645 réponses à ce sujet

[Anathemic]

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

What? I didn't state if bisexuals can/can't have children. Sure a bisexual male and female can produce offspring naturally.

As can gay males and females.

There are many gay parents in the world.  And this becomes even easier if we don't assume monogamy.

Yes a gay male/gay female coupling can produce natural offspring, however that wouldn't be practical now would it?

Why not? It happens.

I'm just going from straight definition. If a homosexual male and a homosexual female get together and produce offspring and from then on stayed together, well that would defeat the purpose of being homosexual now wouldn't it? Unless they both forced themselves, which again is not really practical in both logical and emotional aspects.

[whykikyouwhy]

Anathemic wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

What? I didn't state if bisexuals can/can't have children. Sure a bisexual male and female can produce offspring naturally.

As can gay males and females.

There are many gay parents in the world.  And this becomes even easier if we don't assume monogamy.

Yes a gay male/gay female coupling can produce natural offspring, however that wouldn't be practical now would it?

How would that not be practical? What is the basis of practicality with regard to producing a child? Is it the genetic formula? (trying to get those good Gattaca genes) Is the foundation a particular family? If you're looking at the latter (which I hope you are not), a straight couple is not the prerequisite for a set of good parents. Just as any couple does not necessarily equate 'good parents'. If 'good parents' is what you are implying by 'practical.'

[Anathemic]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

What? I didn't state if bisexuals can/can't have children. Sure a bisexual male and female can produce offspring naturally.

As can gay males and females.

There are many gay parents in the world.  And this becomes even easier if we don't assume monogamy.

Yes a gay male/gay female coupling can produce natural offspring, however that wouldn't be practical now would it?

How would that not be practical? What is the basis of practicality with regard to producing a child? Is it the genetic formula? (trying to get those good Gattaca genes) Is the foundation a particular family? If you're looking at the latter (which I hope you are not), a straight couple is not the prerequisite for a set of good parents. Just as any couple does not necessarily equate 'good parents'. If 'good parents' is what you are implying by 'practical.'

Look at my post above

Modifié par Anathemic, 17 juin 2011 - 11:17 .

[yaw]

Sutekh wrote...

The problem is that when meta-gaming, you create a paradox. Comparing two realities is one thing. Modifying a reality with elements from another is different. Anders sleeping with Garrett and Anders sleeping with Marian doesn't make Anders bisexual. It makes him gay/bi in one reality and straight/bi in another. You can still compare the two. You cannot mix them.

In DAO, the Circle can be full of mages or annuled. It isn't both, or half-annuled, because you know that it can be the other. Carver can have many fates, but not all at once or a mix of the three. It is exactly the same when it comes to the LIs orientation. 

I think Gaider actually responded to this. He said that no matter how you imagine a character's sexuality to be, it doesn't change it. Just because you don't romance Anders and he doesn't mentioned sleeping with a man, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In other words: all of DA2's love interests are bisexual, no matter what you choose to do with them in your universe. 

[hoorayforicecream]

Anathemic wrote...

To go on what you quoted youself on.

On the same token having no realism will just alienate the player and having he/she call it a "stupid/weird game." I'm pretty sure I do not want to play some random dude who gets high off crack then falls down a hole only to find it the hole went through the planet and he actually entered space ignoring the rules of gravity and can breathe in space then uses his arms like a bird in flapping motion to travel 10x the speed of light and explore the universe only to find it really the inside of Patrick's mouth from Spongebob.

Realism may be commonly known as "unfun" in a general perspective but however realism must always be present to make the game practical (especially in RPGs).

I disagree. Where is the realism in Tetris? Where is the realism in Chess or Go? There's little realism in Portal or God of War, but they are still considered wonderful games.

It's not the realism that makes games fun. It's about the game establishing a world with its own rules, then sticking to those rules.

[Anathemic]

yaw wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

The problem is that when meta-gaming, you create a paradox. Comparing two realities is one thing. Modifying a reality with elements from another is different. Anders sleeping with Garrett and Anders sleeping with Marian doesn't make Anders bisexual. It makes him gay/bi in one reality and straight/bi in another. You can still compare the two. You cannot mix them.

In DAO, the Circle can be full of mages or annuled. It isn't both, or half-annuled, because you know that it can be the other. Carver can have many fates, but not all at once or a mix of the three. It is exactly the same when it comes to the LIs orientation. 

I think Gaider actually responded to this. He said that no matter how you imagine a character's sexuality to be, it doesn't change it. Just because you don't romance Anders and he doesn't mentioned sleeping with a man, doesn't mean it didn't happen. In other words: all of DA2's love interests are bisexual, no matter what you choose to do with them in your universe. 

Thank you

[ipgd]

Sutekh wrote...

The problem is that when meta-gaming, you create a paradox. Comparing two realities is one thing. Modifying a reality with elements from another is different. Anders sleeping with Garrett and Anders sleeping with Marian doesn't make Anders bisexual. It makes him gay/bi in one reality and straight/bi in another. You can still compare the two. You cannot mix them.

In DAO, the Circle can be full of mages or annuled. It isn't both, or half-annuled, because you know that it can be the other. Carver can have many fates, but not all at once or a mix of the three. It is exactly the same when it comes to the LIs orientation.

And because I need to nitpick this every time it comes up, Word of God says Anders is bisexual.

Anathemic wrote...

I'm just going from straight definition. If a homosexual male and a homosexual female get together and produce offspring and from then on stayed together, well that would defeat the purpose of being homosexual now wouldn't it? Unless they both forced themselves, which again is not really practical in both logical and emotional aspects.

Surrogacy, egg/sperm donation, etc. really aren't all that uncommon. The homos find a way to make their babies if they want them.

Modifié par ipgd, 17 juin 2011 - 11:19 .

[Pasquale1234]

Anathemic wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
What kind of influence does culture have on the biological ratios of sexual orientations?

I'm not sure whether you are serious or trolling.

But I will say that people tend to repress (or at least hide) tendencies that bring about rejection, isolation, and sometimes lynchings.

I'm totally serious, and I'm not sure what you are trying to convey in this post. Is this some kind of hyperbole in relation to sexual orientations or just random?

On the (outside) chance that you are sincere, I will attempt to explain in a way that you might be able to understand.

In a culture that condemns and oppresses same-sex relationships, there is a great tendency to repress, deny, misidentify, or ignore any natural spontaneous romantic interest that one might feel toward a person of one's own sex.  When people feel threatened by loss of social and/or economic status, many of them seek the relative safety of falling into line with the heteronorm.  Regardless of the truth of the sexual orientation of these individuals, they are perceived to be straight.  Many of them go to their graves never having experienced intimacy with someone of their own sex.

A culture that does not oppress same-sex relationships provides much more freedom to pursue them.  It is reasonable to expect that such a culture would give rise to many more people being open to a same-sex relationship.

[whykikyouwhy]

Anathemic wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

What? I didn't state if bisexuals can/can't have children. Sure a bisexual male and female can produce offspring naturally.

As can gay males and females.

There are many gay parents in the world.  And this becomes even easier if we don't assume monogamy.

Yes a gay male/gay female coupling can produce natural offspring, however that wouldn't be practical now would it?

Why not? It happens.

I'm just going from straight definition. If a homosexual male and a homosexual female get together and produce offspring and from then on stayed together, well that would defeat the purpose of being homosexual now wouldn't it? Unless they both forced themselves, which again is not really practical in both logical and emotional aspects.

The "purpose" of being homosexual? Homosexuality is an aspect of a person, not something selected as a purpose or badge to wear. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman staying together for whatever reason (perhaps the child in your scenario) does not take away their homosexuality. Sure, they may come to some decision that they no longer identify as gay, and that is their soul-searching right. But certainly the act of remaining together alone does not redefine who they are. 

[Anathemic]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...
What kind of influence does culture have on the biological ratios of sexual orientations?

I'm not sure whether you are serious or trolling.

But I will say that people tend to repress (or at least hide) tendencies that bring about rejection, isolation, and sometimes lynchings.

I'm totally serious, and I'm not sure what you are trying to convey in this post. Is this some kind of hyperbole in relation to sexual orientations or just random?

On the (outside) chance that you are sincere, I will attempt to explain in a way that you might be able to understand.

In a culture that condemns and oppresses same-sex relationships, there is a great tendency to repress, deny, misidentify, or ignore any natural spontaneous romantic interest that one might feel toward a person of one's own sex.  When people feel threatened by loss of social and/or economic status, many of them seek the relative safety of falling into line with the heteronorm.  Regardless of the truth of the sexual orientation of these individuals, they are perceived to be straight.  Many of them go to their graves never having experienced intimacy with someone of their own sex.

A culture that does not oppress same-sex relationships provides much more freedom to pursue them.  It is reasonable to expect that such a culture would give rise to many more people being open to a same-sex relationship.

Okay but even so, going on a pure biological standpoint, it really doesn't change the sexual orientation ratios that my point is based upon.

[Sutekh]

Anathemic wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

The problem is that when meta-gaming, you create a paradox. Comparing two realities is one thing. Modifying a reality with elements from another is different. Anders sleeping with Garrett and Anders sleeping with Marian doesn't make Anders bisexual. It makes him gay/bi in one reality and straight/bi in another. You can still compare the two. You cannot mix them.

In DAO, the Circle can be full of mages or annuled. It isn't both, or half-annuled, because you know that it can be the other. Carver can have many fates, but not all at once or a mix of the three. It is exactly the same when it comes to the LIs orientation. 

But once you 'know' you can't 'unknow'. Once a player knows that the LI can sway to either sex that's where we establish the charcter being bisexual and you can't 'unknow' that.

Some would say that it's bad roleplaying, and some would be somewhat right.

And again, can you "unknow" Carver's fate #1? Is your Warden-Commander a zombie because in another playthrough he died? You could argue it was another Warden, but the same applies to DA2. Garrett isn't Marian. Two Hawkes. Two realities.

And if it's the personality vs. facts thing that is troublesome: in DAO we can change the stance of many people, including Loghain (to an extent), Zathrian, Leliana, Sten... How is it less problematic than orientation? We're talking about a real personality change here, not a sexual orientation who doesn't really count if you're not dating the person.

[Anathemic]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

What? I didn't state if bisexuals can/can't have children. Sure a bisexual male and female can produce offspring naturally.

As can gay males and females.

There are many gay parents in the world.  And this becomes even easier if we don't assume monogamy.

Yes a gay male/gay female coupling can produce natural offspring, however that wouldn't be practical now would it?

Why not? It happens.

I'm just going from straight definition. If a homosexual male and a homosexual female get together and produce offspring and from then on stayed together, well that would defeat the purpose of being homosexual now wouldn't it? Unless they both forced themselves, which again is not really practical in both logical and emotional aspects.

The "purpose" of being homosexual? Homosexuality is an aspect of a person, not something selected as a purpose or badge to wear. A homosexual man and a homosexual woman staying together for whatever reason (perhaps the child in your scenario) does not take away their homosexuality. Sure, they may come to some decision that they no longer identify as gay, and that is their soul-searching right. But certainly the act of remaining together alone does not redefine who they are. 

Sure, but wouldn't it be painful to know that you are essentially forcing yourself to be with the the sex that you don't prefer? You can live with it sure, however that tinge will always be there, leading into regret.

[ipgd]

Sutekh wrote...

Some would say that it's bad roleplaying, and some would be somewhat right.

And again, can you "unknow" Carver's fate #1? Is your Warden-Commander a zombie because in another playthrough he died? You could argue it was another Warden, but the same applies to DA2. Garrett isn't Marian. Two Hawkes. Two realities.

And if it's the personality vs. facts thing that is troublesome: in DAO we can change the stance of many people, including Loghain (to an extent), Zathrian, Leliana, Sten... How is it less problematic than orientation? We're talking about a real personality change here, not a sexual orientation who doesn't really count if you're not dating the person.

Because sexuality is an immutable biological aspect of a person and not an opinion subject to change.

I really don't like the idea of Schrodinger's Sexuality. It's left open to some degree of interpretation for those of whom would be bothered by the impossibility of being acquainted with four bisexual people, but it's not a conclusive fact by any means. The developers have said as much.

Anathemic wrote...

Sure, but wouldn't it be painful to know that you are essentially forcing yourself to be with the the sex that you don't prefer? You can live with it sure, however that tinge will always be there, leading into regret.

Welcome to the lives of like, every gay person before the 1960s?

[whykikyouwhy]

Anathemic wrote...

Sure, but wouldn't it be painful to know that you are essentially forcing yourself to be with the the sex that you don't prefer? You can live with it sure, however that tinge will always be there, leading into regret.

Needed to chop out some long quoting there...

You're making the assumption that your fictional couple are "forcing" themselves. And yes, it's your scenario, but for me, being on the outside of it, I'm not going to right out think "oh, poor dears. They are denying themselves and living a lie." Who knows what would lead two people to make that sort of decision - could be economic reasons, could be just a tried and true friendship and the desire to raise their child together. They may not regret one bit of that. It may not be a sacrifice, and it may not be a denial of who they are. You can be homosexual and not have sex. The availability or frequency of the sexual act is not the defining factor.

[Anathemic]

Sutekh wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

The problem is that when meta-gaming, you create a paradox. Comparing two realities is one thing. Modifying a reality with elements from another is different. Anders sleeping with Garrett and Anders sleeping with Marian doesn't make Anders bisexual. It makes him gay/bi in one reality and straight/bi in another. You can still compare the two. You cannot mix them.

In DAO, the Circle can be full of mages or annuled. It isn't both, or half-annuled, because you know that it can be the other. Carver can have many fates, but not all at once or a mix of the three. It is exactly the same when it comes to the LIs orientation. 

But once you 'know' you can't 'unknow'. Once a player knows that the LI can sway to either sex that's where we establish the charcter being bisexual and you can't 'unknow' that.

Some would say that it's bad roleplaying, and some would be somewhat right.

And again, can you "unknow" Carver's fate #1? Is your Warden-Commander a zombie because in another playthrough he died? You could argue it was another Warden, but the same applies to DA2. Garrett isn't Marian. Two Hawkes. Two realities.

And if it's the personality vs. facts thing that is troublesome: in DAO we can change the stance of many people, including Loghain (to an extent), Zathrian, Leliana, Sten... How is it less problematic than orientation? We're talking about a real personality change here, not a sexual orientation who doesn't really count if you're not dating the person.

Changing someone's stance is more common and understandable than changing someone sexual orientation. You keep bringing up concepts such as if this person live or died or if this person changed his/her stance. I fail to find how this relates to sexual orientation.

One is feasible to change, the other is heavily ignrained to the person.

[Anathemic]

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sure, but wouldn't it be painful to know that you are essentially forcing yourself to be with the the sex that you don't prefer? You can live with it sure, however that tinge will always be there, leading into regret.

Welcome to the lives of like, every gay person before the 1960s?

And for the gay people, that's practical?

[Anathemic]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sure, but wouldn't it be painful to know that you are essentially forcing yourself to be with the the sex that you don't prefer? You can live with it sure, however that tinge will always be there, leading into regret.

Needed to chop out some long quoting there...

You're making the assumption that your fictional couple are "forcing" themselves. And yes, it's your scenario, but for me, being on the outside of it, I'm not going to right out think "oh, poor dears. They are denying themselves and living a lie." Who knows what would lead two people to make that sort of decision - could be economic reasons, could be just a tried and true friendship and the desire to raise their child together. They may not regret one bit of that. It may not be a sacrifice, and it may not be a denial of who they are. You can be homosexual and not have sex. The availability or frequency of the sexual act is not the defining factor.

Economic reasons are essentially "being forced" as for the others listed, isn't that the evolution into bisexuality?

[Pasquale1234]

Anathemic wrote...

Okay but even so, going on a pure biological standpoint, it really doesn't change the sexual orientation ratios that my point is based upon.

What ratios are those?

Do you understand the difficulty in getting truthful, valid demographics in any culture that oppresses same-sex relationships?

My reply spelled out the cases where people who are truly bi or gay are (mis)identified as straight.

[Anathemic]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Okay but even so, going on a pure biological standpoint, it really doesn't change the sexual orientation ratios that my point is based upon.

What ratios are those?

Do you understand the difficulty in getting truthful, valid demographics in any culture that oppresses same-sex relationships?

My reply spelled out the cases where people who are truly bi or gay are (mis)identified as straight.

Naturally people with one-way sexual orientations (heterosexuals and homosexuals, heterosexuals obviously in the majority as they are the easiest and simplest form of deriving natural offspring) are more in population than two-way sexual orientations (bisexuality).

Even if you take the science out and go purely from a mathematical standpoint. 2/3 > 1/3.

Modifié par Anathemic, 17 juin 2011 - 11:50 .

[ipgd]

Anathemic wrote...

Naturally people with one-way sexual orientations (heterosexuals and homosexuals, heterosexuals obviously in the majority as they are the easiest and simplest form of deriving natural offspring) than two-way sexual orientations (bisexuality).

Even if you take the science out and go purely from a mathematical standpoint. 2/3 > 1/3.

What?

[whykikyouwhy]

Anathemic wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Sure, but wouldn't it be painful to know that you are essentially forcing yourself to be with the the sex that you don't prefer? You can live with it sure, however that tinge will always be there, leading into regret.

Needed to chop out some long quoting there...

You're making the assumption that your fictional couple are "forcing" themselves. And yes, it's your scenario, but for me, being on the outside of it, I'm not going to right out think "oh, poor dears. They are denying themselves and living a lie." Who knows what would lead two people to make that sort of decision - could be economic reasons, could be just a tried and true friendship and the desire to raise their child together. They may not regret one bit of that. It may not be a sacrifice, and it may not be a denial of who they are. You can be homosexual and not have sex. The availability or frequency of the sexual act is not the defining factor.

Economic reasons are essentially "being forced" as for the others listed, isn't that the evolution into bisexuality?

"Being forced" may imply that there is no choice being offered. There are plenty of choices when it comes to a relationship. Those fictional people may want to co-own a house but in the state they reside, two people of the same sex cannot apply for a home loan, or some such nonsense. So they choose to live together. It's a mutual decision that they may be very happy about as it allows them to fulfill the dream of home ownership.

Not having sex does not constitute the evolution of bisexuality. Nor does a gay man and a gay woman being together dictate that they must now consider themselves bisexual. You are making the assumption that they are in a sexual relationship. That may not be the case. And even if they do, that doesn't mean they are instantly bisexual in who and how they define themselves.

[Selene Moonsong]

Frankly, I grow weary of the application of the term bisexual in regards to romantic interests in games. Unless a character specifically states they are bisexual, it cannot be said that they are, in fact, bisexual. To imply otherwise against any character they create is strictly a narrow-minded interpretation, IMHO

Asar, for example,i are asexual, female at birth but can serve as either gender, and yet can serve as male or female for mating purposes. That does not make them bisexual.

Otherwise, the characters should be considered Gay/Lesbian in respect to your character. The one character in ME 2 for example, that can be considered as bisexual, would be Kelley, since she does claim indifference to gender, and even species for that matter, in conversations with your character,

Stating that any other character is bisexual simply because the player is allowed to make a choice of romancing a same or opposite gender character makes them bisexual, is complete foolishness. More correctly, they are Shepard-centric and you are the one who choses to make them either Gay/Lesbian or straight. Your choice does not make them bisexual.

[Anathemic]

ipgd wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

Naturally people with one-way sexual orientations (heterosexuals and homosexuals, heterosexuals obviously in the majority as they are the easiest and simplest form of deriving natural offspring) than two-way sexual orientations (bisexuality).

Even if you take the science out and go purely from a mathematical standpoint. 2/3 > 1/3.

What?

Misworded that, I'll edit it

[Sutekh]

ipgd wrote...

Sutekh wrote...

Some would say that it's bad roleplaying, and some would be somewhat right.

And again, can you "unknow" Carver's fate #1? Is your Warden-Commander a zombie because in another playthrough he died? You could argue it was another Warden, but the same applies to DA2. Garrett isn't Marian. Two Hawkes. Two realities.

And if it's the personality vs. facts thing that is troublesome: in DAO we can change the stance of many people, including Loghain (to an extent), Zathrian, Leliana, Sten... How is it less problematic than orientation? We're talking about a real personality change here, not a sexual orientation who doesn't really count if you're not dating the person.

Because sexuality is an immutable biological aspect of a person and not an opinion subject to change.

I really don't like the idea of Schrodinger's Sexuality. It's left open to some degree of interpretation for those of whom would be bothered by the impossibility of being acquainted with four bisexual people, but it's not a conclusive fact by any means. The developers have said as much.

OK. I think I understand where the problem is. I'm not talking about changing their sexuality (certainly not). I'm talking about two different persons, who have similarities and differences. Just like my Hawkes are two different persons too, physically and personality-wise. 

But I see where my reasoning can be at fault in that particular aspect: Hawke is mine to shape, the events are mine to shape (to an extent), the basic nature of the NPCs aren't. So I guess we're back to stats, then.

[ipgd]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

Stating that any other character is bisexual simply because the player is allowed to make a choice of romancing a same or opposite gender character makes them bisexual, is complete foolishness. More correctly, they are Shepard-centric and you are the one who choses to make them either Gay/Lesbian or straight. Your choice does not make them bisexual.

I'm not exactly sure how this makes anyone foolish. The observation that a character is willing to have a romance with both men and women is a very reasonable piece of evidence for the conclusion that a character is bisexual. Depending on the character's dialogue, their sexuality may be left open to interpretation -- but I am not aware of any character in a Bioware game that definitively states a contradictory sexual preference and identity contingent on the gender of the player.