506 réponses à ce sujet

[The Edge]

...Where did the discussion go?!

[Anathemic]

jlb524 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

It's selective yes.... in this thread.

You see in a thread, I focus on the issue it presents and I state my position on that issue. If I wanted anotehr issue I go find another thread. It's that simple.

My position "Having all the LI's bisexual is unrealistic because..." see how it blends in with the topic of the thread? Because it discusses the LIs' bisexuality with the stance of 'unrealism'.

What I see is people trying to bring the discussion off topic by bringing other irrelevant issues such as 'faction stance' or whatnot crap.

That was brought into it b/c someone mentioned things not being 'realistic'....like I said, we need an anchor...what's realistic?  What's unrealistic? ...so we look to other portions of the game for a comparison in order to continue the discussion.  When doing that, we find loads of other things that aren't realistic as well.  The point is that people's concerns with realism seem to be selective, which means it's not about realism, which makes their initial points null and void.

You can make inferences to realstic and unrealistic without bringing irrelevant topics in the discussion. Take a look at my stance, I can bring up realistic/unrealistic paralells with the RL and the world of Thedas because realism is all based on a person's perspective coming from the RL. And I do so on bringing up specific standpoint on the topic of sexuality, more to the point of bisexuality.

[Anathemic]

The Edge wrote...

...Where did the discussion go?!

It went to me exploding on how everyone desires to discuss other issues not relevant to the topic of the thread.

[jlb524]

Anathemic wrote...

You can make inferences to realstic and unrealistic without bringing irrelevant topics in the discussion. Take a look at my stance, I can bring up realistic/unrealistic paralells with the RL and the world of Thedas because realism is all based on a person's perspective coming from the RL. And I do so on bringing up specific standpoint on the topic of sexuality, more to the point of bisexuality.

But that's like...kinda off topic. 

We are discussing bisexuality in Thedas and the Dragon Age game.

[xkg]

autumnyte wrote...

You might know more bisexual people than you think. It's not like you can tell by looking at a person. In fact, if you didn't know from a meta-gaming perspective that the 4 LIs were bi, it could be argued that (with the exception of Isabela) you wouldn't ever find out unless you tried to romance them.

^
lol yea - this is a winner post!
Without pursuing that bi/gay romance you wouldn't know about that because none of your companions ever mention it.

Any of you "Anti" guys care to answer ? :

1. How do you know about those 4 companions' sexuality ?
2. If you know because you have tried bi/gay romance - why did you, if you are straigth ?

[Anathemic]

jlb524 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

You can make inferences to realstic and unrealistic without bringing irrelevant topics in the discussion. Take a look at my stance, I can bring up realistic/unrealistic paralells with the RL and the world of Thedas because realism is all based on a person's perspective coming from the RL. And I do so on bringing up specific standpoint on the topic of sexuality, more to the point of bisexuality.

But that's like...kinda off topic. 

We are discussing bisexuality in Thedas and the Dragon Age game.

How is it off topic when I relate the realistic paralells directly with the bisexualy issue of DA2 in Thedas? In every post (that's not discussing on-topic/off-topic) in this thread, I always brought up paralells from RL and always relate them into bixuality of LI's presented in DA2.

[jlb524]

Anathemic wrote...

How is it off topic when I relate the realistic paralells directly with the bisexualy issue of DA2 in Thedas? In every post (that's not discussing on-topic/off-topic) in this thread, I always brought up paralells from RL and always relate them into bixuality of LI's presented in DA2.

Thedas =/= real world.

This topic is specifically concerned with sexuality in DA2 and Thedas.  You're not allowed to bring in outside parallels to help refine and idea or aid in discussion...that's off-topic.

[Valcutio]

The story was terrible and everyone was bi because it was easier than establishing genuine characters that had more than one dimension.

Don't feel bad if you wanted straight characters - you're in the vast majority. Ignore the very tiny vocal minority on these forums as the rest of us already do.

[Ryzaki]

I'm pretty sure the "vast majority." don't really care as long as its not shoved down their throat.
They were actually more concerned about the repeating maps, ninja assassins from the sky and the WTF endgame. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 09:35 .

[Siansonea]

Anathemic wrote...

Explain to me how "faction stance" relates in anyway to the "having all LI's bisexual"

The basic premise of this thread is that the characters are somehow unrealistic because they are bisexual. I disagree. After all, we see bisexual people in real life, and they’re not so rare that one might find as many as four of them in a group. And yet somehow, some very jarring character discontinuities—namely Anders willingness to romance a pro-Templar Hawke, and Fenris’ willingness to romance a Mage Hawke—are not eliciting the same amount of outrage in the community. Those things actually ARE unrealistic. So my point is, why is something as realistic as being bisexual somehow not okay, when it’s okay do something as unrealistic as going against everything you stand for and romancing someone who embodies the opposition of your most basic world view? I'm not going to date a racist or a homophobe just because he buys me a nice wrist-watch. (P.S. Srsly, BioWare, you made me hyphenate wris****ch?)

I think I know what's really going on. It isn’t about “realism”. Realism is the pretext, the excuse. The underlying theme is the players discomfort with the idea of bisexuality. Why else focus so strenuously on that one thing? When there are so many other examples of poor ‘realism’ in the game that are much MUCH worse? As “immersion breakers” go, the bisexual LI issue is mainly a problem for people who aren’t very good at immersion in the first place, since it’s something that is only evident from a metagame standpoint, or with a Hawke who selects each and every heart icon dialog choice.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 04 juin 2011 - 09:39 .

[ipgd]

Anathemic wrote...

It went to me exploding on how everyone desires to discuss other issues not relevant to the topic of the thread.

Because there is no point arguing about realism if your issue with the LI's bisexuality is not actually its realism? Given the obfuscation of real problems with dummy arguments happens constantly in arguments about sexuality, it's something that needs to be established before the conversation can continue.

[Akka le Vil]

jlb524 wrote...

Ah, you are missing the point...did you read the previous discussion on the Origins romances?  You want to say (about DA2) "X romance stuff in game is bad b/c Y" and I've been saying "X romance stuff is also in DA:O and that's bad b/c Y" but no one cares about Y when in Origins, so I was merely pointing out the double standards, which no one is addressing.

Why are you asking ME to justify the reasoning of OTHERS ?
Yeah, you don't care about logics. It shows. And not in a good way.

No, I hear the arguments....they are circular though and basically boil down to "this is bad just cuz it is and I don't like it"....everyone's argument is pretty vague and no one can actually give me concrete examples as to why all bi LIs ruins characterization/lore/narrtive, etc.   Simply repeating those platitudes won't cut it.

What I see is that you completely ignore the arguments that are actually made, and just put words in the mouths of others then pretend that these newly-invented idiocies are void of validity.

I guess it's easier to "win" a debate when it takes place entirely in your own head and you're the one providing the lines for everyone.
But if it's to talk to yourself, you shouldn't bother to come on the forums and pretend having a conversation.

Caythark wrote...

Well,you like to be identified over your sexuality and not over the person you are
or your ethical values? interesting!

Well, you like to twist what someone say, from "it's part of your identity" to "it's the only thing that is your identity" ?
Interesting !

Funny how deliberate strawmaning is really prevalent in one side of the argument.

Siansonea II wrote...

*highfives you*

And that's
the basis of my point a couple of posts back. I'd really like to know
how they think Anders, Isabela, Fenris and Merrill would have been
better characters if they were exclusively gay or straight as opposed to
being bisexual.

A character with a set personnality allows
for better characterisation than one with random one. Lots of subtleties
in discussion depends on what the person think, like, dislike, etc.,
and the more you define a character, the better he can be and the more
he can benefit from these kirks in personnality.
Something like sexuality, even if it's not the only and central point of our personnality, is still very important
- funny thing how the ones that say the loudest it's not important are
actually the most rabid about having every sexual partner available, BTW
- and removing it makes the character definitely blander and less
personnable.
Also, the world would benefit in believability when it
doesn't have widely weird population distribution, and it would have
felt less "gameplay mechanic"-based and more "lore-based".

Now,
these arguments have been constantly repeated and ignored, so I'm not
really sure why I bother, as if they have ignored/disregarded/twisted before, they will simply be it again, but well...

[jlb524]

Siansonea II wrote...
I think I know what's really going on. It isn’t about “realism”. Realism is the pretext, the excuse. The underlying theme is the players discomfort with the idea of bisexuality. Why else focus so strenuously on that one thing? When there are so many other examples of poor ‘realism’ in the game that are much MUCH worse? As “immersion breakers” go, the bisexual LI issue is mainly a problem for people who aren’t very good at immersion in the first place, since it’s something that is only evident from a metagame standpoint, or with a Hawke who selects each and every heart icon dialog choice.

B.I.N.G.O.

We have a winner.

[Anathemic]

jlb524 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

How is it off topic when I relate the realistic paralells directly with the bisexualy issue of DA2 in Thedas? In every post (that's not discussing on-topic/off-topic) in this thread, I always brought up paralells from RL and always relate them into bixuality of LI's presented in DA2.

Thedas =/= real world.

This topic is specifically concerned with sexuality in DA2 and Thedas.  You're not allowed to bring in outside parallels to help refine and idea or aid in discussion...that's off-topic.

It's not off-topic when you relate the outside source in a reasoanble way to the issue, which I did.

[Anathemic]

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

It went to me exploding on how everyone desires to discuss other issues not relevant to the topic of the thread.

Because there is no point arguing about realism if your issue with the LI's bisexuality is not actually its realism? Given the obfuscation of real problems with dummy arguments happens constantly in arguments about sexuality, it's something that needs to be established before the conversation can continue.

Where did you arrive to that conclusion. My whole premise was the issue "having all LIs bisexual" being unrealstic.

[Monica83]

jlb524 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
I think I know what's really going on. It isn’t about “realism”. Realism is the pretext, the excuse. The underlying theme is the players discomfort with the idea of bisexuality. Why else focus so strenuously on that one thing? When there are so many other examples of poor ‘realism’ in the game that are much MUCH worse? As “immersion breakers” go, the bisexual LI issue is mainly a problem for people who aren’t very good at immersion in the first place, since it’s something that is only evident from a metagame standpoint, or with a Hawke who selects each and every heart icon dialog choice.

B.I.N.G.O.

We have a winner.

im bisexual and i continue to say the fact you have almost all romanceable character bi is laughtable as a thing...

[xkg]

Valcutio wrote...

Don't feel bad if you wanted straight characters - you're in the vast majority. Ignore the very tiny vocal minority on these forums as the rest of us already do.

Hahah dude - here is your minority :
http://social.biowar...05/polls/17578/

[jlb524]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Why are you asking ME to justify the reasoning of OTHERS ?
Yeah, you don't care about logics. It shows. And not in a good way.

Akka le Vil wrote...

The first problem is not "four people". The problem is "four out of four". It just feels not believable.
The second, and worse, problem is that it's not really about the character being "bisexual" (save for Isabella, who is, at least, consistent), it's about the characters having no set sexuality and just being "of the
right preference", which tends to make them feel not as a "gay/straight/bi" character, but simply as a "romance option without gender check" - ie, more of a mechanism than a character.

^^ You have a problem with this...I called this 'Y'...'Y' is a problem in Origins too with romances (as we've explained tirelessly).  I want to know why it's okay to do things like this in certain areas, like ignoring 'realistic' racial/class/morality pairings but not so when we talk about gender?

Modifié par jlb524, 04 juin 2011 - 09:44 .

[Pasquale1234]

To answer the question posed by the name of this thread....

... maybe they're not.

I would admit to not being a scholar on all things Thedas, but I certainly don't remember ever seeing a codex entry that referred to any concepts about sexual orientation or means to define or label anyone's attractions.

It seems entirely feasible to me that the characters in question are more along the lines of pansexual - much more interested in the entirety of a person than in the specific composition of their DNA or whatever sexual equipment is attached to their bodies. If the culture offers no religious or other reasons to repress one's natural affections and inclinations, then no labels are needed. In that environment, I find it completely realistic that 4 of the companions would be open to intimacy with a Hawke of either sex.

[Akka le Vil]

jlb524 wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
I think I know what's really going on. It isn’t about “realism”. Realism is the pretext, the excuse. The underlying theme is the players discomfort with the idea of bisexuality. Why else focus so strenuously on that one thing? When there are so many other examples of poor ‘realism’ in the game that are much MUCH worse? As “immersion breakers” go, the bisexual LI issue is mainly a problem for people who aren’t very good at immersion in the first place, since it’s something that is only evident from a metagame standpoint, or with a Hawke who selects each and every heart icon dialog choice.

B.I.N.G.O.

We have a winner.

No, we have a (well, two in fact) retards.

Just to inform the idiots :


Strawman Fallacy

The Strawman Fallacy occurs when a debater constructs a more easily defeated version of his opponent's position to attack, rather than addressing his real arguments. The fallacy takes its name from straw dummies used in old-fashioned combat training; these dummies were made to look like a potential opponent, but provide no actual resistance. The fallacy itself is comparable to defeating such a dummy, then proclaiming you have defeated an actual opponent.

"The NRA supports the right to bear arms, so they support private ownership of nuclear weapons."

While most people will not be fooled by a blatant misrepresentation of their position, careful use of a strawman
can make them defend a carefully undermined version of their position, allowing their opponent to apparently destroy them with a prepared rebuttal.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 juin 2011 - 09:45 .

[jlb524]

Anathemic wrote...

It's not off-topic when you relate the outside source in a reasoanble way to the issue, which I did.

It's also not off-topic when you relate inside source in a reasonable way to the issue, which we are doing.

Monica83 wrote...

im bisexual and i continue to say the fact you have almost all romanceable character bi is laughtable as a thing...

Good for you...I'm gay and think making all LIs romanceable by both genders was awesome....

[ipgd]

Anathemic wrote...

Where did you arrive to that conclusion. My whole premise was the issue "having all LIs bisexual" being unrealstic.

Because the lack of logical consistency with which you approach the specific issue suggests that it is not the actual issue, but an issue you have chosen to champion in order to justify an underlying discomfort with bisexuality in general.

[Anathemic]

Siansonea II wrote...
-snip-

So my point is, why is something as realistic as being bisexual somehow not okay, when it’s okay do something as unrealistic as going against everything you stand for and romancing someone who embodies the opposition of your most basic world view? I'm not going to date a racist or a homophobe just because he buys me a nice wrist-watch.

I think I know what's really going on. It isn’t about “realism”. Realism is the pretext, the excuse. The underlying theme is the players discomfort with the idea of bisexuality. Why else focus so strenuously on that one thing? When there are so many other examples of poor ‘realism’ in the game that are much MUCH worse? As “immersion breakers” go, the bisexual LI issue is mainly a problem for people who aren’t very good at immersion in the first place, since it’s something that is only evident from a metagame standpoint, or with a Hawke who selects each and every heart icon dialog choice.

This is my underlying problem with your argument. Whereas in my argument I bring up the topic of realism, or unrealism, and relate it to the topic of "having all the LIs bisexual."

In this argument I do not say "but RL says that bisexuality is a minorty" but instead I say "judging from RL context and how fantasy derives it's genre from RL parallels, and using a simple statistic of the 3 factor sexual orientations, bisexuality is a minortiy, therefore if DA2 is wanting to express its world in a realistic faction then having all possible LI's bisexual contradicts that premise"

Your argument on the other hand is evolving from the realistic stance to the point of "This is unrealistic too, way more unrealistic than this issue! Why are you guys arguing on this minor unrealstic issue when there's a major one right here?!" The answer to that sir, is that the thread focuses on that minor unrealistic issue, not the major one you are pointing out.

Modifié par Anathemic, 04 juin 2011 - 09:50 .

[Siansonea]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

*highfives you*

And that's the basis of my point a couple of posts back. I'd really like to know how they think Anders, Isabela, Fenris and Merrill would have been better characters if they were exclusively gay or straight as opposed to being bisexual.

A character with a set personnality allows for better characterisation than one with random one. Lots of subtleties in discussion depends on what the person think, like, dislike, etc.,
and the more you define a character, the better he can be and the more he can benefit from these kirks in personnality.

I think Anders, Isabela, Merrill and Fenris each have very “set” personalities. You’re being very vague by the way. I asked for specific suggestions, not generalizations.

Something like sexuality, even if it's not the only and central point of our personnality, is still very important
- funny thing how the ones that say the loudest it's not important are actually the most rabid about having every sexual partner available, BTW
- and removing it makes the character definitely blander and less personnable.

Yes, because Anders is so bland when he blows up the Chantry. If only he had been either gay or straight, but not bisexual, he would have so much more interesting in that moment.

Also, the world would benefit in believability when it doesn't have widely weird population distribution, and it would have felt less "gameplay mechanic"-based and more "lore-based".

So I guess it must REALLY bother you that there are no children in Kirkwall. Or female dwarves. Or female Qunari. I mean, if something as esoteric as character sexuality causes you such discomfort, then such blatant and obvious violations of Plausible Demographics must send you completely off the rails. I bet you are very active in the threads dedicated to those subjects.

Now, these arguments have been constantly repeated and ignored, so I'm not really sure why I bother, as if they have ignored/disregarded/twisted before, they will simply be it again, but well...

[Nerdage]

Where's John Epler? We need his sig..