2875 réponses à ce sujet

[MaximusPhoenix]

Madi wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

It SEEMS ridiculous to you, yes - and, I gladly admit, to me too.

But, objectively speaking, where is the difference between not wanting to have to deal with gays and not wanting to have to deal with emancipated women or blacks?

The only real difference is that disliking people based on their gender and / or race is nowadays widely considered to be retarded, while disliking gays is, sadly, much more acceptable.

centauri2002 wrote...


I haven't had the time to get that far into the game. >.> 

damn, sorry for spoilers:unsure:

It's quite possible to disagree with homosexuality without  actively disliking individuals who happen to identify themselves as homosexual. In fact I would say that's how it is most of the time. 

What?

I think you're missing the point of what she, and others are trying to say....

    Just like black people or any other race, homosexuals do not pick their sexuality.....if you disagree with homosexuality, then what is your agreement on other minorities, visible or not?

[Centauri2002]

MaximusPhoenix wrote...

What?

I think you're missing the point of what she, and others are trying to say....

    Just like black people or any other race, homosexuals do not pick their sexuality.....if you disagree with homosexuality, then what is your agreement on other minorities, visible or not?

Personally, I don't see what there is to agree with, or disagree with. Who I sleep with does not impact anyone else's life other than mine and my partner's. I think it's about time people stopped obsessing over sex so much and concentrated on their own lives. 

[Tirigon]

Pyramid quotes. Stop it, plz.

It makes your posts hard to read and you seem like utter fools. As if the content of your posts wouldn´t hint there anyways, in many cases....

[Centauri2002]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Why does it always come down to Black people?  If I was Black I would kinda get tired of people useing my race as a tired example of oppressed minorites.

As far as sexual oreientation goes, it is debate able to what extent homesxuals pick their sexuality. I have been reading some scientific articles on this a while back. From what I gathered homosexuality is gentetic to the extent that scientists have linked homosexuality to a certain gene or something to that effect. Just like they have linked prayer to a certain gene or any other activity to a certain gene. Yet prayer is still a person's choice.

Clearly though more research is needed to find out hommuch genetics play a role in homosexuality. PM me and I will give you some sources, it you want.

Let's not start the choice debate. It's not even a factor in this discussion and it's something a lot of people feel strongly about. 

[MaximusPhoenix]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

MaximusPhoenix wrote...

Madi wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

It SEEMS ridiculous to you, yes - and, I gladly admit, to me too.

But, objectively speaking, where is the difference between not wanting to have to deal with gays and not wanting to have to deal with emancipated women or blacks?

The only real difference is that disliking people based on their gender and / or race is nowadays widely considered to be retarded, while disliking gays is, sadly, much more acceptable.

centauri2002 wrote...


I haven't had the time to get that far into the game. >.> 

damn, sorry for spoilers:unsure:

It's quite possible to disagree with homosexuality without  actively disliking individuals who happen to identify themselves as homosexual. In fact I would say that's how it is most of the time. 

What?

I think you're missing the point of what she, and others are trying to say....

    Just like black people or any other race, homosexuals do not pick their sexuality.....if you disagree with homosexuality, then what is your agreement on other minorities, visible or not?

Why does it always come down to Black people?  If I was Black I would kinda get tired of people useing my race as a tired example of oppressed minorites.

As far as sexual oreientation goes, it is debate able to what extent homesxuals pick their sexuality. I have been reading some scientific articles on this a while back. From what I gathered homosexuality is gentetic to the extent that scientists have linked homosexuality to a certain gene or something to that effect. Just like they have linked prayer to a certain gene or any other activity to a certain gene. Yet prayer is still a person's choice.

Clearly though more research is needed to find out hommuch genetics play a role in homosexuality. PM me and I will give you some sources, it you want.

There is no "gay gene", that whole thoery is years old. Even if there is one, it would do the opposite to prove that people "choose to be gay" or not....sigh. Yes, I must have woken up one day and said "I think I'll be gay today"

[JediMB]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

As far as sexual oreientation goes, it is debate able to what extent homesxuals pick their sexuality. I have been reading some scientific articles on this a while back. From what I gathered homosexuality is gentetic to the extent that scientists have linked homosexuality to a certain gene or something to that effect. Just like they have linked prayer to a certain gene or any other activity to a certain gene. Yet prayer is still a person's choice.

I could go into how prayer is a cultural practice that, in my opinion, was born from superstition several thousand years ago.

But to be perfectly blunt and stay with the issue at hand:

I don't control who or what gives me an erection. I can attempt to suppress my body's response by redirecting my thoughts and focusing on something else, but the cause is beyond my control.

...

Hah, I just talked about my erections on a semi-public forum. That's a first for me. Sorry if anyone thought that was TMI. >_>

Modifié par JediMB, 28 mars 2011 - 05:15 .

[Dark83]

Is there an "RPG playing" gene?

[Tirigon]

Dark83 wrote...

Is there an "RPG playing" gene?

Probably. Judging by these forums, it is closely linked with the "idiot" gene and the "troll" gene.

[Centauri2002]

Tirigon wrote...

Probably. Judging by these forums, it is closely linked with the "idiot" gene and the "troll" gene.

Aren't those things associated with any forum? >.>

[MaximusPhoenix]

JediMB wrote...




...

Hah, I just talked about my erections on a semi-public forum. That's a first for me. Sorry if anyone thought that was TMI. >_>

Nope, lol. I'm sure some people probably thought so.

[Seifz]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Why does it always come down to Black people?  If I was Black I would kinda get tired of people useing my race as a tired example of oppressed minorites.

As far as sexual oreientation goes, it is debate able to what extent homesxuals pick their sexuality. I have been reading some scientific articles on this a while back. From what I gathered homosexuality is gentetic to the extent that scientists have linked homosexuality to a certain gene or something to that effect. Just like they have linked prayer to a certain gene or any other activity to a certain gene. Yet prayer is still a person's choice.

Clearly though more research is needed to find out hommuch genetics play a role in homosexuality. PM me and I will give you some sources, it you want.

1.  It's an example that's recent and easy to relate to.  Even if you weren't around for the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s, you still learned about it in school and you're still seeing anti-black racism today.  It's much harder to relate to, say, the anti-Irish movement.

2.  The NAACP, affirmative action, black-only scholarships, and Al Sharpton don't seem to be tired of it, yet.

In any case, it's a good analogy.  One can no more choose his sexual orientation than he can choose his skin color.  Being anti-gay is no better than being anti-black and the idea that you can "love the sinner, but hate the sin" doesn't fly in this case.  It's nothing more than a cop-out to make you feel less homophobic.

Yeah, I used that label again.  I'm going to keep doing it everytime someone posts nonsense like this.

[MaximusPhoenix]

Seifz wrote...



1.  It's an example that's recent and easy to relate to.  Even if you weren't around for the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s, you still learned about it in school and you're still seeing anti-black racism today.  It's much harder to relate to, say, the anti-Irish movement.

2.  The NAACP, affirmative action, black-only scholarships, and Al Sharpton don't seem to be tired of it, yet.

In any case, it's a good analogy.  One can no more choose his sexual orientation than he can choose his skin color.  Being anti-gay is no better than being anti-black and the idea that you can "love the sinner, but hate the sin" doesn't fly in this case.  It's nothing more than a cop-out to make you feel less homophobic.

Yeah, I used that label again.  I'm going to keep doing it everytime someone posts nonsense like this.

Thank you for putting my thoughts into a more practical and easy to understand manner, and blunty for that matter.

Modifié par MaximusPhoenix, 28 mars 2011 - 05:40 .

[Captain Jazz]

moilami wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

moilami wrote...

I would appreciate if this game community here could do some short and clear non emo writing of what is the problem.

The problems that I can think of with asking for a "no gay" option are as follows:
1) It's redundant since the option is already there via the, "no thanks, Anders," option which came bundled in with the dialogue options at launch.
2) If you really want it so badly, why not make a mod for it yourselves rather than pestering the developers?

Not a valid answer "do it urself". Devs make games and thus requests are by default send to them.

Bull****. The modding community exists - check the interwebs if you don't believe me. As an example, one of my favourite recent games is Fallout NV, but there are certain things which are absent from the game which I would like, mostly aesthetic things like different kinds of armour or weapons, but there are also basic gameplay elements. Most of these are available through the modding community or, where it isn't availble online, through my own modding abilities.
From my own experience, developers tend to pay attention to the work of the modders and incorporate those things which work well into the game without running the risk of spending time and resources on things that ultimately serve no purpose.

Thanks for making me think a little more about this though, because I have a third reason.

3) Why should I be forced to define my character's sexuality before I begin the game just because you're freaked out by the idea of another man being interested in you? Even if you allow for the option to allow all romances, that's still defining my character's sexuality well in advance of it being relevant to the game. I can understand NPC sexualities being defined, but almost everything about the PC is undefined, with definintion growing as the game progresses. If we're going to define the sexuality from the first moment, why not racial preference? That way we don't have to put any consideration into any romance plots, roll a homosexual female with a preference for elves, receive a scene with Merrill.
While we're running with that, why not define our personality in general? That way we don't have to choose from that discussion wheel every time and can just sit through a movie in between fights.
Ok, so I'm taking this out of proportion? No. The "no ******" option is just closing options off from the outset, regardless of how interactions with certain characters may influence your decisions later on, that's all the racial and personality options would do, so how is that out of proportion?

I await your strawman with baited breath. :happy:

[Reznore57]

Not to be mean or anything but i found the whole problem ridiculous...
feeling threated by other people sexuality is non sense for me.
It's just flirt.
Maybe people should realise that there are people who suffered from REAL sexual abuse.
Put your energy into fighting a real threat not an imaginary one ...

[Centauri2002]

Reznore57 wrote...

Not to be mean or anything but i found the whole problem ridiculous...
feeling threated by other people sexuality is non sense for me.
It's just flirt.
Maybe people should realise that there are people who suffered from REAL sexual abuse.
Put your energy into fighting a real threat not an imaginary one ...

Absolutely. 

[moilami]

JediMB wrote...

I have actually never defined my character's sexuality upon creation when I've done PnP role-playing.

And seducing a same-gendered NPC for one reason or another has never been more than a Charisma roll away. No one cares about whether or not it's probable that everyone I flirt with are either gay or bi.

Then, if you would had wanted to be a True Rebel you would had said suddenly to your gaming friends "my char is blablablablabbalabba and by the way Tom of Finland style gay". You can still do that.

[moilami]

Seifz wrote...

Well, no.  That doesn't make sense.  How would Anders know that you're straight unless you told him so?  This is no different that the other absurd sliders and toggles that I've proposed in previous posts.  It's stupid.

There could be then option for sexuality to be "secret". Anders would then not know what you are. With option "gay" you would be openly gay or devs could just tell you a different story. Like you could be bounced by a gang of heterophobes or homopbohes depending of your sexuality.

It is like race in DA. Different things could happen to different races. Different things can happen to different sexualities.

One is very stupid if one does not understand what game dev possibilities "sexuality" gives in character sheet.

Modifié par moilami, 28 mars 2011 - 06:15 .

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Seifz wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

Why does it always come down to Black people?  If I was Black I would kinda get tired of people useing my race as a tired example of oppressed minorites.

As far as sexual oreientation goes, it is debate able to what extent homesxuals pick their sexuality. I have been reading some scientific articles on this a while back. From what I gathered homosexuality is gentetic to the extent that scientists have linked homosexuality to a certain gene or something to that effect. Just like they have linked prayer to a certain gene or any other activity to a certain gene. Yet prayer is still a person's choice.

Clearly though more research is needed to find out hommuch genetics play a role in homosexuality. PM me and I will give you some sources, it you want.

1.  It's an example that's recent and easy to relate to.  Even if you weren't around for the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s, you still learned about it in school and you're still seeing anti-black racism today.  It's much harder to relate to, say, the anti-Irish movement.

2.  The NAACP, affirmative action, black-only scholarships, and Al Sharpton don't seem to be tired of it, yet.

In any case, it's a good analogy.  One can no more choose his sexual orientation than he can choose his skin color.  Being anti-gay is no better than being anti-black and the idea that you can "love the sinner, but hate the sin" doesn't fly in this case.  It's nothing more than a cop-out to make you feel less homophobic.

Yeah, I used that label again.  I'm going to keep doing it everytime someone posts nonsense like this.

This is incorrect.

1. It's a bad example, because blacks have absolutely no control over the physical appearance they are born into the world with. Indeed, physiology cannot be helped and is never something we equate the idea of 'choice' to. On the other hand, behavior is a different matter entirely and raises additional questions.

A) There is no scientific proof of the "gay gene." I realize that people like to pretend there is and act as if this has been a long and established matte, but it has not. The individuals who concocted this nonsense had an agenda.

Even so, sexuality is determined biologically . . . at least to the same extent one can say it is determined sociologically (i.e. upbringing/ life experiences). However, the same can be said for EVERY behavior. Indeed, some people are less inclined to behave violently or engage in intense physical behavior due to traits they inherited hereditarily. Some people are better talented and artistry or chess than others who had similar level of practice due to genetics alone. It's how the world works. People's actions and characteristics are a combination result of nature and nurture.

C) So in other words, if we are to take this "one can't help something they are born with" to its logical limits, we first conclude that any action which one has no control over is justified. From that, we conclude that ALL actions are justified.  Rape? Murder? Thievery? Individuals cannot help who their parents are or what home they grow up (therefore determining their life experiences); they have no choice. Thus, in order to be consistent, we must tolerate rapist, murderers and thieves.


All that being said, this is not to compare homosexuals to rapist, murders and thieves. Far from it. I'm simply explaining to you that your logic (or rather, should I say the "logic" which the media and other influential groups with a specious agenda) doesn't come without consequences.  Homosexuals should have the same rights (at least in our country) as heterosexuals as church and state are separated. Lets leave it at that and go no further in the fight for "equality" as I fear the logical implications of the utter nonsense you and others like to present shall lead to the destruction of our society.

Oh yeah and as for 2 . . .

2) Two wrongs don't make a right.

Modifié par Perfect-Kenshin, 28 mars 2011 - 06:15 .

[moilami]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

moilami wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

moilami wrote...

centauri2002 wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

Oh come on that is such an absurd comparison and you know it. Simply presenting the option for everyone to choose one's sexual preferences during character creation would not be  like having a "no black people" option. The option would obviously be open to everyone so if you didn't want any standard heterosexual flirting going on you could turn that option off as well. Everyone wins.  

So you're suggesting a sexuality slider, such as a skin tone slider? I guess that would work. But that has a lot more impact than customising the looks of a character ever will and I don't think we're likely to see that implemented any time soon.

You don't understand the concept.

Edit: Besides it is perfectly fine RPG char creation detail. 

Personally a concept of a sexuality slider is silly and unnessicary. Just put X ammount of Hetros, X ammount of Homos and X about of Bis into your game and call it golden. To me the act of making everyone bi comes off as a cheep way of trying to appease every demographic.

You don't seem to understand much of game development and programming or RP then. Or you have some hideous political agenda.

In RP if you make a char and define it is gay then you need to RP it differently than a char who you define is a hetero. That should be understandable even to current arcade adventure gamers.

For a game dev it gives possibilities to do things like "In Pearl $hetero gets jumped by a number of gays offering services or whatever the devs come up to harass hetero player.

Alternatively it can be used to make gay companions to not begin to advance on hetero player unless the player initiates it. Or it can be used to make a situation where gay NPC keeps harassing hetero player but does not harass gay player.

Possibilities are endless.

Anyway, bye bye, I am very fed of political jerks pushing their political agendas on video games to make PEGI 18 sex, violence, strong language, narcotics, blood, gore rated games politically correct <_<

I don't even know where to start as far as disecting your silly post goes.  

First off how is what I said anymore or less political then what you just posted? All I said is have X ammount of options that are based off a NPC's character and personality instead of making everybody Bi, which comes off to me as a cheep way to appese people. How the hell is that political?

As for sexuality sliders, to me for a game it seems like a unnessicary step.  RP games are about freedom to a certain extent and sexuality sliders would be something that confines that freedom. To me it just seems unessicary, the current system is fine. Now as for the getting hit on argument goes, the slider option still doesn't make sence, the problem can be easily solved without it. Just have Hawke start the flirting instead of the NPC, problem solved.

That make any sence?

No.

[Russalka]

If they won't close the topic, could you at least stop with the pyramid quotes?

[Captain Jazz]

MaximusPhoenix wrote...

There is no "gay gene", that whole thoery is years old. Even if there is one, it would do the opposite to prove that people "choose to be gay" or not....sigh. Yes, I must have woken up one day and said "I think I'll be gay today"

It would be a much easier argument if more people understood genetics better.

For the benefit of those who think in terms of gay genes: The idea of a gay gene is as ridiculous as the idea of a bridge brick. A single brick does not make a bridge - the bridge is the emergent quality of a large number of bricks put together in a certain way. Likewise, any genetic component to sexuality is going to be the emergent quality of a large number of genes interacting with each other.

For the benefit of those who think sexuality is a choice: When did you choose not to be gay? And why didn't I have to?

[Perfect-Kenshin]

Captain Jazz wrote...

moilami wrote...

Captain Jazz wrote...

moilami wrote...

I would appreciate if this game community here could do some short and clear non emo writing of what is the problem.

The problems that I can think of with asking for a "no gay" option are as follows:
1) It's redundant since the option is already there via the, "no thanks, Anders," option which came bundled in with the dialogue options at launch.
2) If you really want it so badly, why not make a mod for it yourselves rather than pestering the developers?

Not a valid answer "do it urself". Devs make games and thus requests are by default send to them.

Bull****. The modding community exists - check the interwebs if you don't believe me. As an example, one of my favourite recent games is Fallout NV, but there are certain things which are absent from the game which I would like, mostly aesthetic things like different kinds of armour or weapons, but there are also basic gameplay elements. Most of these are available through the modding community or, where it isn't availble online, through my own modding abilities.
From my own experience, developers tend to pay attention to the work of the modders and incorporate those things which work well into the game without running the risk of spending time and resources on things that ultimately serve no purpose.

Thanks for making me think a little more about this though, because I have a third reason.

3) Why should I be forced to define my character's sexuality before I begin the game just because you're freaked out by the idea of another man being interested in you? Even if you allow for the option to allow all romances, that's still defining my character's sexuality well in advance of it being relevant to the game. I can understand NPC sexualities being defined, but almost everything about the PC is undefined, with definintion growing as the game progresses. If we're going to define the sexuality from the first moment, why not racial preference? That way we don't have to put any consideration into any romance plots, roll a homosexual female with a preference for elves, receive a scene with Merrill.
While we're running with that, why not define our personality in general? That way we don't have to choose from that discussion wheel every time and can just sit through a movie in between fights.
Ok, so I'm taking this out of proportion? No. The "no ******" option is just closing options off from the outset, regardless of how interactions with certain characters may influence your decisions later on, that's all the racial and personality options would do, so how is that out of proportion?

I await your strawman with baited breath. :happy:

Who says there has to be "force?" Perhaps they can make it to where you're automatically "bisexual" and that players have the option to toggle. There. Easy as pie. You don't have to worry about "force" and players who are concerned about this can do as they please. Everyone wins.

As for your personality in general comparison, I don't see any complaints about any altercations caused through the current personaity system set up, so your example doesn't fly. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That said, I was annoyed when a certain character related to Hawke died later in the game. I had mostly been choosing the humorous dialogue option, thus it seemed pretty inappropriate when Hawke was talking about this person's death with Gamlen, only to throw out that humorous line. WTF? Someone just died. Just because I like being humorous most of time, it doesn't mean I'd want to be humorous then. What were the writers thinking?<_<

[Dark83]

moilami wrote...

There could be then option for sexuality to be "secret". Anders would then not know what you are. With option "gay" you would be openly gay or devs could just tell you a different story.

That's just stupid.

Sorry buddy, when someone looks at you, you're not "openly straight" or "openly gay", you're just "you". People conclude if you're gay or straight based on their own judgement, which is colored by their own preconceptions.

You look gay to Anders, because he's lonely and has terrible judgement.