287 réponses à ce sujet

[KawaiiKatie]

Raanz wrote...

Homophobe is just another label in a society filled with unnecessary labels.  My reason for not siding with pre-existing characters being written to accommodate a group of fans has nothing to do with sexuallity.

You may no tbe homophobic (which is a term I would hesitate to apply to anyone on this thread) but if you think that it would "ruin" character if they were written in a way the didn't strictly adhere to your heterosexual views of them, then I think your disapproval has roots in homophobia. You may not view it as an disapproval with sexuality, but if your issue is that characters have to be completely "rewritten" to identify as bisexual, you need to seriously take a look at where those feeling stem from. If you follow your thoughts through to conclusion, you'll realize that sexualities can and fdo evolve and change over time, and that characters do not have to be completely overhauled and altered to do so. If it makes you uncomfortable to see your beloved characters "changed" in such a way, I suggest you really think about why.

[Dean_the_Young]

sagequeen wrote...

King Zeel wrote...
you guys are just not getting it.

No matter how we explain it we get the same trite response "why do you care, it wont affect you"

That's because it affects OUR canon as well. DUH. the same logic can be used to why do you want your char bisexual it doesn't "affect" you.

I'm honestly getting fed up with this topic but it only comes up so much times because you guys refuse to understand.

I guess I *don't* get this.

How is the bisexual option any different than any other choice - say, Paragon/Renegade - in the game?

-snip-

In a nutshell? Paragon/Renegade is something that defines Shepard, and what the player chooses. The character and nature of another character is not. Sometimes you can influence, but the core of a character is something independent of the player, and sexuality is a part of that character.

There are bi people in this world. There are people who are only attracted to the same sex. Then there are people who are only attracted to the other sex. And then there are people who are attracted to dogs and camels and goats and other animals. Some people into some weird ****. Maybe they'd still be interested in you despite that, maybe not, but sexuality is an aspect of character.

What you don't understand from what you quoted is that some people don't want other characters retroactively changed to add something. Not because of what is added, but because the addition itself is a change to an already established character... and not everyone likes it when characters who have an established personality suddenly have something new thrown in that would have changed the nature of the dynamic.

To, say, take an example: I appreciate Wrex in part because he has no romantic interest in my character. The removal of any sexual attraction allows for something increasingly rare in modern RPG games: the ultimate, bad-assery bromance (or whatever the equivalent is for a female Shepard) which isn't going to change with a bat of eyes. Wrex has shown no interest in sex, and that's part of why he's cool in the way he is: Wrex is too badass for paultry things like counting quads.

But if were Wrex, in ME3, suddenly became a love interest because the 'trust' and 'stress' of the time brought up 'previously hidden leanings'... yes, that rather does change the dynamic of the character. Not because Wrex is male and my Shepard is female, but because a part of their bromance was the lack of any sign of romance. Adding in that this late does rather undermine things.


Characters can develop. Characters can evolve. When handled well, characters can even change. But when not handled well? Adding new attributes to characters out of the blue changes what has already been established, and unless that's the point in and of itself (the classic betrayal), that's a lot of BS to swally. And no, the 's' doesn't stand for '****.'


People have a reasonable right to not see new things be added to a character just for the sake of adding things when it isn't called for or ever established before hand.

[Ryzaki]

Here I made two other polls here: http://social.biowar...94/polls/21574/

and here: http://social.biowar...94/polls/21575/

[King Zeel]

sagequeen wrote...

King Zeel wrote...
you guys are just not getting it.

No matter how we explain it we get the same trite response "why do you care, it wont affect you"

That's because it affects OUR canon as well. DUH. the same logic can be used to why do you want your char bisexual it doesn't "affect" you.

I'm honestly getting fed up with this topic but it only comes up so much times because you guys refuse to understand.

I guess I *don't* get this.

How is the bisexual option any different than any other choice - say, Paragon/Renegade - in the game?

Honestly, on a deep level, it disturbs me - no, truly disturbs me - that someone would think that casually stabbing a batarian merc in the back is a totally appropriate thing to do when heading into the Archangel mission. It's cold-blooded and nasty. Same with shoving mercs out a window. And frankly, I think re-writing the geth is a big-ol' mistake and WAY too optimistic.

But even if that's how I play it and I have a hard time imagining playing things a different way, does that mean I'm going to rage-quit the game if those other options are in there and other people decide to take them? No, of course not. To do so would demonstrate that I clearly don't understand the nature of non-fixed-narrative games. The whole point is that I get to co-create one story of Shep while someone else can co-create another one.

So if you don't have a problem with some of the nastier renegade or more bone-headed paragon options, then why all the attention on s/s? Either you have to admit that there really is no difference between LI choices vs. any other choice and just let it go, or you have to explain why the s/s choices in particular are so awful and terrible.

So far, all I can see people saying is "it's not canon." But...it actually was going to be canon at one point and frankly, BW can do whatever they want with the canon. They made dead Shep come back and made Cerberus from total evil bad guys into shady, but maybe not so bad bad guys. 

It might be beause people find it 'icky,' but frankly, wouldnt' some people find sex with aliens 'icky?' No one seems to have much issue with the inter-species thing, so why the s/s thing? It doesn't radically change the canon and doesn't radically change the gameplay or anything else that's been done so far. If anything, it restores the open-ended choices that had been curtailed by leaving out s/s in the first place.

So yeah. I'll be the first to admit. I DON'T get your argument at all.

I think you owe me time for reading that self-indulgent, holier-than-thou bullcrap.  

Small little discrepencies in how we play cannot compare to a character being totally rewritten. I'm amazed you can even draw the comparison. Pushing a merc out of the window is like 2mins, a romance would be the entire game. Sorry, its not the same.

I don't find s/s icky, I'm completely open to s/s relationship with a new character, just not the old ones. Yes, I was also against alien relationships, they were just as nonsensical but whatever, compromise is the name of the game folks. I suggest s/s learn to compromise aswell.

P.S: pushing the merc out the window was totally badass.

[Lucifer_Cheney]

LiamN7 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

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

I don't think Ash and Kaidan should be new romances for anyone. So yes I would complain . I have been waiting for years now to be able to continue that relationship.  Since bioware was so kind to give Ash and Kaidan well effectly nothing in me2.Its the only part of mass effect I care about at this point. I don't really have to much faith that bioware would do the continuing relationship right as it is. So to then add a new , as in starting in me 3 romance with them would in my mind water it down even futher. So no I don't want that. I think if they make Ash and Kaidan new romances that bioware will just make it a cookie cutter new romance and maybe throw a few extra lines in for the faithful and call that good. It wouldn't be good. I want the continuing romance with Ash and Kaidan to have the best chance possible at being done well . They only was I see that as possible is if the continuing romance is the only romance.

A legitimate complaint, but unless you're playing/importing ME3 with a single Shepard, why should it matter to you?

[Eromenos]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

Taken from Chris Priestly concerning accusations of homophobia:

Stepping in for a moment to caution some posters here for defending S/S romance too strongly.

I have seen some people come here, make sensible or polite posts stating they do not want ot like S/S romance and people accusing them of homophobia. This is unfair and untrue and will not be tolerated here.

Yes, if someone posts something juvenile or bigoted about S/S romances, this is not allowed, but not liking S/S romances for otehr reasons (such as the possibility of it conflicting with a person's previous romances, continuity, etc) is fine.

I have said this before for ME1 and ME2, I personally do not like ANY romances (S/S or not) in my games. If I were to have bought the ME seriews as a fan, I wouldn't have explored any romances as that is my play style. As an employee, I do recognize that they are a valuable feature for fans who enjoy them, and that having more romance options is even more valuable. But just because I do not liek romances in video games does not make me anti-romance in general or homophobic (or heterophobic eitehr I suppose).

So, please continue sensible discussion, but please lay off the accusations of homophobia. Thanks.


smilie

So, basically, chill out with the accusations.

I hold marked contempt for Priestley and the others. He and his kind stood by for years not lifting their fingers to punish the "blatant" homophobic trolls around here. Rather, BioWare would just lock down S/S-related threads that were being flamed by said trolls, which meant we were punished, instead. If people fought back against the trolls, then we were denounced for dredging up politics as if homophobic attitudes were the ones keepin' it cool.

Admire their twisted logic at length, if you please.

No one has to "come out as a homophobe" in order to qualify as such. We're now dealing with latent homophobia. Branding them as homophobic/biphobic people is actually quite tame of a response. The least it does is put the "nice homophobes" in proper context. I can guess without even having to brush up on any recent posts that each of these "nice people" think they know what is "best" for queerness relating to ME and the world in general by arguing in favor of continual segregation and tokenism. Albeit without daring to write them out. In its proper time, in its proper place, don't disrupt or change anything, etc. Etc. So goes the attitude.

All of them are just dying to groan and yell about negative promiscuous stereotypes about queer people now that queerness can likely be attributed to Kaidan and Ashley. But rather than openly saying that bisexual people are trash in their view, if they stick to some abstract, proprietary, high-minded, "principled" arguments about right vs wrong, then they can try to deny being homophobic.

Priestley and the others playing white-knight for their arguments is even more contemptible.

Modifié par Eromenos, 25 juin 2011 - 09:29 .

[Bocks]

Abispa wrote...

Bocks wrote...

I have just recently made a poll tackling this s/s issue. It's primary goal is to understand which of the two genders support s/s romance the most.

If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it's the fangirls, mostly. But there's no way to know for sure unless I get good, hard facts.

http://social.biowar...51/polls/21572/

Let's suppose you're right, that the fans who want s/s romance are female. Why is that an issue?

I never said it was an issue. It's more of a thesis statement, than anything.

[KawaiiKatie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


Characters can develop. Characters can evolve. When handled well, characters can even change. But when not handled well? Adding new attributes to characters out of the blue changes what has already been established, and unless that's the point in and of itself (the classic betrayal), that's a lot of BS to swally. And no, the 's' doesn't stand for '****.'

People have a reasonable right to not see new things be added to a character just for the sake of adding things when it isn't called for or ever established before hand.

I can certainly respect people's fears that if Ash and Kaidan were made bisexual, it would be handled poorly and without regard for continuity.... but I have faith that if Bioware decided to evolve or change Ash and Kaidan's sexuality, they would do so with great respect for the continuity that they have established. Every fear ("Why now? Why not sooner? Why didn't you show an interest in same-sex Shepard before this moment?") will be addressed in-game, because the Bioware writers are intelligent and, let's face it, utterly skilled at character development. They're defintely earned my respect in the past, and I put my faith in them to handle this issue with care, and not with casual disregard for canon.

[Ryzaki]

BW has ruined characters to me without having anything to do with s/s sexuality. (Hello Liara and Tali).

So yeah cry me a river.

[Zkyire]

Badpie wrote...

I love how people blatantly flame in a "ewww gay" kind of way then say "before you go calling me a homophobe I'm not."

And anyway there are already like three threads about this. So your post is a giant waste of time.

Did you even read his post?

Because it sounds like you didn't.

He wasn't flaming.

He wasn't saying "ewww gay" or anything of the sort.

He said he had no problem with introducing new bisexual characters, but that he had a problem with changing existing characters just to please a handful of fans.

LeVaughnX wrote...

I've seen quite a few threads/topics
full of people basically begging, crying, whining, and bothering
everyone and everything just to be able to have a sexual relationship
with the same sex in Mass Effect 3. Now in Dragon Age 2 this didn't work
very well; as I played my Straight Male apparently all of the in-game
Male Squadies thought I was gay just because I tried to be "friendly"
with everyone. So I already didn't like the idea though I do believe in
equality.

To be fair, that's less a problem with all the characters being bisexual, and more a problem with Bioware's seeming inability to do relationship development well.

Modifié par IEatWhatIPoo, 25 juin 2011 - 09:29 .

[shepskisaac]

Bocks wrote...
I never said it was an issue. It's more of a thesis statement, than anything.

What exactly are you trying to prove? That girls outnumber gay guys on BSN? Well duh point proven. And that women don't have problems with homosexuality/bisexuality. Again, point proven.

[Raanz]

KawaiiKatie wrote...

Raanz wrote...

Homophobe is just another label in a society filled with unnecessary labels.  My reason for not siding with pre-existing characters being written to accommodate a group of fans has nothing to do with sexuallity.

You may no tbe homophobic (which is a term I would hesitate to apply to anyone on this thread) but if you think that it would "ruin" character if they were written in a way the didn't strictly adhere to your heterosexual views of them, then I think your disapproval has roots in homophobia. You may not view it as an disapproval with sexuality, but if your issue is that characters have to be completely "rewritten" to identify as bisexual, you need to seriously take a look at where those feeling stem from. If you follow your thoughts through to conclusion, you'll realize that sexualities can and fdo evolve and change over time, and that characters do not have to be completely overhauled and altered to do so. If it makes you uncomfortable to see your beloved characters "changed" in such a way, I suggest you really think about why.

You sound like someone that really needs for me to be homophobic in order to justify your position on this.  Sorry, I will not play along.
As I have said many times....many, many times: if they include past characters as homosexual options, my play-throughs will not change, I will not throw a hissy fit, I will not post my angst on these boards for months following the release, nor will I rage-quit the game or these forums.  I will; however, shake my head and smirk a bit knowing exactly why it was done.  Kind of the same way I smirked when I saw that Garrus and Tali were romance options in ME2.  Oh hey!  Does that make me a Xenophobe now?

[Bocks]

IsaacShep wrote...

Bocks wrote...
I never said it was an issue. It's more of a thesis statement, than anything.

What exactly are you trying to prove? That girls outnumber gay guys on BSN? Well duh point proven. And that women don't have problems with homosexuality/bisexuality. Again, point proven.

No need to be so confrontational. I was merely trying to sate my own curiosity.

[DialupToaster]

InviolateNK wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

InviolateNK wrote...

How lovely, they just need to start a thread like this once in a while to say how they don't support s/s, m/m, retcons etc. Homophobia just can't stay in the closet where it belongs, can it?

And you just can't ignore a thread you don't like or agree with, can you? But you just HAVE to post anyway, right.

Grow up. Not everyone who disagrees is homophobic. Stop using that as a counter argument.

Since it's there, I sure will say something, why not.  Threads like this express worries about what won't be in your playthroughs unless you do want it and trigger it thru dialogue choices. However, such threads keep appearing and the reason is nothing less than homophobia.


This seriously needs to be locked.

Lock it! LOCK IT!  

[Lucifer_Cheney]

The irony in all of this is that most people disliked Kaiden/Ash because they were boring. Now that they can come out of closet (which will no doubt be interesting), people are suddenly having hissyfits!

[TheMakoMaster]

it seems like some people forget this is a game and a fictional story, and that each players' story is somewhat different. everyone should have the ability to play how they want. in DA origins my male warden flirted with zevran for the fun of it. guess what?...my xbox did not report me to the morality police (whomever they may be)

[Jedi Master of Orion]

makenzieshepard wrote...

We haven't.  Implying otherwise is a fallacy.

Some poeple have. I was responding to those. For example:

KawaiiKatie wrote...
I have no seen a single argument against Kaidan/Ash bisexuality that did
not have roots in homophobia. If it would make you uncomfortable to
have your old companions return and reveal an apparent "change" in
sexuality, I suggest that you think very hard about why it makes you uncomfortable.

makenzieshepard wrote...

Change that to most and you're right.  Notice most, not all.

Ok whatever. However many there are exactly is besides the point.

makenzieshepard wrote...
Good for them.  Also not what we are asking for, no one likes bad writing but people do have different opinions of what constitues it. 

Yeah I know. All I was saying was that somebody could come to believe that making the VS a s/s optioon would be bad writing without being a homophobe.

makenzieshepard wrote...

Good for them, many of us don't.  Note again not all, the pro s/s crowd is not some borg hive-mind with one opinion and people who act otherwise only disservice their own 'arguments', such as they are.  Many FFTL members think Ashley does not makes a good s/s candidate yet I am friends with them.

Uh, did you believe I meant to imply otherwise? Because I did not.

makenzieshepard wrote...

Yes, but they didn't so WTH is your point?

My point was that I don't think it was necessary for them to do so.

makenzieshepard wrote...

What the hell did that poor strawman ever do to you?

Is it really a strawman? The only difference is that race is much easier to determine.

makenzieshepard wrote...
Poor, poor strawman. Anders was nucking  futz because he had a   DEMON OF VENGENCE merged with him

I know the Anders storyline. I just didn't buy it as a good enough explanation for all of his changes. Most notably his new voice. But it's not even about just him, Merrill had her personality completely rewritten with no explanation. It doesn't stand out as much because she wasn't as big of a character as he was but it still bothered me a lot more than her who she was attracted to, espeically since we didn't spend enough time around her to determine that in the first game. But we did spend enough time around her to get a basic idea of her manner, and that was what was clearly retconed. I suppose part of it comes down to personal interpretation of what works, because I was much happier with how some characters' redsigns came out than others'.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 25 juin 2011 - 09:34 .

[Ryzaki]

Lucifer_Cheney wrote...

The irony in all of this is that most people disliked Kaiden/Ash because they were boring. Now that they can come out of closet (which will no doubt be interesting), people are suddenly having hissyfits!

[Dean_the_Young]

KawaiiKatie wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...


Characters can develop. Characters can evolve. When handled well, characters can even change. But when not handled well? Adding new attributes to characters out of the blue changes what has already been established, and unless that's the point in and of itself (the classic betrayal), that's a lot of BS to swally. And no, the 's' doesn't stand for '****.'

People have a reasonable right to not see new things be added to a character just for the sake of adding things when it isn't called for or ever established before hand.

I can certainly respect people's fears that if Ash and Kaidan were made bisexual, it would be handled poorly and without regard for continuity.... but I have faith that if Bioware decided to evolve or change Ash and Kaidan's sexuality, they would do so with great respect for the continuity that they have established. Every fear ("Why now? Why not sooner? Why didn't you show an interest in same-sex Shepard before this moment?") will be addressed in-game, because the Bioware writers are intelligent and, let's face it, utterly skilled at character development. They're defintely earned my respect in the past, and I put my faith in them to handle this issue with care, and not with casual disregard for canon.

Actually, Bioware has had an exceptionally poor record of inter-game character developments in the Mass Effect series. Retroactive justification for changes is their problem, not the solution: Liara's change from socially awkward, somewhat naive archeologist to edgy, action-girl super-biotic information broker is more illustrative.


'Explaining why not in the last chapter of the trilogy' is what people are protesting. It's not the solution, it's the retcon-in-progress. Backstory exposition works only the first first chapter of characterization: back when there's nothing to compare to, dumping a 'this is how I was before' is fine. Doing something significant in the late-end of the series, when it was never referred to or indicated before, is weak writing.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 25 juin 2011 - 09:35 .

[Bocks]

Ryzaki wrote...

BW has ruined characters to me without having anything to do with s/s sexuality. (Hello Liara and Tali).

So yeah cry me a river.

I may understand the Liara argument, but how did they ruin Tali? She's pretty much the same as in ME1, save for having grown more mature, both visibly and mentally - which makes sense! Two years can change a person a lot, especially if there is a life-changing event somewhere in there.

[shepskisaac]

randomchasegurney wrote...

Lock it! LOCK IT!  

This.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 25 juin 2011 - 09:33 .