25715 réponses à ce sujet

[Olive Oomph]

Carfax wrote...


Mass Effect is about saving the Civilized Galaxy from the Reapers via Commander Shepard, who's an elite N7 Spec Ops Marine.....a trained killer.

If you want a game that focuses on "love" (and I use that term oh so loosely), sexuality and relationships, go play the Sims...

The reason why I brought up the numbers to begin with, is because I wanted to highlight Bioware's absurd pandering to the gay gaming community.  Thats not to say that Bioware should not appeal to their gay audience however.

I've always been in favor of exclusive gay romances in the ME series.  But when they use hacks like contextual bisexuality (Shepardsexual), or make characters that were previously known to be heterosexual bisexual to appease the vociferous minority, then I have issues with that.

"Mass Effect is about saving the Civilized Galaxy from the Reapers
via Commander Shepard, who's an elite N7 Spec Ops Marine.....a trained
killer."

Yep, true! That is why the romances are a small, optional part of the game, that can make the main part of the game emotionally more engaging. But since it's only that small, optional part, things like sexual orientation are irrelevant character traits in context of the main story. Everyone should be able to add this emotional part to their personal story, with a character they prefer over others, regardless of what gender Shepard they choose to role.
It is you, who asks for a more realistic representation of sexual orientation, it is you, who wants the characters to have a fixed orientation and the focus on love. You want a simulation, not us. We just want to play a game, where we kick some Reaper ass and spice things up with a romantic side story, that makes us happy!

Modifié par Olive Oomph, 26 février 2012 - 08:37 .

[RetroActiv]

ElitePinecone wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...
snip

apple sauce

Yes more options are fine. Hence the new characters and options available .  The reason for the change is just as absurd as the change itself if not more so. I think it's wrong to make frivolous changes to existing characters purely for the sake of fan service.

Modifié par RetroActiv, 26 février 2012 - 08:49 .

[jlb524]

RetroActiv wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...
snip

apple sauce

Yes more options are fine. Hence the new characters and options available .  The reason for the change is just as absurd as the change itself if not more so. I think it's wrong to make frivolous changes to existing characters purely for the sake of fan service.

So...anyone who comes out of the closet is being frivolous?

Though, I will admit that these changes are fanservice.

But I will maintain that the fact that both Ashley and Kaidan were 'hot' and available for a heterosexual romance in ME1 was also fanservice.  They didn't have to be this way, but BW made them so for a specific purpose (i.e. to service fans who wanted a hot human LI in ME1).

[ElitePinecone]

RetroActiv wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...
snip

apple sauce

Yes more options are fine. Hence the new characters and options available .  The reason for the change is just as absurd as the change itself if not more so. I think it's wrong to make frivolous changes to existing characters purely for the sake of fan service.

I still don't get why it's a big deal. It won't affect you. It's optional. 

Unless the very idea of them liking the same gender is offensive to you? 

(I'm not going to point out again that there's *no* change involved. Liking one gender doesn't preclude liking another.)

[Carfax]

RomanDark wrote...

Every persons sexuality is ambiguous until proven otherwise. Neither Kaidan nor Ashley (or Anders) made any remarks as to only liking the opposite sex so their sexuality cannot be pinpointed as strictly heterosexual, nor should they or any character be confined to such norms. Now depending on how Bioware approaches their same-sex romances they can be kept completely in character. Anders felt weird, but that's because he seemed like a completely different character, and arguably he was. We should reserve judgement on the vs until we have seen the romances for ourselves.

Last time I checked, heterosexuality was the dominant sexuality among humans by an overwhelming margin. 

Thats why we assume most people are heterosexual, without them stating anything regarding their sexuality.  It's all about numbers and probability.

With that said, Kaidan made remarks about finding females attractive in ME.  So is it wrong to assume his writers originally intended him to be perceived as heterosexual? 

[mellifera]

A man saying he is attracted to women does not explicitly imply he is not attracted to men as well.

Modifié par yukidama, 26 février 2012 - 09:04 .

[Carfax]

jlb524 wrote...

What about the straight audience and the many straight romances?

There can't be 'contextual bisexuality hacks' without those.

We've had this arguement before.  You can't use the equivalency arguement with heterosexuality and homosexuality, because the two are fundamentally unequal.

Heterosexuality is the default sexuality in human beings, where as homosexuality is a fringe sexuality.  Expecting homosexuality to be given the same treatment as heterosexuality is therefore quite ridiculous. 

[Maugrim]

Carfax wrote...

With that said, Kaidan made remarks about finding females attractive in ME.  So is it wrong to assume his writers originally intended him to be perceived as heterosexual? 

Apparently it was. One way or another we will know for sure in a few days.

[Maria Caliban]

Carfax wrote...

With that said, Kaidan made remarks about finding females attractive in ME.  So is it wrong to assume his writers originally intended him to be perceived as heterosexual? 

I assumed the same when I played through Mass Effect, so I don't think it's wrong.

Carfax wrote...

Heterosexuality is the default sexuality in human beings...

Human default sexuality is polymorphous perversity.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 26 février 2012 - 09:09 .

[jlb524]

Carfax wrote...

We've had this arguement before.  You can't use the equivalency arguement with heterosexuality and homosexuality, because the two are fundamentally unequal.

You made this comment:

Carfax wrote...
Mass Effect is about saving the Civilized Galaxy from the Reapers via Commander Shepard, who's an elite N7 Spec Ops Marine.....a trained killer.

If you want a game that focuses on "love" (and I use that term oh so loosely), sexuality and relationships, go play the Sims...

Which implies that any "love" is bad in this context, no matter if it is homosexual or heterosexual.

[Carfax]

Olive Oomph wrote...

You want a simulation, not us. We just want to play a game, where we kick some Reaper ass and spice things up with a romantic side story, that makes us happy!

Well thats not really true.  If I had it my way, I would do away with the romances completely.  I think the whole romance thing has gone a bit too far, and that goes for heterosexual ones as well!

We need to get back to basics, like blowing stuff up

Seriously though, Bioware apparently has time and resources to implement romances for a very small minority of gamers, yet they repeatedly ignore requests by PC gamers for high rez texture packs and even standard controller support

Somethin wrong wit dat

[RetroActiv]

jlb524 wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...
snip

apple sauce

Yes more options are fine. Hence the new characters and options available .  The reason for the change is just as absurd as the change itself if not more so. I think it's wrong to make frivolous changes to existing characters purely for the sake of fan service.

So...anyone who comes out of the closet is being frivolous?

Though, I will admit that these changes are fanservice.

But I will maintain that the fact that both Ashley and Kaidan were 'hot' and available for a heterosexual romance in ME1 was also fanservice.  They didn't have to be this way, but BW made them so for a specific purpose (i.e. to service fans who wanted a hot human LI in ME1).

Well with fan service example 1. The idea seems to be to  a descision based on what they feel most people would be into and decide it without direct influence from fans. Fan Service example 2. we have changes made to 2 characters entirely for the purpose of satisfying a narrow segment of the established fan base.who wanted it. So we have indirect fan service vs direct fan service at the expense of altering existing characters.

[Olive Oomph]

Carfax wrote...
We need to get back to basics, like blowing stuff up

Well, there are plenty of games that do just that. Why don't you go and play one of those, instead of asking them to pander to your wishes rather than those of others.

[jlb524]

RetroActiv wrote...
Well with fan service example 1. The idea seems to be to  a descision based on what they feel most people would be into and decide it without direct influence from fans. Fan Service example 2. we have changes made to 2 characters entirely for the purpose of satisfying a narrow segment of the established fan base.who wanted it. So we have indirect fan service vs direct fan service at the expense of altering existing characters.

It's still fanservice...which is what you take issue with, correct?

Or, are you arguing that only the majority deserves fanservice while the minority does not?

Modifié par jlb524, 26 février 2012 - 09:19 .

[Maugrim]

Olive Oomph wrote...

Carfax wrote...
We need to get back to basics, like blowing stuff up

Well, there are plenty of games that do just that. Why don't you go and play one of those, instead of asking them to pander to your wishes rather than those of others.

Pssh! All wishes are equal! But Carfax's are just more equal!

[Carfax]

yukidama wrote...

A man saying he is attracted to women does not explicitly imply he is not attracted to men as well.

Are you a gay guy?  Next time you're in a club, walk up to the biggest guy with the hottest girlfriend and tell him he's a stud and that you would like to perform oral sex on him..

Tell me what happens  

Most likely, it would not go well for you......because the chances that he is heterosexual is much, much greater than the chances that he is gay or bisexual.

We don't need verbal confirmation to determine every aspect about someone's personality or character you know.

Modifié par Carfax, 26 février 2012 - 09:25 .

[Carfax]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Human default sexuality is polymorphous perversity.

You always say some weird ****

[Carfax]

Olive Oomph wrote...

Why don't you go and play one of those, instead of asking them to pander to your wishes rather than those of others.

Because like everyone else here in this thread, I'm a self serving insolent bastard that believes he is the center of the Universe and to whom Bioware must  listen ...

I would have thought that obvious by now

Modifié par Carfax, 26 février 2012 - 09:26 .

[MissOuJ]

Carfax wrote...

We've had this arguement before.  You can't use the equivalency arguement with heterosexuality and homosexuality, because the two are fundamentally unequal.

Heterosexuality is the default sexuality in human beings, where as homosexuality is a fringe sexuality.  Expecting homosexuality to be given the same treatment as heterosexuality is therefore quite ridiculous. 

[citation needed]

This might just blow your mind, but there isn't, in fact, a "default sexuality" - for pretty much any beings, human or not. What you might call "nonstandard" (in heterosexist society) sexual expression is in fact normal variation of the Kinsley scale. ******-/bi-/poly-/pansexuality is in fact not a "deviation", "aberration" or "corruption" of this hypothetical "default sexuality" - which is why representing the full scale of sexual preference in the media is very important, because a lot of people still cling onto the old, heterosexist and homophobic ideas of the old days.

Also, that's nice straight priviledge you've got there. Try not to flaunt it too much.

I probably shouldn't pour fuel into the drama, but this just pushes my buttons so much...

Modifié par MissOuJ, 26 février 2012 - 09:31 .

[jlb524]

Carfax wrote...
Most likely, it would not go well for you......because the chances that he is heterosexual is much, much greater than the chances that he is gay or bisexual.

We don't need verbal confirmation to determine every aspect about someone's personality or character.

You do know that 'chances that he is heterosexual' isn't the same thing as 'he is heterosexual' right?

[Carfax]

MissOuJ wrote...

[citation needed]

This might just blow your mind, but there isn't, in fact, a "default sexuality" - for pretty much any beings, human or not. What you might call "nonstandard" (in heterosexist society) sexual expression is in fact normal variation of the Kinsley scale. ******-/bisexuality is in fact not a "deviation", "aberration" or "corruption" of this hypothetical "default sexuality" - which is why representing the full scale of sexual preference in the media is very important, because a lot of people still cling onto the old, heterosexist and homophobic ideas of the old days.

Also, that's nice straight priviledge you've got there. Try not to flaunt it too much.

I probably shouldn't pour fuel into the drama, but this just pushes my buttons so much...

You were doing so well, until you mentioned Kinsey.  Seriously, his studies have pretty much all been debunked.  

And if heterosexuality isn't the default sexuality in humans, why is it that there are two sexes?  And why is it that our external genitalia is designed or fitted for union with the opposite sex, regardless of whether that person is gay, bisexual or straight?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a penis is shaped to enter a vagina, and that a vagina is contoured to accept a penis. 

[Carfax]

jlb524 wrote...
You do know that 'chances that he is heterosexual' isn't the same thing as 'he is heterosexual' right?

Thats true, but honestly, would you be prepared to bet in such a case? 

As I mentioned above, we don't need verbal confirmation for every little thing.  It's highly unrealistic.

Does Vega have to explicitly tell us he is latino?  No.....you can tell just by his surname that he is.

[RetroActiv]

jlb524 wrote...

RetroActiv wrote...
Well with fan service example 1. The idea seems to be to  a descision based on what they feel most people would be into and decide it without direct influence from fans. Fan Service example 2. we have changes made to 2 characters entirely for the purpose of satisfying a narrow segment of the established fan base.who wanted it. So we have indirect fan service vs direct fan service at the expense of altering existing characters.

It's still fanservice...which is what you take issue with, correct?

Or, are you arguing that only the majority deserves fanservice while the minority does not?

I was actually just presenting it as such for the sake of arguement but that's really besides the point. I think it's pretty clear that my issue is that this  a particularly extreme act fan service all for the sole purpose of  satisfying a small segment of loud fanboys/fangirls. It's direct and blatant pandering.

Modifié par RetroActiv, 26 février 2012 - 09:36 .

[MissOuJ]

Carfax wrote...

You were doing so well, until you mentioned Kinsey.  Seriously, his studies have pretty much all been debunked [citation needed].  

And if heterosexuality isn't the default sexuality in humans, why is it that there are two sexes [citation needed]?  And why is it that our external genitalia is designed or fitted for union with the opposite sex, regardless of whether that person is gay, bisexual or straight?

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that a penis is shaped to enter a vagina, and that a vagina is contoured to accept a penis. 

Jesus, are you a time traveller from the 1800's? Your views on both sexuality, sex and gender are positively ancient.

First of all, there have been both intersex people and people who identify as non-binary gendered throughout history, even if we're just about to understand the physical aspects of that (as in, sciense) - but these people could tell you in no uncertain terms that they do, in fact exist.

Second, if you really think sex and sexuality is only about reproduction, you're really doing it wrong (and quite frankly, I feel kind of sorry for you).

Third, sex more than the physical act of copulation. Again, if you don't see that, you're missing out on a lot - and then I feel really sorry for you.

Edit: on the Kinsey scale: would you be more at home with the Klein sexual orientation grid? Doubt it.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 26 février 2012 - 09:44 .

[Abispa]

Carfax wrote...

Olive Oomph wrote...

Why don't you go and play one of those, instead of asking them to pander to your wishes rather than those of others.

Because like everyone else here in this thread, I'm a self serving insolent bastard that believes he is the center of the Universe and to whom Bioware must listen ...

I would have thought that obvious by now

The difference is, hypocrite, that YOUR fan service is based on denying others options that are neither forced on you nor have much bearing on your game. For years Bioware has written romances that are easily servicable for either gender, even though there were no s/s options for those LIs.

For example, both Allistair and Morrigan's romances EASILY translate into gay romances if you mod a same gender hero into them. All it takes in changing a line or two to make them PEFECTLY "GAY". That's it. Why? Because Bioware tries to write romances, and other dialog that are as open to head canon's as possible.

Some Morrigan lovers say they love the fact that she is an irredeemable [w]itch, while other's find her a tragic character searching for redemption. Making LIs "bi" or pansexual does NOT rob them of their sexual identity or make them "shallow" compared to past romances because they have ALWAYS, for reasons of necessity (like focusing on adventure and combat) been "shallow." If you pay attention to written dialog and not your own prejudices even you should be able to figure it out.

In short, making Ashley "bi" for someone else's female Shepard deprives me, a straight male player who normally plays straight male heroes, of NOTHING, unless I was some "insolent bastard who believes he is the center of the universe to whom Bioware must listen." Fortunately Bioware doesn't listen to you. Neither does Microsoft. Bethesda, and apparently Capcom.