the marketing department?

Creative freedom should be reserved for the domain of *fully contrived pieces* of art. So there's no point to discuss this for mass effect.

That's mediocre. Corporate creativity being diluted by a 'designed by committee' approach and saddled with a creatively conservative outlook is a weak justification for excusing them from artistic scrutiny. If that scrutiny is addressing the integrity of the treatment of its subject matter than it is just as relevant here as it is in any other medium. By your logic any corporate creation could be excused from unfair handling of its subject matter.

Not entirely, just because individual creative input becomes diluted in the corporate environment in no way excuses creative integrity; different things not directly correlated. Creative talent working under a corporate entity is essentially sacrificing personal creative freedom in exchange for corporate accountability. An group or individual's integrity will be addressed by the corporation.

For instance in an off handed example, it might have been an individual's choice that left the hot coffee scripts in gta, or the nude textures in oblivion; but it becomes the corporation's responsibility to answer for it in the end.

Modifié par Poaches, 02 septembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[shootist70]

Poaches wrote...

Not entirely, just because individual creative input becomes diluted in the corporate environment in no way excuses creative integrity; different things not directly correlated. Creative talent working under a corporate entity is essentially sacrificing personal creative freedom in exchange for corporate accountability. An group or individual's integrity will be addressed by the corporation.

For instance in an off handed example, it might have been an individual's choice that left the hot coffee scripts in gta, or the nude textures in oblivion; but it becomes the corporation's responsibility to answer for it in the end.

So you're saying that a corporate entity is as accountable as an independant artist as far as artistic/creative integrity and scrutiny of that is concerned. Sounds fine by me.

[Poaches]

shootist70 wrote...

Poaches wrote...

Not entirely, just because individual creative input becomes diluted in the corporate environment in no way excuses creative integrity; different things not directly correlated. Creative talent working under a corporate entity is essentially sacrificing personal creative freedom in exchange for corporate accountability. An group or individual's integrity will be addressed by the corporation.

For instance in an off handed example, it might have been an individual's choice that left the hot coffee scripts in gta, or the nude textures in oblivion; but it becomes the corporation's responsibility to answer for it in the end.

So you're saying that a corporate entity is as accountable as an independant artist as far as artistic/creative integrity and scrutiny of that is concerned. Sounds fine by me.

Yes, I was only talking about creative freedom before not creative integrity; as any argument that tries to define "the creative will of the developers" is a misdemeanor. Simply, it no longer can be attributed to an individual and cease to exist. Thus, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to say "this is what the developers wanted" or  "you are infringing on the developers creative freedoms" etc. 

[Quething]

Poaches wrote...

Yes, I was only talking about creative freedom before not creative integrity; as any argument that tries to define "the creative will of the developers" is a misdemeanor. Simply, it no longer can be attributed to an individual and cease to exist. Thus, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to say "this is what the developers wanted" or  "you are infringing on the developers creative freedoms" etc.

Eh, I'd say that depends on the studio. Particularly the size of the studio, but the general MO as well. No matter who else is involved, every Michael Bay movie is the same, for example. Some projects really do end up reflecting the creative vision of a single director or producer, no matter how many other people are involved. Video games haven't picked up that same level of individualism on a wider scale, yet - mostly it's just Sid Meyer and Hideo Kojima - but we can still point to certian writers or studios as being creatively consistent (even within the same genre, BioWare is known for characterization and Bethesda for excellent sandbox crafting, frex), which does suggest a degree of individual creative control is happening somewhere.