I'm almost tempted to find my last post on this topic and simply cut-and-paste it into here... but maybe not. I'll just say the following:
Romance options are just that-- optional. They're an extra part of the game and not really central to its purpose. Perhaps you think they should be, but that's beside the point. They're not. Being an option means that they're essentially a luxury, and while people may argue as to exactly
who's luxury they get to be they don't go beyond that. They're not a right, and treating them like one is taking it a step too far. We put in content as we can afford it, based on the size of the audience that content is likely to be used by-- not according to what's "fair".
This comes with a few caveats, however:
1) We'll always put in content for smaller portions of the audience, whenever we can. In essence, anything that's available as an optional choice only applies to a smaller portion of the audience and really it's just a matter of degrees. If we
only put in content that 100% of the audience would see then you would have no choices at all. That's not really what we're about, even if we do have to be realistic.
2) You don't get to argue that an option you don't like and don't intend to use shouldn't exist at all, for anyone. Sorry, but our only concern here is that there
are people who will like it. If you don't, then opt not to use it. That's why it's a choice.
3) Persuant to the above, beware of majority privilege. It's very easy for people who don't have an issue that the minority feel (and this applies to race and gender-- in gaming, particularly-- as well as to sexual orientation) to believe that something is "not a problem". "I don't see why you're so uptight about it!" Realize when you make these sorts of comments that you have no idea what you're talking about, for all our sakes. You
don't know what it feels like to be marginalized, and it behooves those in the majority to use at least a modicum of sensitivity when it comes to addressing such issues. No, games aren't a platform for social change, but that doesn't mean we are also absent of responsibility when we include content in our games where such issues can arise. If we were to claim "majority privilege" as our only guide, we do nothing but add to the problem. That said, we do face other limitations-- not least of which, as I said, is that this isn't the point of the game and thus is only ever going to get limited resources.
Insofar as the male-male romance content goes specifically, there's no evidence to suggest it affected sales in the slightest. In fact, our own telemetry shows that the content was used by more players than most people would assume (you can draw your own conclusions from that). If the only objection someone can muster is "it makes me uncomfortable" then there's not too much to say-- there's lots of things in a Mature-rated game that could potentially make someone uncomfortable, some of them not even optional. That's the risk you take, I guess, when you play something that is not, by design, intended to be inoffensive to all. Trying to object from an economic standpoint, however, really doesn't wash.
What does this mean for DA2? Well, we haven't talked about
any romances yet. So you'll have to see-- we're not making any promises, in particular because of the limitations I keep bringing up. If we don't include same-sex content, however, it's not because we assume too many people will think it's "icky" or because we fear a backlash, economic or otherwise.
Please return to your regularly scheduled debate.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
A plain "no" to dancing requests is also off topic by the way.
