462 réponses à ce sujet

[GodWood]

House_Hlaalu wrote...
First, you could say that S/S supporters were the vocal minority before ME3 had S/S.

And also, being against S/S gets you instantly labeled as a homophobe, at least on this site. I always browse the Anti S/S threads, but i never post for fear of being labeled and banned and ruining my rep. I had to create an Alt. im sure there are others here who feel the same. It took me months to actualy do something about it. On this site we may be a minority, but generally i think a lot of people are against it, but are not vocal because where always labeled homophobes and get banned.

And even if i am the only one with my views (which is not true) it doesn't make it invalid.

So why are you against s/s romance?

[mya11]

I don't want a scenario Kaidan is change after Horizon as same as Anderson in dragon age 2

[Inquisitor Recon]

ElitePinecone wrote...
Even *if* Bioware are home to a cabal of secret PC-overlords, they still make (well, with recent exceptions) damn good games. 

I'm baffled that you feel the need to object about an optional choice that makes up 1% of a game and has literally zero impact on your playing experience unless you choose to go further. 

You're clearly a fan of Bioware, since you keep hanging around here. They put certain types of content in their games. Deal with it. 

A recent exception that includes aspects that some in your group wish to replicate. If I didn't complain I would have much less to talk abotu here, and it does impact my playing experience and enjoyment of the game if all of these pre-existing characters suddently decide they're bisexual thanks to some demands on a forum.

[FoxHound109]

ReconTeam wrote...

This "adaptation" you speak of is either appealing to the mob (see CoD crowd)...

I love how your argument for "the mob" includes Call of Duty. Because God knows that Call of Duty is the ONLY successful money making part of gaming that can be catered to. No, the Wii doesn't print Nintendo money, and World of Warcraft doesn't allow enough disposible income for Blizzard to run a small nation...

[Inquisitor Recon]

FoxHound109 wrote...
Such as?

Tripe such as "they do it for the love of diversity."

[House_Hlaalu]

KawaiiKatie wrote...



And I hardly believe that creating a sock-puppet account was necessary, especially if you're trying to not look like a troll. If you're polite and well-meaning with your initial post, I doubt that the Mods will hold you responsible for where this thread inevitably goes.

Yes, but i have friends on here that support S/S, so im not about to throw away my reputation. I just ignore all S/S threads on my normal account. And i thought this account would be banned anyway, thats what the others seem to get.

EDIT: whats going on with the quotes?

Modifié par House_Hlaalu, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:12 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

FoxHound109 wrote...
I love how your argument for "the mob" includes Call of Duty. Because God knows that Call of Duty is the ONLY successful money making part of gaming that can be catered to. No, the Wii doesn't print Nintendo money, and World of Warcraft doesn't allow enough disposible income for Blizzard to run a small nation...

Now I never specified Call of Duty is the only example of overrated, money printing games which many companies attempt to replicate did I?

[FoxHound109]

ReconTeam wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...
Such as?

Tripe such as "they do it for the love of diversity."

Quote me, verbatim, where I said they "do it for the love of diversity."

Reading comprehension 101: I said they have to RESPECT the diversity of their players if the want to expand and survive, not that they do it out of a love for diversity. There are key differences in those statements.

[Massadonious1]

Then maybe people should stop specifically using "CoD Crowd" in their elitist, nonsensical arguments.

[Inquisitor Recon]

FoxHound109 wrote...
Quote me, verbatim, where I said they "do it for the love of diversity."

Reading comprehension 101: I said they have to RESPECT the diversity of their players if the want to expand and survive, not that they do it out of a love for diversity. There are key differences in those statements.

Excuse me for offended your sensibilities by paraphrasing you. Regardless, that is pure assumption and opinion on your part.

[House_Hlaalu]

FoxHound109 wrote...

House_Hlaalu wrote...

Yes but half of those women (a quarter of the whole group) play facebook games or Iphone games."Real" games have a different demographic (Or at least thats what i read on some magazine, but it sounds right). Not that it matters...

Links with citations would be greatly appreciated...

Haha, it was a physical magazine (an *actual* magazine), and a womans one as well. Something like Woman's day, i saw it at my mums house a few months ago and i remember it. Like i said, not that it matters. And its true that a lot of normal women play games (my mum does). Just not half of the "real" games population (not facebook, and not iphone).

[mya11]

Why Bioware don't create a new squadmate is gay(male) or lesbian (girl), it's a good solution and no change again and again sexuality for fanbase.

[FoxHound109]

ReconTeam wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...
I love how your argument for "the mob" includes Call of Duty. Because God knows that Call of Duty is the ONLY successful money making part of gaming that can be catered to. No, the Wii doesn't print Nintendo money, and World of Warcraft doesn't allow enough disposible income for Blizzard to run a small nation...

Now I never specified Call of Duty is the only example of overrated, money printing games which many companies attempt to replicate did I?

It's the only example you used, by my general is missed on you regardless.

Word of Warcraft and Call of Duty are vastly different games. They share almost next to nothing in common outside of the fact that they're both wildly successful and that they're both games with massive online components.

Point, in its simplest form: you can't classify "the mob" when the most successful games are so diverse from each other. It's hard to cater to "the mob" when the definition of that concept isn't even set in stone.

[S.A.K]

That thread got locked because of spam. Its not OPs fault, but the people commenting on it takes it of topic. Sorry about reporting it.

[Inquisitor Recon]

mya11 wrote...
Why Bioware don't create a new squadmate is gay(male) or lesbian (girl), it's a good solution and no change again and again sexuality for fanbase.

Many of them don't seem to think said solution would be enough. In other words they refuse to be unable to sleep with whichever LI they are obsessed with.

[House_Hlaalu]

GodWood wrote...

House_Hlaalu wrote...
First, you could say that S/S supporters were the vocal minority before ME3 had S/S.

And also, being against S/S gets you instantly labeled as a homophobe, at least on this site. I always browse the Anti S/S threads, but i never post for fear of being labeled and banned and ruining my rep. I had to create an Alt. im sure there are others here who feel the same. It took me months to actualy do something about it. On this site we may be a minority, but generally i think a lot of people are against it, but are not vocal because where always labeled homophobes and get banned.

And even if i am the only one with my views (which is not true) it doesn't make it invalid.

So why are you against s/s romance?

Im gonna PM you because im sure the thread will be locked.

[FoxHound109]

ReconTeam wrote...

Excuse me for offended your sensibilities by paraphrasing you. Regardless, that is pure assumption and opinion on your part.

Which part of that is assumption? That developers have to survive by reaching broader audiences and that doing so requires respecting the differences between those gamers? On planet are these assumptions?

[FoxHound109]

House_Hlaalu wrote...


Haha, it was a physical magazine (an *actual* magazine), and a womans one as well. Something like Woman's day...

You're really trusting "Woman's Day" about your video gaming news and statistics? =p

[Inquisitor Recon]

FoxHound109 wrote...
It's the only example you used, by my general is missed on you regardless.

Word of Warcraft and Call of Duty are vastly different games. They share almost next to nothing in common outside of the fact that they're both wildly successful and that they're both games with massive online components.

Point, in its simplest form: you can't classify "the mob" when the most successful games are so diverse from each other. It's hard to cater to "the mob" when the definition of that concept isn't even set in stone.

Companies make active attempts to replicate said games and appeal to their market, often by cutting back features and simplifying the entire experience. One only has to look at the Rainbow Six series to see what I'm talking about.. To be more precise I could say there are various different "mobs" but this has entirely moved away from my point now.

[FoxHound109]

ReconTeam wrote...

Companies make active attempts to replicate said games and appeal to their market, often by cutting back features and simplifying the entire experience. One only has to look at the Rainbow Six series to see what I'm talking about.. To be more precise I could say there are various different "mobs" but this has entirely moved away from my point now.

THAT is an acceptable point of view. Because it is correct. But the main goal of a developer, a good one, isn't to just pander to one specific crowd. It's to expand beyond that. Every developer wants the World of Warcraft crowd in their pocket, but the smart developer that wants to make money sees every person as a potential sale. That's why Nintendo's Wii has been printing the company money for years now. THAT'S my point.

[Inquisitor Recon]

FoxHound109 wrote...
Which part of that is assumption? That developers have to survive by reaching broader audiences and that doing so requires respecting the differences between those gamers? On planet are these assumptions?

It's all assumption. Despite your ideas of what "adaptation" means, many developers have been able to survive by appealing to a single, sometimes niche market. They don't need to pander to the S/S crowd to survive if that is what you're indeed implying.

[House_Hlaalu]

mya11 wrote...

Why Bioware don't create a new squadmate is gay(male) or lesbian (girl), it's a good solution and no change again and again sexuality for fanbase.

Probably because there aren't enough gay people that play thier games to justify an only gay companion. All gay companions are Bi.

[AtreiyaN7]

Let's see, could it possibly be because most anti-S/S threads are blatantly homophobic and usually degenerate rapidly, especially when people start spewing really bigoted crap? Well, that's just my guess based on reading a number of them. *snort*

[mya11]

House_Hlaalu wrote...

mya11 wrote...

Why Bioware don't create a new squadmate is gay(male) or lesbian (girl), it's a good solution and no change again and again sexuality for fanbase.

Probably because there aren't enough gay people that play thier games to justify an only gay companion. All gay companions are Bi.

Ok but it's not realistic , in the future they will make a couple are gay it's a good solution.:happy:

[Inquisitor Recon]

FoxHound109 wrote...
THAT is an acceptable point of view. Because it is correct. But the main goal of a developer, a good one, isn't to just pander to one specific crowd. It's to expand beyond that. Every developer wants the World of Warcraft crowd in their pocket, but the smart developer that wants to make money sees every person as a potential sale. That's why Nintendo's Wii has been printing the company money for years now. THAT'S my point.

I've got to disagree with the goal of a good developer. Sometimes I think it is a goal to master a certain genre. Several Russian and Eastern European developers like 1C are a good example of this in my opinion. But it is after 3:00 am now and my thoughts aren't as coherant as they should be so maybe this we be continued some other time.