Aller au contenu

Photo

Dragon Age 2 Lead Writer Blasts Homophobic Fan


2875 réponses à ce sujet

#1626
sleepyowlet

sleepyowlet
  • Members
  • 265 messages

TcheQ wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

No offense, but your friend seems to be rather stupid and arrogant, and obviously knows little of people.


Or she was just young and still embracing her sexuality in a prejudiced world?

If you are going to use adjectives, they need justifications. or it will appear as you are either trolling or don't know what the words you are using imply (I don't want to assume it is either of the latter, but the first, so please provide an explanation of each adjective you used - at least this is what I would ask, if it were myself, rather than someone I knew.  I can't speak for them,.  

As I posted above, despite having numerous friends who are gay, I have not encountered the concept of biphobia before, or perhaps more accurately: I have never perceived it.

My experience of having friends who are gay extends only to the checkbox.  I still make a lot of mistakes around them (like making gay jokes, calling things "gay", laughing uncontrollably at the word homosex) and maybe 5% of them is flaming.  So yeah, not a hollywoodized situation.

ukk, literary jargon :P


I have encountered biphobia myself numerous times. From both sides of the spectrum. It's as if there's a war between heteros and gays, and I'm in the middle getting shouted at to pick sides. I don't want to. I fall in love with a person, the body they're in doesn't really matter. I've been in love with women, and I've been in love with men. What's wrong with that?

The second prejudice we have trouble with is the "all bis are promiscuous and sex-crazed" line - that is actually one of the reasons I dislike Isabela and Zevran so much, because they are reenforcing that stereotype. Many people think that we always need one lover of both sexes each. Truth is, we don't need multiple lovers more than anyone else. Meaning some do, some don't.

#1627
moilami

moilami
  • Members
  • 2 727 messages

sleepyowlet wrote...

TcheQ wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

No offense, but your friend seems to be rather stupid and arrogant, and obviously knows little of people.


Or she was just young and still embracing her sexuality in a prejudiced world?

If you are going to use adjectives, they need justifications. or it will appear as you are either trolling or don't know what the words you are using imply (I don't want to assume it is either of the latter, but the first, so please provide an explanation of each adjective you used - at least this is what I would ask, if it were myself, rather than someone I knew.  I can't speak for them,.  

As I posted above, despite having numerous friends who are gay, I have not encountered the concept of biphobia before, or perhaps more accurately: I have never perceived it.

My experience of having friends who are gay extends only to the checkbox.  I still make a lot of mistakes around them (like making gay jokes, calling things "gay", laughing uncontrollably at the word homosex) and maybe 5% of them is flaming.  So yeah, not a hollywoodized situation.

ukk, literary jargon :P


I have encountered biphobia myself numerous times. From both sides of the spectrum. It's as if there's a war between heteros and gays, and I'm in the middle getting shouted at to pick sides. I don't want to. I fall in love with a person, the body they're in doesn't really matter. I've been in love with women, and I've been in love with men. What's wrong with that?

The second prejudice we have trouble with is the "all bis are promiscuous and sex-crazed" line - that is actually one of the reasons I dislike Isabela and Zevran so much, because they are reenforcing that stereotype. Many people think that we always need one lover of both sexes each. Truth is, we don't need multiple lovers more than anyone else. Meaning some do, some don't.


Has somebody here said to you there is something wrong if you are bi?

Edit: Lets actually expand the question. Has somebody here said there is something wrong if you are gay?

Modifié par moilami, 26 mars 2011 - 07:36 .


#1628
Gadarr

Gadarr
  • Members
  • 67 messages

moilami wrote...
Maybe they don't hate. It looks to be more like an illusion certain group of haters here want to maintain.


Do you honestly believe that people have a genuine concern over turning down Anders? Because they don't want to hurt his feelings? Or because they so hate to get a few points up the rivalry scale? Really? Come on.

So silly. But hey, let's have an option to have an option to have an option to... yeah. That's gonna make for one hell of a game. :D

#1629
sleepyowlet

sleepyowlet
  • Members
  • 265 messages

moilami wrote...


Socrates promoted strongly independent critical thinking and individual growth. A hive minded society where "magistrate" consisting of philosophers do all the thinking is very much against what socrates taught.

Socrates hated Ideal Society privileges and elitism so much he proposed free meals with ruling elite as a punishment for himself when he was found guilty of corrupting youth etc., that is promoting individual critical thinking and questioning the authorities instead of hive mind thinking.

Socrates appreciated organised society. However even by then he was a critical thinker who evaluated himself should he try to escape or take the punishent against advice of his friends. So there clearly was concept of Individual and his decision instead of just accepting what the society rules. Since Socrates wanted to do the right thing, and he evaluated the right thing was to take the poison, he did it. 

Plato is not Socrates, but Plato was not stupid either. I just can't believe nonsense in Ideal State was written for real. It is more like mathematics was at those times. Just play with geomethry even if it was considered to be worthless. Write a propeller head book of ideal society and lol as people take it for real.

Dunno, I would make a deal with the devil if I could chat with Socrates and Plato.

I haven't read the Republic since I haven't been able to bother to read hundreds of pages of nonsense.



Socrates was also a fatalist who thought it ridiculous to involve oneself heavily into the future of the next generation. A viewpoint I'm beginning to appreciate. No really, I like and respect Socrates. His pupil, unfortunately, went into the opposite direction.

If you are right and Plato wrote the Ideal State as a joke (I wouldn't go that far, I'd say he was bouncing ideas), then that would have been the most tragic joke in the history of mankind. Many philosophies and a few political systems have the Ideal State as their foundation and wouldn't have been possible without it, Nationalsocialism being one of them. Wouldn't that be irony of horrifying proportions? Millions of people had to die because an Ancient Greek made a joke.

#1630
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

moilami wrote...

Has somebody here said to you there is something wrong if you are bi?

Edit: Lets actually expand the question. Has somebody here said there is something wrong if you are gay?


Sadly, yes.

You are a bit special, as you seem to not be a homophobe assclown. But way too many of the posters here are.

#1631
Seifz

Seifz
  • Members
  • 1 215 messages

moilami wrote...

sleepyowlet wrote...

TcheQ wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

No offense, but your friend seems to be rather stupid and arrogant, and obviously knows little of people.


Or she was just young and still embracing her sexuality in a prejudiced world?

If you are going to use adjectives, they need justifications. or it will appear as you are either trolling or don't know what the words you are using imply (I don't want to assume it is either of the latter, but the first, so please provide an explanation of each adjective you used - at least this is what I would ask, if it were myself, rather than someone I knew.  I can't speak for them,.  

As I posted above, despite having numerous friends who are gay, I have not encountered the concept of biphobia before, or perhaps more accurately: I have never perceived it.

My experience of having friends who are gay extends only to the checkbox.  I still make a lot of mistakes around them (like making gay jokes, calling things "gay", laughing uncontrollably at the word homosex) and maybe 5% of them is flaming.  So yeah, not a hollywoodized situation.

ukk, literary jargon :P


I have encountered biphobia myself numerous times. From both sides of the spectrum. It's as if there's a war between heteros and gays, and I'm in the middle getting shouted at to pick sides. I don't want to. I fall in love with a person, the body they're in doesn't really matter. I've been in love with women, and I've been in love with men. What's wrong with that?

The second prejudice we have trouble with is the "all bis are promiscuous and sex-crazed" line - that is actually one of the reasons I dislike Isabela and Zevran so much, because they are reenforcing that stereotype. Many people think that we always need one lover of both sexes each. Truth is, we don't need multiple lovers more than anyone else. Meaning some do, some don't.


Has somebody here said to you there is something wrong if you are bi?

Edit: Lets actually expand the question. Has somebody here said there is something wrong if you are gay?


There have been plenty of posts in this thread that said homosexuality was a sin, that it was unnatural, that homosexuals shouldn't marry or be parents, and that we should be able to remove homosexuality from a game entirely.  I don't know if those posts were directed specifically at the person you quoted, but I don't see how that matters.

#1632
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

sleepyowlet wrote...

Wouldn't that be irony of horrifying proportions? Millions of people had to die because an Ancient Greek made a joke.


People generally die for no reasons.

Dying for a reason is something that only happens in Fantasy, as it makes for awesome dying scenes ala Boromir....

In the words of Rincewind, the Discworld´s most incompetent wizard:
"There are no causes worth dying for. Thing is, you can pick up another cause around the corner, but you only got one life"

#1633
moilami

moilami
  • Members
  • 2 727 messages

Gadarr wrote...

moilami wrote...
Maybe they don't hate. It looks to be more like an illusion certain group of haters here want to maintain.


Do you honestly believe that people have a genuine concern over turning down Anders? Because they don't want to hurt his feelings? Or because they so hate to get a few points up the rivalry scale? Really? Come on.

So silly. But hey, let's have an option to have an option to have an option to... yeah. That's gonna make for one hell of a game. :D


Well majority are concerned of the Rivalry points because majority are not RPers. But a little minority of RPers are concerned of Anders.

I would prefer there would be no rivalry/friendship points popping visible because it is unrealistical and gives too much information. I would prefer there to be some kind of other way to show the reactions. Like little sad face popping if the NPC was perceived to be little sad. And if the NPC held his poker face there would pop nothing, however that would not mean that significant change in rivalry/friendship scale did not happen.

It could help people to make RP decisions too instead of power play decisions. The latter I though called unconcscious brown licker RP. Or alternatively the player becoming a companion to NPC. Role switch.

#1634
sleepyowlet

sleepyowlet
  • Members
  • 265 messages

moilami wrote...

Has somebody here said to you there is something wrong if you are bi?

Edit: Lets actually expand the question. Has somebody here said there is something wrong if you are gay?


Oh there was this OdinsFellower guy who was awfully proud that he has "converted" two friends of his back to the path of righteousness. He's dropped out of the discussion though, let's hope he won't come back *knocks on wood*

#1635
sleepyowlet

sleepyowlet
  • Members
  • 265 messages

Tirigon wrote...

sleepyowlet wrote...

Wouldn't that be irony of horrifying proportions? Millions of people had to die because an Ancient Greek made a joke.


People generally die for no reasons.

Dying for a reason is something that only happens in Fantasy, as it makes for awesome dying scenes ala Boromir....

In the words of Rincewind, the Discworld´s most incompetent wizard:
"There are no causes worth dying for. Thing is, you can pick up another cause around the corner, but you only got one life"


Yes. Dying for an abstract idea seems silly to me too. Giving your life to save a family member/friend is something else entirely - and that's what Boromir did - so he may not be the best example.

#1636
moilami

moilami
  • Members
  • 2 727 messages

sleepyowlet wrote...

moilami wrote...


Socrates promoted strongly independent critical thinking and individual growth. A hive minded society where "magistrate" consisting of philosophers do all the thinking is very much against what socrates taught.

Socrates hated Ideal Society privileges and elitism so much he proposed free meals with ruling elite as a punishment for himself when he was found guilty of corrupting youth etc., that is promoting individual critical thinking and questioning the authorities instead of hive mind thinking.

Socrates appreciated organised society. However even by then he was a critical thinker who evaluated himself should he try to escape or take the punishent against advice of his friends. So there clearly was concept of Individual and his decision instead of just accepting what the society rules. Since Socrates wanted to do the right thing, and he evaluated the right thing was to take the poison, he did it. 

Plato is not Socrates, but Plato was not stupid either. I just can't believe nonsense in Ideal State was written for real. It is more like mathematics was at those times. Just play with geomethry even if it was considered to be worthless. Write a propeller head book of ideal society and lol as people take it for real.

Dunno, I would make a deal with the devil if I could chat with Socrates and Plato.

I haven't read the Republic since I haven't been able to bother to read hundreds of pages of nonsense.



Socrates was also a fatalist who thought it ridiculous to involve oneself heavily into the future of the next generation. A viewpoint I'm beginning to appreciate. No really, I like and respect Socrates. His pupil, unfortunately, went into the opposite direction.

If you are right and Plato wrote the Ideal State as a joke (I wouldn't go that far, I'd say he was bouncing ideas), then that would have been the most tragic joke in the history of mankind. Many philosophies and a few political systems have the Ideal State as their foundation and wouldn't have been possible without it, Nationalsocialism being one of them. Wouldn't that be irony of horrifying proportions? Millions of people had to die because an Ancient Greek made a joke.


I would not blame the Republic of that. Stuff could had happened without it and most certainly would had happened and has happened. In my opinion Republic is an exam which should start a dialogue inside you saying "WTF". 

#1637
Gadarr

Gadarr
  • Members
  • 67 messages

moilami wrote...
Well majority are concerned of the Rivalry points because majority are not RPers. But a little minority of RPers are concerned of Anders.

I would prefer there would be no rivalry/friendship points popping visible because it is unrealistical and gives too much information. I would prefer there to be some kind of other way to show the reactions. Like little sad face popping if the NPC was perceived to be little sad. And if the NPC held his poker face there would pop nothing, however that would not mean that significant change in rivalry/friendship scale did not happen.

It could help people to make RP decisions too instead of power play decisions. The latter I though called unconcscious brown licker RP. Or alternatively the player becoming a companion to NPC. Role switch.


You know, I might be inclined to believe that if people would complain over every other incidence where you can get rivalry without knowing before. For instance, when helping some guy 'for free', you get a rivalry hit from Isabela. Do you see people moaning? Getting all riled up? Nope. It might have been mentioned a couple of times, but people don't really care. It has also been pointed out that you're only going to get hit on by Anders if you're picking diplomatic dialogue options and thus can avoid rivalry altogether (or so I've read, can't remember him proposing anything to my Hawke), so you could just, you know, reload. Problem solved, as with every other unwanted friendship or rivalry gain. Even if you do get rivalry no matter what, it's not as if it would ruin the friendship path, right?

But... people don't do that, do they? So, no, this is definitely not about roleplaying (how is it roleplaying to forbid other characters their beliefs and orientations on a metagame level?)  or rivalry points. It's hilarious really that this thread is nearing 70 pages over ... yeah, what exactly? Pure hypocrisy.

PS: I do like your idea though. ;)

#1638
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I'm insulted that people even have a problem with this. It's an efficient use of resources that appeals to the broadest number of potential customers.

The idea that an individual's concept of sexuality regarding their partner must be accounted for is the definition of selfishness.

I feel that it is this kind of mindset that drives game development further away from being an art form.

We already have groups of suits and analysts trying to figure out how to get the most efficient bang for their buck in making and selling games. We don't need the players of those games, and the writers of those games to be treating the artistic process as also a matter of efficiency and the highest profit margin or greatest number of sated fans.

Also, it's not even an issue of "give me the romance that I want." I'm already not getting the romance I want. I just want them to write the romances that are there better.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 mars 2011 - 08:06 .


#1639
John Epler

John Epler
  • BioWare Employees
  • 3 390 messages
 

Bastal wrote...

The whole point of the argument relies on the central point that straight male gamers make up a overwhelming majority of players. As I said before, I estimate that the number is around 80% (this includes straight males gamers who plays a females). Now if my numbers are at all wrong (that in reality the split is 60-40-10 (male, female, gay), then consider this post to be null and void, I've wasted your time (No doubt some of you already feel that way). 

"And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as "political correctness" if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want."

The idea of privilege is ridiculous. The "privilege" always lies with the majority because if your goal is to make a game that will be liked by as many fans possible, then it makes sense to focus on that largest group. Why should one fan's enjoyment be more important than five others? It'd more accurate to call "privilege" the idea that some minority group gets special preference for political points. If you really want to be all-inclusive, then I don't see why homosexuals should get special preference while leaving other minority groups out.


Here's the thing. You and I (and many others), we belong to the same demographic - straight and male. You talk about how the 'privilege' always lies with the majority, and you are correct. That doesn't make it a good thing. We're used to having the vast majority of popular entertainment catered to us. Films, television shows, video games - if the percentage of these that feature either a female or a non-heterosexual (or heck, both) protagonist is above 25%, I'll eat my hat. We don't have to ask for inclusiveness because we've got it. It's better than it was ten or fifteen years ago, sure, but even then, we've still got the lion's share of protagonists that we can empathize with.

This is what privilege is about. We are so used to being on top, so used to having entertainment designed for us that when we see something that goes against that status quo we go 'hey! That's not fair - you can't just cater to a particular audience!' What we don't realize, of course, is that the majority of entertainment already caters to us. We're just so used to it being the reality that we don't see it as anything other than the natural order of things. But if you're not part of our demographic, it can be incredibly difficult to find a protagonist you can sympathize and connect to in the same way, which is why you see the desire for more options and more inclusivity.

This isn't a complaint about how I didn't get everything I wanted. This is a complaint about how this is the first BioWare game I've played that I did not enjoy. I've seen many complaints about weak characters and weak story. That is also my complaint and I believe it stems entirely from trying to be "all-inclusive". By trying to appeal to so broad of audience, you've left a game in which many people cannot connect. You'll win praises and 10/10's from gay activists and feminists for your great strides in promoting "equality" and eliminating "straight male privilege", but you'll have loss fans like me.



If your complaint is 'I wasn't able to connect to the characters and I feel that was a result of the definition of their sexuality', then that's one thing. But the tone of your post, the topic you chose and the fact that you are essentially saying 'straight male gamers need to be catered to' suggests otherwise. In the end, the writers will make the decisions they make, but I wouldn't hold your breath that we're going to suddenly and drastically overhaul how we handle sexuality because it makes some people uncomfortable. That sucks, and it's too bad you won't be able to enjoy our games anymore, but that's the decision we've made.

If your goal is not to make as many fans as possible happy but to enact some form of social crusade then please, market and advertise the game as such. If you believe there are a substantial number of players who would appreciate those features, then advertise it and create trailers for it, don't lead me to believe that this game was crafted for the straight male. If you truly believe that the straight male gamers are not important enough that more focus is not warranted, then I would like to see your marketing reflect that.


It's possible to do both. Many people are quite comfortable playing a game with same-sex romance options without themselves being of that particular sexual orientation. And we're never going to make everyone happy - if we could create a game that pleased every single person who played video games, I'd be typing this post from my third mansion in the Bahamas. But what we can do is allow as many people of different sexual orientations as we can to enjoy our games. What we can do is make sure that we're promoting a message of equality, that we believe everyone's entitled to live and love in the same way. And what we can do is recognize that even as we're making video games, what we choose to include and not include is in itself a social message, whether we intend for it to be or not.

As a side note, I'd like to say that I'm not at all surprised by all the pro-homosexuality comments and that I expected even more. 1% of a million is still 10000. No doubt you'd have a many of them trying to protect their "privilege" in Dragon Age 2.


Or, it could be that many people (both heterosexual and of other sexual orientation) truly believe that inclusivity is a better way to go than exclusivity. Suggesting that it's only the '1%' that is vociferously against your post is doing both yourself and everyone else a great disservice, as you seem to be suggesting that if you're part of the 'straight, male demographic' then you aren't going to be posting in support of equality. Which was another of the points that David was making - you don't speak for the entire demographic, and I'd wager that you don't even speak for the majority of the demographic. So let's call a spade a spade.

#1640
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

I feel that it is this kind of mindset that drives game development further away from being an art form.


Gaming has never been an art form and never will.

#1641
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages

Tirigon wrote...
Gaming has never been an art form and never will.

It would be agaisnt the rules to say what I would like to say right now. :mellow:

#1642
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

the_one_54321 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Gaming has never been an art form and never will.

It would be agaisnt the rules to say what I would like to say right now. :mellow:


Well, too bad.
But gaming wouldn´t become art even if you would, so it doesn´t matter.

#1643
sleepyowlet

sleepyowlet
  • Members
  • 265 messages

moilami wrote...

I would not blame the Republic of that. Stuff could had happened without it and most certainly would had happened and has happened. In my opinion Republic is an exam which should start a dialogue inside you saying "WTF". 



Oh, I did go WTF when I discovered Plato. And this Ideal State gives me the creeps, just like the Qunari do. Thing is, a lot of people didn't go WTF and went and tried to do what he wrote... or at least really liked the idea.

#1644
Tirigon

Tirigon
  • Members
  • 8 573 messages

sleepyowlet wrote...

Oh, I did go WTF when I discovered Plato. And this Ideal State gives me the creeps, just like the Qunari do. Thing is, a lot of people didn't go WTF and went and tried to do what he wrote... or at least really liked the idea.


In my experience, people who write about how to f*ck with others are never making jokes and always serious.
Dead serious in many cases, as it is.

#1645
Teddie Sage

Teddie Sage
  • Members
  • 6 754 messages

Tirigon wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Gaming has never been an art form and never will.

It would be agaisnt the rules to say what I would like to say right now. :mellow:


Well, too bad.
But gaming wouldn´t become art even if you would, so it doesn´t matter.


Speak for yourself, rude lady. A lot of video games are well known for the 2D or 3D environments and artworks. Some games are even considered masterpieces because they're so well executed. The fact is, what you think is only an opinion so don't impose it to others.

Love,
Teddie

#1646
Eterna

Eterna
  • Members
  • 7 417 messages

JohnEpler wrote...

 

Bastal wrote...

The whole point of the argument relies on the central point that straight male gamers make up a overwhelming majority of players. As I said before, I estimate that the number is around 80% (this includes straight males gamers who plays a females). Now if my numbers are at all wrong (that in reality the split is 60-40-10 (male, female, gay), then consider this post to be null and void, I've wasted your time (No doubt some of you already feel that way). 

"And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as "political correctness" if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want."

The idea of privilege is ridiculous. The "privilege" always lies with the majority because if your goal is to make a game that will be liked by as many fans possible, then it makes sense to focus on that largest group. Why should one fan's enjoyment be more important than five others? It'd more accurate to call "privilege" the idea that some minority group gets special preference for political points. If you really want to be all-inclusive, then I don't see why homosexuals should get special preference while leaving other minority groups out.


Here's the thing. You and I (and many others), we belong to the same demographic - straight and male. You talk about how the 'privilege' always lies with the majority, and you are correct. That doesn't make it a good thing. We're used to having the vast majority of popular entertainment catered to us. Films, television shows, video games - if the percentage of these that feature either a female or a non-heterosexual (or heck, both) protagonist is above 25%, I'll eat my hat. We don't have to ask for inclusiveness because we've got it. It's better than it was ten or fifteen years ago, sure, but even then, we've still got the lion's share of protagonists that we can empathize with.

This is what privilege is about. We are so used to being on top, so used to having entertainment designed for us that when we see something that goes against that status quo we go 'hey! That's not fair - you can't just cater to a particular audience!' What we don't realize, of course, is that the majority of entertainment already caters to us. We're just so used to it being the reality that we don't see it as anything other than the natural order of things. But if you're not part of our demographic, it can be incredibly difficult to find a protagonist you can sympathize and connect to in the same way, which is why you see the desire for more options and more inclusivity.

This isn't a complaint about how I didn't get everything I wanted. This is a complaint about how this is the first BioWare game I've played that I did not enjoy. I've seen many complaints about weak characters and weak story. That is also my complaint and I believe it stems entirely from trying to be "all-inclusive". By trying to appeal to so broad of audience, you've left a game in which many people cannot connect. You'll win praises and 10/10's from gay activists and feminists for your great strides in promoting "equality" and eliminating "straight male privilege", but you'll have loss fans like me.



If your complaint is 'I wasn't able to connect to the characters and I feel that was a result of the definition of their sexuality', then that's one thing. But the tone of your post, the topic you chose and the fact that you are essentially saying 'straight male gamers need to be catered to' suggests otherwise. In the end, the writers will make the decisions they make, but I wouldn't hold your breath that we're going to suddenly and drastically overhaul how we handle sexuality because it makes some people uncomfortable. That sucks, and it's too bad you won't be able to enjoy our games anymore, but that's the decision we've made.

If your goal is not to make as many fans as possible happy but to enact some form of social crusade then please, market and advertise the game as such. If you believe there are a substantial number of players who would appreciate those features, then advertise it and create trailers for it, don't lead me to believe that this game was crafted for the straight male. If you truly believe that the straight male gamers are not important enough that more focus is not warranted, then I would like to see your marketing reflect that.


It's possible to do both. Many people are quite comfortable playing a game with same-sex romance options without themselves being of that particular sexual orientation. And we're never going to make everyone happy - if we could create a game that pleased every single person who played video games, I'd be typing this post from my third mansion in the Bahamas. But what we can do is allow as many people of different sexual orientations as we can to enjoy our games. What we can do is make sure that we're promoting a message of equality, that we believe everyone's entitled to live and love in the same way. And what we can do is recognize that even as we're making video games, what we choose to include and not include is in itself a social message, whether we intend for it to be or not.

As a side note, I'd like to say that I'm not at all surprised by all the pro-homosexuality comments and that I expected even more. 1% of a million is still 10000. No doubt you'd have a many of them trying to protect their "privilege" in Dragon Age 2.


Or, it could be that many people (both heterosexual and of other sexual orientation) truly believe that inclusivity is a better way to go than exclusivity. Suggesting that it's only the '1%' that is vociferously against your post is doing both yourself and everyone else a great disservice, as you seem to be suggesting that if you're part of the 'straight, male demographic' then you aren't going to be posting in support of equality. Which was another of the points that David was making - you don't speak for the entire demographic, and I'd wager that you don't even speak for the majority of the demographic. So let's call a spade a spade.


 I love you.

#1647
the_one_54321

the_one_54321
  • Members
  • 6 112 messages
Just want to throw this out there again for emphasis.

the_one_54321 wrote...
Also, it's not even an issue of "give me the romance that I want." I'm already not getting the romance I want. I just want them to write the romances that are there better.



#1648
Tantum Dic Verbo

Tantum Dic Verbo
  • Members
  • 3 226 messages

JohnEpler wrote...

It's possible to do both. Many people are quite comfortable playing a game with same-sex romance options without themselves being of that particular sexual orientation. And we're never going to make everyone happy - if we could create a game that pleased every single person who played video games, I'd be typing this post from my third mansion in the Bahamas. But what we can do is allow as many people of different sexual orientations as we can to enjoy our games. What we can do is make sure that we're promoting a message of equality, that we believe everyone's entitled to live and love in the same way. And what we can do is recognize that even as we're making video games, what we choose to include and not include is in itself a social message, whether we intend for it to be or not.


Do you think it would be possible to firewall the sexuality options off from each other a bit, so that players can customize their NPC interactions better? 

#1649
sleepyowlet

sleepyowlet
  • Members
  • 265 messages

Tirigon wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Gaming has never been an art form and never will.

It would be agaisnt the rules to say what I would like to say right now. :mellow:


Well, too bad.
But gaming wouldn´t become art even if you would, so it doesn´t matter.


The same has been said about films and comics. I really, really hate this "it's fun and entertaining so it can't be art" attitude. Time will tell - and at least the Myst series is what I consider art.

Time will tell.

#1650
Centauri2002

Centauri2002
  • Members
  • 2 086 messages

Tirigon wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Gaming has never been an art form and never will.

It would be agaisnt the rules to say what I would like to say right now. :mellow:




Well, too bad.
But gaming wouldn´t become art even if you would, so it doesn´t matter.


Just as your opinion won't be considered fact even if you state it as such. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Kudos to John's response. Summed up my thoughts quite nicely (and saved me a lot of time typing~). :3