997 réponses à ce sujet

[sedrikhcain]

RinjiRenee wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

Any character becoming bi is not a retcon. Neither are the Tali and Garrus romances.

I disagree with this. In the first game, there were two romance options for all sheps, male or female: hetero human and omnisexual alien. That's it. None of the other characters were ever even considered for romances. Yes, if you build a back story for them, they're going to have some sort of sexuality but, no matter what it is, gay/straight/bi, it's pretty much the definition of something that is shoehorned in and retconned for fan service because none of this expanded universe of romance options was originally envisioned as a part of the game. This obsession with romances and trying to make them political arguing points -- on all sides -- makes more of the romance element than the game was ever intended to have. It's fan service, via retcon.

That's not necessarily a bad thing but let's not be naive about it.

No.

"Retroactive continuity (often shortened to retcon) is an oxymoron that refers to the alteration of previously established facts in a fictional work."  -- Wikipedia

Adding something in a game for fanservice, but not contradicting previous established facts (in this case, Garrus's and Tali's sudden feelings for Shepard) is not a retcon.  A lack of fact (in this case, Tali and Garrus's sexuality and/or feelings towards Shepard) is not a fact.  Even if they were to say "No Shepard, I will never have feelings for you," their developed feelings for Shepard in ME2 would still not be a retcon. 

See my response to IsaacShep.

Also, Yes.

Modifié par sedrikhcain, 23 août 2011 - 02:34 .

[darkangelvxvx]

How about we let Tali and Garrus decide what they want...?

[sedrikhcain]

[quote]IsaacShep wrote...

None of the other characters were ever even considered for romances.[/quote]
Yes they were. Ash & Kaidan would've been available for s/s romance in ME1 if it wasn't for the time constraints.

[/quote]

I will make one minor change to what I said. Yes, this above comment is true, but by the time the game came out, none of that was part of the story, rendering this moot -- as with anything else they cut.

[Sundance31us]

marshalleck wrote...

Sundance31us wrote...
For reference:
Fanservice:
Generally any situation or scene in a movie, cartoon, comic, or even real life in which a scene is done specifically to cater to what the fans want to see, divorced from a plot or any other non-catering need.
http://www.urbandict...term=fanservice
Customer Service:
Customer service is a series of activities designed to enhance the level of customer satisfaction – that is, the feeling that a product or service has met the customer expectation.
http://en.wikipedia....ice#cite_note-0

BSN is nothing if not a haven of degenerate subjectivism. Words mean whatever you want them to mean, whatever you need them to mean.

Fanservice is when a neighbor gets a feature you didn't want. Bad customer service is when you didn’t get a feature you wanted.

[Rinji the Bearded]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Actually, yes I do understand "retcon", both what it orginally meant and the usage that you, and many others on this board, have now adopted. What it originally meant was exactly what I described: not the item that was changed but a bogus, after-the-fact explanation that was never part of what was originally envisioned. In the original sense, it is the after-the-fact explanation that is a retcon, not the feature and not -- as you and others on here use it -- any and every change and evolution from one game to the next.

Also, I'm well aware of what ended up on the cutting room floor but that's pointless in discussing what was in the original story. What I consider to be part of the original game is what was actually in the original game, not what was once considered or chopped or whatever. In Miranda's original conception, she was a natural blonde with a Scandinavian surname, does that mean that's an acutal part of her character, too? Of course not.

And finally, since I know you spend a lot of time here doing what you consider championing gay/bi rights, let me add that my intent here isn't to slight anyone's sexuality. I think the full content of my post should make that clear but I'm going to state it outright anyway. I'm just tired of people acting like any of these options -- including the original ones for that matter -- were done for any reason other than fan service. It's a small titilation added to a video game, not BioWare's political manifesto, anymore than blonde femshep was their attempt to  -- depending on who you talk to -- champion or demean women.

What part of Retroactive Continuity do you not understand?  There was nothing in Garrus and Tali's past that would contradict with their stories in ME2.  We can acknowledge that the Garrus and Tali romances were added for fanservice, but they are still not retcons.  It doesn't matter what they had originally intended for the characters.  Do we really know what they had originally intended for anyone? The fact remains that there was nothing about their canon that was retconned when the romances were created.  It's called development, as bad or good you think that development was.

You seem to be confusing retcons with a**pulls.

The definition of retcon on BSN seems to be "THIS IS A CHANGE I DON'T LIKE SO IT'S A RETCON."

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 23 août 2011 - 02:46 .

[shepskisaac]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Actually, yes I do understand "retcon", both what it orginally meant and the usage that you, and many others on this board, have now adopted. What it originally meant was exactly what I described: not the item that was changed but a bogus, after-the-fact explanation that was never part of what was originally envisioned. In the original sense, it is the after-the-fact explanation that is a retcon, not the feature and not -- as you and others on here use it -- any and every change and evolution from one game to the next.

lol based on this definition, half of literature and storytelling would be a one giant bag of retcons including any sequel in history. This is ridiculous. I propose new definition of a word retcon - anything a fan doesn't like because it doesn't fit his/her personal interpretation he/she convinced him/herself is the only and correct one, even though it was never an in-game/movie/book fact.

sedrikhcain wrote...
Also, I'm well aware of what ended up on the cutting room floor but that's pointless in discussing what was in the original story.

Yet you've made it an argument in your original post.

sedrikhcain wrote...
fanservice-manifesto snip

So, what exactly is your point? Except for arguing of course

[Xeranx]

In Ashley's case it could be pretty bad since her writer doesn't work for Bioware anymore.

[Therefore_I_Am]

In the end it doesn't matter what the gays or bisexuals think. They are not running the game. In the end EA runs Bioware, and Bioware runs Mass Effect. EA is going to ask Bioware to cater to the majority... which are 18-25 year old heterosexual males/females.

Threads like these are wishful thinking at best.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 23 août 2011 - 02:56 .

[sedrikhcain]

RinjiRenee wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

Actually, yes I do understand "retcon", both what it orginally meant and the usage that you, and many others on this board, have now adopted. What it originally meant was exactly what I described: not the item that was changed but a bogus, after-the-fact explanation that was never part of what was originally envisioned. In the original sense, it is the after-the-fact explanation that is a retcon, not the feature and not -- as you and others on here use it -- any and every change and evolution from one game to the next.

Also, I'm well aware of what ended up on the cutting room floor but that's pointless in discussing what was in the original story. What I consider to be part of the original game is what was actually in the original game, not what was once considered or chopped or whatever. In Miranda's original conception, she was a natural blonde with a Scandinavian surname, does that mean that's an acutal part of her character, too? Of course not.

And finally, since I know you spend a lot of time here doing what you consider championing gay/bi rights, let me add that my intent here isn't to slight anyone's sexuality. I think the full content of my post should make that clear but I'm going to state it outright anyway. I'm just tired of people acting like any of these options -- including the original ones for that matter -- were done for any reason other than fan service. It's a small titilation added to a video game, not BioWare's political manifesto, anymore than blonde femshep was their attempt to  -- depending on who you talk to -- champion or demean women.

What part of Retroactive Continuity do you not understand?  There was nothing in Garrus and Tali's past that would contradict with their stories in ME2.  We can acknowledge that the Garrus and Tali romances were added for fanservice, but they are still not retcons.  It doesn't matter what they had originally intended for the characters.  Do we really know what they had originally intended for anyone? The fact remains that there was nothing about their canon that was retconned when the romances were created.  It's called development, as bad or good you think that development was.

You seem to be confusing retcons with a**pulls.

The definition of retcon on BSN seems to be "THIS IS A CHANGE I DON'T LIKE SO IT'S A RETCON."

What part don't you understand? The whole point is that explanation is put in, after the fact, to justify the change. That's it. That is the case with the notion of the expanded universe of love interests. You just have a very negative, knee-jerk reaction to the term retcon and thus don't want it attached to this. Sorry, truth hurts. 

And you obviously missed the part at the end where I said "this isn't necessarily a bad thing". I'm cool with the S/S and bi love interests. One of my sheps is a lesbian and, frankly, inclusiveness is a good thing. It's the outsized attention this is getting in and out of game that sort of grates on me. I can do without it. But even that I'm not trying to shut down. I'm just calling a spade a spade. I'm not your enemy.

[shepskisaac]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter what the gays or bisexuals think. They are not running the game. In the end EA runs Bioware, and Bioware runs Mass Effect. EA is going to ask Bioware to cater to the majority... which are 18-25 year old heterosexual males/females.

Threads like these are wishful thinking at best.

And guess what may heterosexual male & females like to role-play (and watch)

[Deejtage]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter what the gays or bisexuals think. They are not running the game. In the end EA runs Bioware, and Bioware runs Mass Effect. EA is going to ask Bioware to cater to the majority... which are 18-25 year old heterosexual males/females.

Threads like these are wishful thinking at best.

Well, same-sex relationships are already confirmed for ME 3. As for Garrus and Tali, personally, I don't want either of them for s/s relationships. But that's just myself, my own tastes. The alien relationships are not my cup of tea.

[Rinji the Bearded]

sedrikhcain wrote...
What part don't you understand? The whole point is that explanation is put in, after the fact, to justify the change. That's it. That is the case with the notion of the expanded universe of love interests. You just have a very negative, knee-jerk reaction to the term retcon and thus don't want it attached to this. Sorry, truth hurts. 

And you obviously missed the part at the end where I said "this isn't necessarily a bad thing". I'm cool with the S/S and bi love interests. One of my sheps is a lesbian and, frankly, inclusiveness is a good thing. It's the outsized attention this is getting in and out of game that sort of grates on me. I can do without it. But even that I'm not trying to shut down. I'm just calling a spade a spade. I'm not your enemy.

Oh okay, I throw the actual definition in your face and you're completely ignoring it, and change it to suit your beliefs and your argument. That's fine. We can just end the argument here, then.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 23 août 2011 - 03:01 .

[darkangelvxvx]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter what the gays or bisexuals think. They are not running the game. In the end EA runs Bioware, and Bioware runs Mass Effect. EA is going to ask Bioware to cater to the majority... which are 18-25 year old heterosexual males/females.

Threads like these are wishful thinking at best.

I agree but you cant spell Bioware without Bi


*facepalm*  I cant believe I said that...

[sedrikhcain]

IsaacShep wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

Actually, yes I do understand "retcon", both what it orginally meant and the usage that you, and many others on this board, have now adopted. What it originally meant was exactly what I described: not the item that was changed but a bogus, after-the-fact explanation that was never part of what was originally envisioned. In the original sense, it is the after-the-fact explanation that is a retcon, not the feature and not -- as you and others on here use it -- any and every change and evolution from one game to the next.

lol based on this definition, half of literature and storytelling would be a one giant bag of retcons including any sequel in history. This is ridiculous. I propose new definition of a word retcon - anything a fan doesn't like because it doesn't fit his/her personal interpretation he/she convinced him/herself is the only and correct one, even though it was never an in-game/movie/book fact.

sedrikhcain wrote...
Also, I'm well aware of what ended up on the cutting room floor but that's pointless in discussing what was in the original story.

Yet you've made it an argument in your original post.

sedrikhcain wrote...
fanservice-manifesto snip

So, what exactly is your point? Except for arguing of course

The vast majority of sequels are retcons. Only in something like mass effect, that is conceived as a trilogy, is anything other than retcons possible.

I already clarified my position about what was cut. Beyond that, I don't see anything hypocritical.

My point was that people are trying to argue that all this expanded universe of romances aren't examples of retconning elements, when they clearly are. I also said that wasn't a bad thing but you're so used to hearing people use the retcon thing as an argument against them that you attacked me anyway. Not my problem.

[Sundance31us]

darkangelvxvx wrote...
I agree but you cant spell Bioware without Bi
*facepalm*  I cant believe I said that...

[sedrikhcain]

RinjiRenee wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...
What part don't you understand? The whole point is that explanation is put in, after the fact, to justify the change. That's it. That is the case with the notion of the expanded universe of love interests. You just have a very negative, knee-jerk reaction to the term retcon and thus don't want it attached to this. Sorry, truth hurts. 

And you obviously missed the part at the end where I said "this isn't necessarily a bad thing". I'm cool with the S/S and bi love interests. One of my sheps is a lesbian and, frankly, inclusiveness is a good thing. It's the outsized attention this is getting in and out of game that sort of grates on me. I can do without it. But even that I'm not trying to shut down. I'm just calling a spade a spade. I'm not your enemy.

Oh okay, I throw the actual definition in your face and you're completely ignoring it, and change it to suit your beliefs and your argument. That's fine. We can just end the argument here, then.

Your "actual definition" was from Wikipedia. If that's your idea of an authoritative source, you have a lot to learn.

But, i will grant you that different terms mean diff. things to diff. people and it's hard to find a rock-solid authority on something like this.

[shepskisaac]

sedrikhcain wrote...
snip

Great, so you just came to tell what you consider a retcon, well, I and many people don't so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I ain't changing my opinion all sequels and half of literature ain't retcons.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 23 août 2011 - 03:05 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

Deejtage wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter what the gays or bisexuals think. They are not running the game. In the end EA runs Bioware, and Bioware runs Mass Effect. EA is going to ask Bioware to cater to the majority... which are 18-25 year old heterosexual males/females.

Threads like these are wishful thinking at best.

Well, same-sex relationships are already confirmed for ME 3. As for Garrus and Tali, personally, I don't want either of them for s/s relationships. But that's just myself, my own tastes. The alien relationships are not my cup of tea.

That's what I was getting at specifically. Having one or two s/s characters is decent for the gay players, but not for the characters that already exist and what the majority (re: heterosexual players) will think if such a change will occur.

Bioware cannot cater to an outspoken few on these forums, because if they do give into fanservice, this forum will burn more brighter than the glow of a thousand suns. New users by the hundreds, fans that never visit these forums, will log in just to show their disdain.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 23 août 2011 - 03:14 .

[Boiny Bunny]

I don't agree that all unplanned sequels are necessarily retcons - as long as they provide proper continuity with the original product, it shouldn't matter whether it was originally planned or not.

Retcon means retroactive continuity, which effectively means altering facts which had already been established in previous games/books/movies/etc. An unplanned sequel often does this, but it doesn't have to, just because it was not initially planned.

[Rinji the Bearded]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Your "actual definition" was from Wikipedia. If that's your idea of an authoritative source, you have a lot to learn.

But, i will grant you that different terms mean diff. things to diff. people and it's hard to find a rock-solid authority on something like this.

If you'd bothered to look it up on wikipedia, you'd see that they have sources cited.  "Retcon" isn't even a term you can look up in a dictionary, but "retroactive" and "continuity" are.  Shall I provide those for you?

[shepskisaac]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

That's what I was getting at specifically. Having one or two s/s characters is decent, but not for the characters that already exist and what the majority (re: heterosexual players) will think if such a change will occur.

Bioware cannot cater to an outspoken few on these forums, because if they do give into fanservice, this forum will burn more brighter than the glow of a thousand suns. New users by the hundreds, fans that never visit these forums, will log in just to show their disdain.

Outspoken few?

social.bioware.com/3082004/polls/20131/
social.bioware.com/1724485/polls/20089/
social.bioware.com/989831/polls/2140/

[Deejtage]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Deejtage wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

In the end it doesn't matter what the gays or bisexuals think. They are not running the game. In the end EA runs Bioware, and Bioware runs Mass Effect. EA is going to ask Bioware to cater to the majority... which are 18-25 year old heterosexual males/females.

Threads like these are wishful thinking at best.

Well, same-sex relationships are already confirmed for ME 3. As for Garrus and Tali, personally, I don't want either of them for s/s relationships. But that's just myself, my own tastes. The alien relationships are not my cup of tea.

That's what I was getting at specifically. Having one or two s/s characters is decent, but not for the characters that already exist and what the majority (re: heterosexual players) will think if such a change will occur.

Bioware cannot cater to an outspoken few on these forums, because if they do give into fanservice, this forum will burn more brighter than the glow of a thousand suns. New users by the hundreds, fans that never visit these forums, will log in just to show their disdain.

Granted, I have seen people on here say that they wouldn't care whether or not Garrus/Tali/etc. were "changed" to bisexual, but I do agree that the majority of players will probably rage if that happens, as has already been done in this thread alone (it's late and my grammar, diction, etc. is horribly off probably btw!) I think that Bioware will probably go with the safer options, either turning Kaidan/Ashley bisexual because they were meant to be/they're not as popular and well-liked/etc., or they will add new characters to fill the s/s content (like Vega). Personally, I'd prefer Kaidan or new characters myself, but I know a lot of people ship for MaleShepard and Garrus as well.

Still, I think you might be overexaggerating as far as the sh*tstorm that would follow the inclusion of s/s romances. Atleast, I don't see a lot of people registering on a forum to spout their discontent and all of that jazz. But maybe I am just being optimistic about it? Either way, I think their reasons will be superficial ones in the first place anyway, like Garrus is their "bro" or they romanced Tali, so she can't possibly be bisexual/gay. Usually though, it all boils down to people being uncomfortable with homosexual content because in the end, we have pretty much shot down every piece of opposition thus far in this thread (and others), and there aren't really any rock-hard reasons that Garrus and Tali couldn't be bisexual, in my opinion of course.

[Therefore_I_Am]

IsaacShep wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

That's what I was getting at specifically. Having one or two s/s characters is decent, but not for the characters that already exist and what the majority (re: heterosexual players) will think if such a change will occur.

Bioware cannot cater to an outspoken few on these forums, because if they do give into fanservice, this forum will burn more brighter than the glow of a thousand suns. New users by the hundreds, fans that never visit these forums, will log in just to show their disdain.

Outspoken few?

social.bioware.com/3082004/polls/20131/
social.bioware.com/1724485/polls/20089/
social.bioware.com/989831/polls/2140/

Yes, you guys are still a minority; most fans don't even visit these forums let alone vote on forum polls. If they change the already existing characters in such a manner, they will come on here to yell and rant and say not very nice things to that certain minority.
It will be like Rijhad during the early 90's.

[sedrikhcain]

IsaacShep wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...
snip

Great, so you just came to tell what you consider a retcon, well, I and many people don't so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree because I ain't changing my opinion all sequels and half of literature ain't retcons.

I doubt either of us will change our opinion about much of anything based on convos on the BSN.

But let me ask you this, if a film/book is conceived as a single story and a sequel gets written only because of success of said story, how can anything in that sequel be considered above question as authentic character progression?

[sedrikhcain]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I don't agree that all unplanned sequels are necessarily retcons - as long as they provide proper continuity with the original product, it shouldn't matter whether it was originally planned or not.

Retcon means retroactive continuity, which effectively means altering facts which had already been established in previous games/books/movies/etc. An unplanned sequel often does this, but it doesn't have to, just because it was not initially planned.

I didn't say they all were. Nearly all? Absolutely.