506 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

Master Wolf wrote...

So people are defending realism...in a fantasy game...I'm the only one seeing the contradiction in this? xD

No, no, no...not all realism...just as it pertains to sexuality.

[RaenImrahl]

I've let the topic continue because posters here were, at least for a while, exhibiting a little more civility and self-restraint than in similar recent discussions about Mass Effect 3. However, that appears to be changing.

Calling people "idiots" and "retards" is not allowed. Nor are constant accusations of homophobia.

Let's see if we can do better, keep the subject limited to the game, and treat each other with respect. Otherwise this topic will be locked and bans will be handed out.

Thank you,

RI

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 04 juin 2011 - 10:12 .

[ipgd]

Anathemic wrote...

Do you really honestly believe that the argument of "But this issue is unrealistic too! Go discuss that one instead of this one!" holds any credibility at all?

No, because that is a strawman that has nothing to do with what I actually said.

Because of the high incidence of dummy arguments in these topics, the suspected dummy arguments have to be extracted from and applied to a separate subject in order to verify whether or not they hold weight on their own. If you did indeed decide to confirm the logical consistency of your argument (confirming that your issue with X is indeed Y, and not X itself, as is often the case with these discussions), the discussion could seamlessly move back to the topic of addressing that core issue and how it relates to bisexuality. But since you refuse to do that, there's little reason for us to conclude that is in fact your core problem and therefor pointless to argue with any further than has already been argued.

Modifié par ipgd, 04 juin 2011 - 10:15 .

[autumnyte]

Monica83 wrote...

So is better let player to decide if the companion because ethero or gay? WTF.. those companion are brainless golem or people with a mind? THis i mean when i say gameplay forced choice ruind the plot  and also made poor companion personality

But how did it make "poor companion personality" in your eyes? I have yet to see anyone bring up a single tangible example of how the companions' personalities were negatively affected by their orientation. 

[Siansonea]

Harid wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

This topic is about statistical probability of bisexuals (apparently...) and I made points about much more glaring statistical improbabilities in the game...and....*crickets*

I think that says it all...

People aren't arguing for the point you are trying to make, we know that there would logically be less bisexuals versus statistics, and we don't want anyone to have no romantic choices, however we also don't want unrealistic changes made for gameplay either.

Actually, that was exactly the argument I was presented with. Real-world representation reflected in the game world.

Well, it just seems odd to me, that a relatively minor violation of Statistical Perfection is maligned, while much larger violations of this same principle are all but ignored. If my true objection was that Kirkwall's population was an inaccurate representation of real-world demographics, well, bisexuals would be pretty low on my list of examples. After all, statistics are only relevant to large groups, not a group as small as Hawke's party. But children? Children are a significant demographic in the real world. If the basis for this topic's objection truly was conformity to statistical norms in the real world, these same people would be shouting from the rooftops about how underrepresented children are in Kirkwall. And female dwarves and Qunari. But, strangely, I'm not hearing a big ruckus over that so much as the fact that we've got four bisexuals in one group.

I don't suppose 'birds of a feather flock together' or anything...

[Bejos_]

Master Wolf, this topic should have stopped at page 1.

[Monica83]

Sorry but... Companion in a coherent story must have theyr personality.. If a player can decide if they are bi or not its something utterly stupid.. Companion are supposed to have theyr will theyr wishes theyr needs theyr manner to think.. If a player can determine a change sometime can happen.. but have almost all romanceable companion bi is utterly laughtable... its like they are brainless zombie that the player can drive where they want... and this is strong narrative?... oh please...

[Master Wolf]

Anathemic wrote...
The fantasy genre succeeds and heavily derives from its parallels of real world realism.

The fantasy genre has it's roots on the real world of course, but those worlds can't be compared to the real world because they are created to be different and to contain things that are impossible in this world like for example magic, comparing the realism to of our world to one that is unrealistic by nature IMO is pointless.

[Akka le Vil]

Siansonea II wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

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.

Yes I'm vague. Making good dialogues is something that IS vague. That's the difference between a good writer (where the character "feels right") and a bad one (where the character is just a list of traits that need to be spelled out). You don't characterize someone by having him just come and describe himself. You characterize someone by having him "ring true" and "be himself". And for this, you precisely needs to have a set personnality and not a random one.

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.

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.

See what you do ?
Strawmanning at its finest.

A nice show of intellectual dishonesty, attempting to derail, exagerate, caricature the points made in an attempt to mock them.
This is proof enough that you're wrong. You would not need such pathetic red herrings if you were right.

[Harid]

Siansonea II wrote...

Harid wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

This topic is about statistical probability of bisexuals (apparently...) and I made points about much more glaring statistical improbabilities in the game...and....*crickets*

I think that says it all...

People aren't arguing for the point you are trying to make, we know that there would logically be less bisexuals versus statistics, and we don't want anyone to have no romantic choices, however we also don't want unrealistic changes made for gameplay either.

Actually, that was exactly the argument I was presented with. Real-world representation reflected in the game world.

Well, it just seems odd to me, that a relatively minor violation of Statistical Perfection is maligned, while much larger violations of this same principle are all but ignored. If my true objection was that Kirkwall's population was an inaccurate representation of real-world demographics, well, bisexuals would be pretty low on my list of examples. After all, statistics are only relevant to large groups, not a group as small as Hawke's party. But children? Children are a significant demographic in the real world. If the basis for this topic's objection truly was conformity to statistical norms in the real world, these same people would be shouting from the rooftops about how underrepresented children are in Kirkwall. And female dwarves and Qunari. But, strangely, I'm not hearing a big ruckus over that so much as the fact that we've got four bisexuals in one group.

I don't suppose 'birds of a feather flock together' or anything...

Make another topic.  It seems the wisest choice given the direction you want this topic to go down.

[Siansonea]

Anathemic wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

This topic is about statistical probability of bisexuals (apparently...) and I made points about much more glaring statistical improbabilities in the game...and....*crickets*

I think that says it all...

So your point is to derive the conversation into your more "glaring issue of the game" instead of it's current course... amirite?

You don't see the obvious disconnect? If, as you say, statistics are the underlying reason for your objection to four bisexual LIs in the squad, then why aren't the other, more glaring examples of inaccurate statistics a proportionally greater concern? If I obected to elf characters on principle, I think I would focus on Fenris, Merrill, Orsino, Marethari, Zevran, etc., the most prominent elves in the game, I wouldn't focus my attention on Master Ilen, a relatively minor elf character. So if the objection is solely statistical inaccuracy, I find it odd that one of the smallest examples of that is the one that's so stringently argued.

[autumnyte]

Monica83 wrote...

Sorry but... Companion in a coherent story must have theyr personality.. If a player can decide if they are bi or not its something utterly stupid.. Companion are supposed to have theyr will theyr wishes theyr needs theyr manner to think.. If a player can determine a change sometime can happen.. but have almost all romanceable companion bi is utterly laughtable... its like they are brainless zombie that the player can drive where they want... and this is strong narrative?... oh please...

See, this is where I scratch my head and have to compare to other areas of the game. Because Hawke influences a TON of companion choices, frankly, the least of which are the romance options.  Without getting spoilery, almost all the companions have a significant personal quest, the outcome of which is determined by Hawke's actions and decisions.

Does that bother you as well? Are Aveline, Varric, Sebastian, etc. zombies because you can essentially control major events in their lives?

[Akka le Vil]

jlb524 wrote...

No, it proves that you are selective in your concerns for 'realism' which means that it's really not about realism.

/Facepalm

There is nothing else to answer to such amount of willing idiocy. It's just not possible you're genuinely THAT stupid, so it means you're being purposedly stupid, which means there is no point trying to actually communicate to you.
Have fun debating in your head with your own little images you've conjured up.

[Anathemic]

Siansonea II wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

This topic is about statistical probability of bisexuals (apparently...) and I made points about much more glaring statistical improbabilities in the game...and....*crickets*

I think that says it all...

So your point is to derive the conversation into your more "glaring issue of the game" instead of it's current course... amirite?

You don't see the obvious disconnect? If, as you say, statistics are the underlying reason for your objection to four bisexual LIs in the squad, then why aren't the other, more glaring examples of inaccurate statistics a proportionally greater concern? If I obected to elf characters on principle, I think I would focus on Fenris, Merrill, Orsino, Marethari, Zevran, etc., the most prominent elves in the game, I wouldn't focus my attention on Master Ilen, a relatively minor elf character. So if the objection is solely statistical inaccuracy, I find it odd that one of the smallest examples of that is the one that's so stringently argued.

-sigh- It's argued... because the thread's purpose is to focus on said 'minor issue'...

Really if you want to discuss these 'major issues' just please, create a new thread.

[ipgd]

Harid wrote...

Make another topic.  It seems the wisest choice given the direction you want this topic to go down.

There is no desire for a new topic, just a short detour in order to validify the sincerity of the core argument separate from its incidence with bisexuality -- given that the claim is, in fact, that bisexuality is incidental to the issue of statistical representation. If the desire to defend statistical representation fails outside the context of sexuality, it suggests that sexuality is not in fact incidental to the argument and is rather the core focus of it, and as such challenging the offered argument is a pointless redirection.

[Harid]

autumnyte wrote...

Monica83 wrote...

Sorry but... Companion in a coherent story must have theyr personality.. If a player can decide if they are bi or not its something utterly stupid.. Companion are supposed to have theyr will theyr wishes theyr needs theyr manner to think.. If a player can determine a change sometime can happen.. but have almost all romanceable companion bi is utterly laughtable... its like they are brainless zombie that the player can drive where they want... and this is strong narrative?... oh please...

See, this is where I scratch my head and have to compare to other areas of the game. Because Hawke influences a TON of companion choices, frankly, the least of which are the romance options.  Without getting spoilery, almost all the companions have a significant personal quest, the outcome of which is determined by Hawke's actions and decisions.

Does that bother you as well? Are Aveline, Varric, Sebastian, etc. zombies because you can essentially control major events in their lives?

Needing help finishing a quest is a bit different than needing help choosing your sexuality when you are already an adult; by that time, most people have already made up their minds.

It's a clear disconnect.

Keep in mind these people aren't really bisexual, Hawke is so ****ing awesome, he makes them bisexual.  It's not part of thier character, well, except for Isabela.  That's the disconnect most people arguing against Hawkesexuality are having.

[Master Wolf]

Akka le Vil wrote...

/Facepalm

There is nothing else to answer to such amount of willing idiocy. It's just not possible you're genuinely THAT stupid, so it means you're being purposedly stupid, which means there is no point trying to actually communicate to you.
Have fun debating in your head with your own little images you've conjured up.

I give you credit for your self criticism it's very accurate

[Anathemic]

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Do you really honestly believe that the argument of "But this issue is unrealistic too! Go discuss that one instead of this one!" holds any credibility at all?

No, because that is a strawman that has nothing to do with what I actually said.

Actually it did

ipgd wrote...

Your lack of willingness to answer
challenges to the logical consistency of your argument. These
"off-topic" arguments are brought up in order to assess the veracity of
the core claim itself ("If your issue with X is Y, do you have an issue
with Z which also has the quality of Y, or is your issue with Y
constrained to its coincidence with X?") independent of its tie to
bisexuality, which is relevant to an argument about bisexuality given
the frequency of aforementioned dummy arguments in this kind of topic.
You have evasively sidestepped these questions despite their relevance
to any subject that is fraught with this behavior.

But,
regardless: the argument itself is fallacious because, again, four
people out of millions is not a statistically relevant sample size and
is not representative of the sexuality of Thedas as a whole. The sample
is far too small to draw any conclusions about the sexuality of
Thedas. Neither is two bisexual love interests out of four, or any love
interests out of four. If strict statistical representation were a
concern, there would be exactly one queer LI per five games. But
statistical representation is not a concern, so statistic issues are not
relevant.

Bolded part I simplified for you, and it was in your post.

[Akka le Vil]

nerdage wrote...

Quick hypothetical for you: You're discussing something with someone else and they end up calling you a "retard", how inclined would you then be to agree with their original point? Entertaining as it can be to watch people shoot themselves in the foot you're really not helping yourself, try civility.

Well, the thing is, civility is good when people are genuinely trying to discuss.
When someone is just purposedly ignoring and twisting your points, it means that no amount of reasoning is going to make him think (as he's not interested in understanding, only in contradicting regardless of truth or logic). It also means he's actually trolling you - because, again, he's only looking for contradiction, not discussion.

And I really can't be bothered to be polite to trolls :-/

[Harid]

ipgd wrote...

Harid wrote...

Make another topic.  It seems the wisest choice given the direction you want this topic to go down.

There is no desire for a new topic, just a short detour in order to validify the sincerity of the core argument separate from its incidence with bisexuality -- given that the claim is, in fact, that bisexuality is incidental to the issue of statistical representation. If the desire to defend statistical representation fails outside the context of sexuality, it suggests that sexuality is not in fact incidental to the argument and is rather the core focus of it, and as such challenging the offered argument is a pointless redirection.

It'll lead the topic down another path that is not relavant to the topic as it is named, which is why it's being ignored.

It won't be a short detour, and you know it, as that is not how message boards work, look at the "Darkspawn look" thread for instance, which evolved into the "New Elvan look" thread, despite what the thread is named because people allowed it to be by arguing segways.

People arguing this point aren't interested in arguing these other points, because we know what is trying to be done.

[Siansonea]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

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.

Yes I'm vague. Making good dialogues is something that IS vague. That's the difference between a good writer (where the character "feels right") and a bad one (where the character is just a list of traits that need to be spelled out). You don't characterize someone by having him just come and describe himself. You characterize someone by having him "ring true" and "be himself". And for this, you precisely needs to have a set personnality and not a random one.

It sounds to me like you’re saying it’s a very subjective issue. I think all four of the characters are written well, they all ring true to me. If they don’t for you, I doubt it’s solely due to their bisexuality, since that’s only relevant to the LI portion of the character interaction.

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.

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.

See what you do ?
Strawmanning at its finest.

A nice show of intellectual dishonesty, attempting to derail, exagerate, caricature the points made in an attempt to mock them.
This is proof enough that you're wrong. You would not need such pathetic red herrings if you were right.

Not so fast—You conveniently removed the context of my remark about children in Kirkwall. Let me restore it:

Akka le Vil wrote...

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, let’s review my response in light of that context:

Siansonea II wrote...
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.

You made a point about population distribution. I made another point about population distribution. Now who is trying to mislead whom?

[Daydreamer_91]

not everyone can be cool

[Akka le Vil]

Siansonea II wrote...

@Akka le Vil

Stop using the "r" word, if you expect me to respond to anything you have to say.

You're calling everyone disagreeing with you an homophobe while completely ignoring their arguments (and saying they are only a veneer to hide homophobia).
So don't try to act all high and mighty with me when it comes to being courteous, 'kay ?

[ipgd]

Anathemic wrote...

Actually it did

ipgd wrote...

Your lack of willingness to answer challenges to the logical consistency of your argument. These "off-topic" arguments are brought up in order to assess the veracity of the core claim itself ("If your issue with X is Y, do you have an issue with Z which also has the quality of Y, or is your issue with Y constrained to its coincidence with X?") independent of its tie to bisexuality, which is relevant to an argument about bisexuality given the frequency of aforementioned dummy arguments in this kind of topic. You have evasively sidestepped these questions despite their relevance to any subject that is fraught with this behavior.

But, regardless: the argument itself is fallacious because, again, four people out of millions is not a statistically relevant sample size and is not representative of the sexuality of Thedas as a whole. The sample is far too small to draw any conclusions about the sexuality of Thedas. Neither is two bisexual love interests out of four, or any love interests out of four. If strict statistical representation were a concern, there would be exactly one queer LI per five games. But statistical representation is not a concern, so statistic issues are not relevant.

Bolded part I simplified for you, and it was in your post.

Sigh, that is not what I meant.

Here, let me attempt to clarify it:

"Because this is a controversial issue, we have reason to doubt that the issues you cite are in fact the reasons why you are participating in the argument. If you would take the time to confirm the logical consistency of your argument, the discussion can return to the argument itself."

This kind of meta-argumentative ****** is just as off-topic as addressing a few logic checks, so refusing to do so isn't really doing anything to keep things on whatever desired narrow topic you want, either.

[Harid]

I'll respond to arguments made to the topic at hand, as you raise a good point.