287 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
I'm not.

So Tali's retcon is character development and Ash/Kaidan would be retconning?  Despite the fact that neither actually gave any evidence to support being open to romance with the Shepard they'd later be able to romance? Really? 

[Zkyire]

IsaacShep wrote...

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
I support samesex romances (so long as they don't retcon old characters to do it.

You can't retcon something that wasn't established in the first place. That's one. Two, retcons CONTRADICT previously established facts. Kaidan being bisexual and having a romance with ManShep in ME3 does. not. contradict his relationship with FemShep. Bisexual men like BOTH men AND women. In order to contradict Kaidan's attraction to women and his relation with FemShep, he would have to be turned 100% gay, exclusively homosexual, which will not happen. So any 'retcon' talk does not make the slightest sense.

Consult my post on page number 9 for this issue.

[Ryzaki]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
Is the Tali romance a retcon? It probably is.

But does it need more? Definitely not.

So it's okay that you get a retcon that favors you but ra forbid the same occurs for others? 

[VirtualStranger]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

VirtualStranger wrote...

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

VirtualStranger wrote...

I tire of these arguments. The vast majority of gay and bi members of this forum support s/s romances for previously existing LIs. They are the ones who have been left out by this series so far, therefore their opinions on the subject are the ones that matter.

I support samesex romances (so long as they don't retcon old characters to do it.

In saying that, what? Your argument makes no sense. Because they didn't get what they wanted before they deserve it now?

They deserved it back then, too. Nothing's changed except Bioware fixing their mistake.

They don't deserve anything. Nobody deserves anything.

It is Bioware's game, and we either like it or we don't. I hate this sense of entitlement that people seem to have where they think they deserve to decide what does and does not get implemented in the development of a game.

It's Bioware's game. When it's finished; if you like it - buy it, if you don't - don't.

I don't think you get my point. if there had been no romance at all in the first place, then they would not deserve anything. But since they opted to include romances for straight gamers, then it is perfectly reasonable for non-straight gamers to be included as well. It is also perfectly reasonable for them to complain when this doesn't happen, ESPECIALLY IN A GAME BASED AROUNG PLAYER CHOICE.

This whole thing could have been avoided if Bioware had included those options in the first place. Not only did they not fix that mistake in ME2, they actively took a step backwards. This is simply a matter of correcting that enequity.

EDIT: Whoops double post. That was supposed to be an edit

Modifié par VirtualStranger, 25 juin 2011 - 10:11 .

[shepskisaac]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Specific denial of everything a character isn't is not character establishment: reflection of what is demonstrated is. Addition of things never suggested, implied, or priorly existing can also qualify for retcons.

No. That's called new information on the character, previously unknown for x or y reasons being revealed. There's nothing being retconned here. Retcons have to contradict something. Revealing someone is bi and not just straight (which was people's assumption anyway) doesn't contradict anything.

[Zkyire]

VirtualStranger wrote...


I don't think you get my point. if there had been no romance at all in the first place, then they would not deserve anything. But since they opted to include romances for straight gamers, then it is perfectly reasonable for non-straight gamers to be included as well. It is also perfectly reasonable for them to complain when this doesn't happen, ESPECIALLY IN A GAME BASED AROUNG PLAYER CHOICE.

This whole thing could have been avoided if Bioware had included those options in the first place. Not only did they not fix that mistake in ME2, they actively took a step backwards. This is simply a matter of correcting that enequity.

Which is really one of the points that the OP made.

Introduce new bisexual/homosexual characters for the bisexual/homosexual players, and not retcon existing characters (which I think only Jack would require a retcon, although Grunt may also fall under this category).

[DialupToaster]

jlb524 wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

So, basically, chill out with the accusations.

Oh yeah...that was posted in the 'For Love' thread...did you read some posts afterwards, where myself and another combed the thread for the word 'homophobia' only to find it used just once (and it was someone saying 'I'm not a homophobe')?

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

What about the people arguing character continuity and such (like me)? Are they homophobic?

No...your arguments are just poorly founded and easy to refute/counter.

So... By what you said if people do not agree with YOU they are wrong? I am having trouble wrapping my head around this statement and still think you are respecting others opinion.

I think someone mentioned somewhere that this kind of thinking is like saying you are gay till proven.

LOCK THE THREAD!!!!

[Ryzaki]

Who the hell wants to romance Grunt...

Nevermind.

I do not want to know.

[Zkyire]

randomchasegurney wrote...

LOCK THE THREAD!!!!

Oh no, people are disagreeing, hurry lock it down!

Modifié par IEatWhatIPoo, 25 juin 2011 - 10:13 .

[Zkyire]

Ryzaki wrote...

Who the hell wants to romance Grunt...

Nevermind.

I do not want to know.

I didn't either.

I.. happened upon images.

[littlezack]

IsaacShep wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Specific denial of everything a character isn't is not character establishment: reflection of what is demonstrated is. Addition of things never suggested, implied, or priorly existing can also qualify for retcons.

No. That's called new information on the character, previously unknown for x or y reasons being revealed. There's nothing being retconned here. Retcons have to contradict something. Revealing someone is bi and not just straight (which was people's assumption anyway) doesn't contradict anything.

God, exactly.

Why is it such a difficult thing to get? Even in real life, stuff like this happens. People develop attractions for people over time. People keep certain feelings bottled up. Just because Tali wasn't into you that much in ME1 doesn't mean it's a retcon that she does in ME2, especially since it's two years later and you just came back from the dead.

[DialupToaster]

Ryzaki wrote...

...So if Kaidan and Ash are made s/s romances in ME3 you're not gonna complain afterwards?

Pretty much. What is the point afterwards?

[Ryzaki]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Who the hell wants to romance Grunt...

Nevermind.

I do not want to know.

I didn't either.

I.. happened upon images.

 

Great. Did not want or need that mental image. Implications...disturbing. 

[littlezack]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

VirtualStranger wrote...


I don't think you get my point. if there had been no romance at all in the first place, then they would not deserve anything. But since they opted to include romances for straight gamers, then it is perfectly reasonable for non-straight gamers to be included as well. It is also perfectly reasonable for them to complain when this doesn't happen, ESPECIALLY IN A GAME BASED AROUNG PLAYER CHOICE.

This whole thing could have been avoided if Bioware had included those options in the first place. Not only did they not fix that mistake in ME2, they actively took a step backwards. This is simply a matter of correcting that enequity.

Which is really one of the points that the OP made.

Introduce new bisexual/homosexual characters for the bisexual/homosexual players, and not retcon existing characters (which I think only Jack would require a retcon, although Grunt may also fall under this category).

I'm honestly against introducing new characters AT ALL, at least as main, playable characters. We already have enough main characters to work with and develop without throwing more into the mix. I'm okay with Vega since he at least serves a purpose (helping new players fit in) but other than that? Keep it simple.

[shepskisaac]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
Consult my post on page number 9 for this issue.

I saw nothing that would respond to my post there. So we're back to retcons contradicting something which is simply not the case here.

[Ryzaki]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
I think you are assuming that I played ME1 first and wanted Tali to be romanceable.  

I played ME2 first, and I didn't even know that she was romanceable until my second playthrough. So what I'm saying is, I didn't ask for it.

Also, didn't I say earlier that I won't complain about something that's in the game? I'm not going to complain about the Tali romance because it's in the game already.

 

Ah I was. 

Ah well *shrugs* no point in me arguing then. If the devs want something in game. That's what's gona be there. 

[Bocks]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
Is the Tali romance a retcon? It probably is.

But does it need more? Definitely not.

So it's okay that you get a retcon that favors you but ra forbid the same occurs for others? 

It should never have been a retcon from the start. It's the writers who handled it badly. Seeing as the writers probably couldn't handle a normal heterosexual romance, who's to say the homosexual romance won't be much, much more disastrous.

I mean, really. Would you rather Bioware not try and not fail than try and fail miserably, possibly hurting the character in the process? You said it yourself that you were disappointed with how they handled Tali's character.

[Dean_the_Young]

IsaacShep wrote...
Retcons have to contradict something.

Not a universal definition. Plenty of people would call the unwarranted addition of something as having always been there when no sign, suggestion, or implication as to be an effective retroactive coninuity.

Direct contradiction need not apply. Change to continuity, does.

[shepskisaac]

littlezack wrote...
God, exactly.

Why is it such a difficult thing to get? Even in real life, stuff like this happens. People develop attractions for people over time. People keep certain feelings bottled up. Just because Tali wasn't into you that much in ME1 doesn't mean it's a retcon that she does in ME2, especially since it's two years later and you just came back from the dead.

We don't even need to look for real life example. Mass Effect is enough. Tali is one example, the new information that the Reapers are not just pure machines but contain organic matter as well being provided in ME2 is another. Kaidan being bisexual is just as much a story arch as everything else. Not liking where the story arch is going is not a retcon, it's just not liking where the story arch is going.

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Not a universal definition. Plenty of people would call the unwarranted addition of something as having always been there when no sign, suggestion, or implication as to be an effective retroactive coninuity.

Direct contradiction need not apply. Change to continuity, does.

So "Luke, I'm your father" is a retcon? Seriously.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 25 juin 2011 - 10:25 .

[DoNotIngest]

Ryzaki wrote...

DoNotIngest wrote...
Right. So now Kaidan/Ashley walking up to M/FM Shepard and saying "Hey Shepard, NICE @SS!" won't make you feel the same way.


Hypocrite; It's the new "H" word that's all the rage!

Yes it would.

So how about you actually ask me before assuming I'm a hypcorite. Troll. 

But noo that's too difficult. Much much easier to play the victim and cry about "HYPOCRITE!" 

Seriously qq moar. 

And aren't you the hypocrite for being a talimaner but being against Ash and Kaidan being turned into s/s Lis? 

Ah yes, "Planned romances that were canceled at the last minute due to a comment on Chicken Feet."


We have dismissed this claim.

[VirtualStranger]

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...

VirtualStranger wrote...


I don't think you get my point. if there had been no romance at all in the first place, then they would not deserve anything. But since they opted to include romances for straight gamers, then it is perfectly reasonable for non-straight gamers to be included as well. It is also perfectly reasonable for them to complain when this doesn't happen, ESPECIALLY IN A GAME BASED AROUNG PLAYER CHOICE.

This whole thing could have been avoided if Bioware had included those options in the first place. Not only did they not fix that mistake in ME2, they actively took a step backwards. This is simply a matter of correcting that enequity.

Which is really one of the points that the OP made.

Introduce new bisexual/homosexual characters for the bisexual/homosexual players, and not retcon existing characters (which I think only Jack would require a retcon, although Grunt may also fall under this category).

The problem with that is that almost nobody wants new LIs. Starting a relationship with a character you just met and have no emotional attachment to in the last act in a trilogy is just not the same as building up a relationship over the course of the entire series.

And revealing new information about a subject that's never come up before is not a retcon. Metadata is NOT canon.

[Zkyire]

IsaacShep wrote...

IEatWhatIPoo wrote...
Consult my post on page number 9 for this issue.

I saw nothing that would respond to my post there. So we're back to retcons contradicting something which is simply not the case here.

Huh I could've sworn I made a post about it. oO

Anyway my post that should have appeared was regards to how most of the characters wouldn't actually be retconned because they never said what their actual preferences were (we all just assumed). Except for Jack, who flat out says she's not into women.

And Grunt, while never stated, was genetically engineered to beat the crap out of his enemies, and to help repopulate the Krogan species.