997 réponses à ce sujet

[Sundance31us]

Edit: Smaller Image

Modifié par Sundance31us, 23 août 2011 - 03:32 .

[sedrikhcain]

RinjiRenee wrote...

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?

If YOU'D checked the sources, you'd have seen this: http://groups.google...96?dmode=source


Again, definitives are hard to claim authority on but this and other links on the page back me up, not you. They also acknowledge that the term was not originall a perjorative.

Modifié par sedrikhcain, 23 août 2011 - 03:34 .

[BTG_01]

In ME1, Tali and Garrus weren't interested in Shepard. This was changed in ME2 so that apparently Tali had always been attracted to Shepard, while Garrus develops an interest when Shepard propositions him. Now, if anything counts as a retcon, that does, (at least the Tali part). However, it was done to make a large section of fans happy and according to a slew of repetitive polls, it did. So why not do it again to make even more happy? 

Tali and Garrus are two of my favourites, but I never considered their sexuality the fulcrum of their characters' appeal.



Edit: Huh, I guess this was sort of covered in the OP. I should really start reading those things...

Modifié par BTG_01, 23 août 2011 - 03:42 .

[shepskisaac]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

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.

Ohh so you want to 'protect' us? How concerned of you. Not that anyone can't see your tactic here.

sedrikhcain wrote...

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?

It's just the next chapter. People in real life never stop growing up, they never stop progressing. Unless a single book/movie/story tells an entire life of one person, then it's really just a little piece of life. Then there's the fact people in real life don't predict their own entire lives either, so why exactly should the author plan the entire life of a character, one that exceeds the timeline of the story he's telling? It's really one of the weirdest arguments I've stumbled upon. If a sequel's good, I don't care how it was concieved.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 23 août 2011 - 03:37 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

sedrikhcain wrote...

Again, definitives are hard to claim authority on but this and other links on the page back me up, not you. They also acknowledge that the term was not originall a perjorative.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.  I'm not saying that retcon is a perjorative.  I'm saying that the Garrus/Tali romances aren't retcons.  You keep saying retcon, but you really, really don't know what it means.  It DOES have a static meaning, it doesn't matter what the previous connotation of the word was.

They don't contradict with the continuity.  I'd like for you to point out in the narrative where they can be proven as a retcon instead of throwing out assumptions of what the writers did or did not intend.  Delevopmental a** pulls do not equal a retcon.


This just seems obligatory at this point.  But go on thinking you're correct, it's working well for you so far.

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 23 août 2011 - 03:45 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

Deejtage wrote...

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.

Never the less it will lead to ME3 being returned to stores all around. If said majority won't come onto the forums, like I suggested before, than they will show it through sales. BW has to be careful with this, because like you said, it really does boil down to the discomfort of homosexual content. I personally have no problem with the s/s romances, and I would support it, but I'm in that boat when it comes to already existing characters. Mind you I'll still play, but it would give me the same awkward feeling that Anders gave me in DA2, and sort of ruined his character for me.

[sedrikhcain]

RinjiRenee wrote...

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?

Nah, that's all right. I fail to see the reason for your hostility towards me. I'm not your enemy.

[sedrikhcain]

RinjiRenee wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

Again, definitives are hard to claim authority on but this and other links on the page back me up, not you. They also acknowledge that the term was not originall a perjorative.

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore.  I'm not saying that retcon is a perjorative.  I'm saying that the Garrus/Tali romances aren't retcons.  You keep saying retcon, but you really, really don't know what it means.  It DOES have a static meaning, it doesn't matter what the previous connotation of the word was.

They don't contradict with the continuity.  I'd like for you to point out in the narrative where they can be proven as a retcon instead of throwing out assumptions of what the writers did or did not intend.  Delevopmental a** pulls do not equal a retcon.


This just seems obligatory at this point.  But go on thinking you're correct, it's working well for you so far.

So let me understand this correctly. I point to a source stating the original meaning of the term, from a wikipedia page you first referenced, but because you don't like what it says, you just cast if off as irrelevant.

Nice.

Your statement about BSN people defining retcon as a change they don't like pretty much nails it down as a perjorative in your mind.

ETA: an example: Garrus romancing male and female shep is only not an example of retroactive continuity if the writers knew all along that garrus was bi, which they clearly didn't. does that make it a bad thing? no.

Modifié par sedrikhcain, 23 août 2011 - 04:01 .

[shepskisaac]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Never the less it will lead to ME3 being returned to stores all around. If said majority won't come onto the forums, like I suggested before, than they will show it through sales.

People will return an (let's assume) amazing game to the stores because they will see a heart icon option in a dialog with Garrus? What a nonsense. Unlike you, the majority of straight people (including straight guys) just. won't. care.

[sedrikhcain]

IsaacShep wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

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.

Ohh so you want to 'protect' us? How concerned of you. Not that anyone can't see your tactic here.

sedrikhcain wrote...

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?

It's just the next chapter. People in real life never stop growing up, they never stop progressing. Unless a single book/movie/story tells an entire life of one person, then it's really just a little piece of life. Then there's the fact people in real life don't predict their own entire lives either, so why exactly should the author plan the entire life of a character, one that exceeds the timeline of the story he's telling? It's really one of the weirdest arguments I've stumbled upon. If a sequel's good, I don't care how it was concieved.

Again you assume that they're always bad.

And a story is a not a life. it has a beginning, middle and end.

[Rinji the Bearded]

sedrikhcain wrote...

So let me understand this correctly. I point to a source stating the original meaning of the term, from a wikipedia page you first referenced, but because you don't like what it says, you just cast if off as irrelevant.

Nice.

You basically cast off my quoted definiton as irrelevant because it was wikipedia, despite the fact that it was the correct definition of retcon.  So we must both be jerks!  (Also I don't know where I said I didn't like what the sources cited.  You incorrectly assumed that I did not read them and assumed that I thought all retcons were perjorative, when I never said such a thing. The Wikipedia citings were merely pointing to definitions -- which is the core of my argument here.  I could care less about the connotation of the word.)

sedrikhcain wrote...

Again you assume that they're always bad.

And a story is a not a life. it has a beginning, middle and end.

Mass Effect was a planned trilogy.

And there's still no retcons. 

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 23 août 2011 - 04:00 .

[Sundance31us]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...
Never the less it will lead to ME3 being returned to stores all around. If said majority won't come onto the forums, like I suggested before, than they will show it through sales.

A returned game goes back to the retailer and not the games company. Once the game is sold BioWare will receive its royalties regardless of what the customer does.

Modifié par Sundance31us, 23 août 2011 - 03:58 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

Ferris95 wrote...

@IsaacShep, I really don't think you get the credit you deserve for diving into threads like this and trying to show people some common sense. I mean, I doubt it sticks much, but still. It's the thought that counts.

The 'common sense' part was intended towards me? If so than all I was doing was stating the extremely possible... No reflection on what I'm personally thinking, but on what people in general will think if all of this s/s on existing characters are included. So don't shoot the messenger.

[BigBody26]

I am strongly against s/s relationships in ME3. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, which are not relevant to this topic. I had no problem with s/s relationships in Dragon Age because they were a possibility from the very beginning.
Adding them into the 3rd, and final, game in the ME trilogy is astoundingly stupid in my opinion. So, the entire galaxy is in danger of being annihilated, Shep admitted to Liara he had no idea how we are going to win, Earth has fallen........and this is the time Shepard decides is best to explore his sexual curiosity? Really? Do not think I am bashing homosexuality. This has nothing to do with that. I am simply saying that the timing of including this in Mass Effect makes absolutely no sense.
The time they spent creating s/s relationships would have been better spent creating more dialogue so you can continue having conversations with crew members past the half way point of the game. Or creating situations where, say, Garrus and Tali are talking and you can approach the both of them. The time spent on s/s relationships could have been used to create more conversation option to keep us interested in the characters longer.

[Rinji the Bearded]

Still don't know how this thread is up. It should be in the character/romance section, or deleted all together.

[Therefore_I_Am]

IsaacShep wrote...

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

Never the less it will lead to ME3 being returned to stores all around. If said majority won't come onto the forums, like I suggested before, than they will show it through sales.

People will return an (let's assume) amazing game to the stores because they will see a heart icon option in a dialog with Garrus? What a nonsense. Unlike you, the majority of straight people (including straight guys) just. won't. care.

They'll return it for credits to their gamecard, if it really does ****** them off that much. I would not doubt that they would actually do that. Hell I've seen people do crazier stuff...

[sedrikhcain]

RinjiRenee wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

So let me understand this correctly. I point to a source stating the original meaning of the term, from a wikipedia page you first referenced, but because you don't like what it says, you just cast if off as irrelevant.

Nice.

You basically cast off my quoted definiton as irrelevant because it was wikipedia, despite the fact that it was the correct definition of retcon.  So we must both be jerks!  (Also I don't know where I said I didn't like what the sources cited.  You incorrectly assumed that I did not read them and assumed that I thought all retcons were perjorative, when I never said such a thing. The Wikipedia citings were merely pointing to definitions -- which is the core of my argument here.  I could care less about the connotation of the word.)

sedrikhcain wrote...

Again you assume that they're always bad.

And a story is a not a life. it has a beginning, middle and end.

Mass Effect was a planned trilogy.

And there's still no retcons. 

yes it was a planned trilogy. And there are retcons. Seriously, I just gave an example.

[shepskisaac]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

The 'common sense' part was intended towards me? If so than all I was doing was stating the extremely possible... No reflection on what I'm personally thinking, but on what people in general will think if all of this s/s on existing characters are included. So don't shoot the messenger.

I think you wanted to write what you THINK they will think. Or you somehow have an access to everyone's mind?

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

They'll return it for credits to their gamecard, if it really does ****** them off that much. I would not doubt that they would actually do that. Hell I've seen people do crazier stuff...

Ahh yes, IF.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 23 août 2011 - 04:07 .

[Sundance31us]

RinjiRenee wrote...
Still don't know how this thread is up. It should be in the character/romance section, or deleted all together.

Maybe the mods are toying with us?

[sedrikhcain]

RinjiRenee wrote...

sedrikhcain wrote...

So let me understand this correctly. I point to a source stating the original meaning of the term, from a wikipedia page you first referenced, but because you don't like what it says, you just cast if off as irrelevant.

Nice.

You basically cast off my quoted definiton as irrelevant because it was wikipedia, despite the fact that it was the correct definition of retcon.  So we must both be jerks!  (Also I don't know where I said I didn't like what the sources cited.  You incorrectly assumed that I did not read them and assumed that I thought all retcons were perjorative, when I never said such a thing. The Wikipedia citings were merely pointing to definitions -- which is the core of my argument here.  I could care less about the connotation of the word.)

sedrikhcain wrote...

Again you assume that they're always bad.

And a story is a not a life. it has a beginning, middle and end.

Mass Effect was a planned trilogy.

And there's still no retcons. 

You could care less about the connotation of the word? That's ridiculous. We're discussing its meaning. Even more so because what I'm arguing is much closer to the denotative meaning than what you're arguing.


You brought up wikipedia, own it.

[Erode_The_Soul]

BigBody26 wrote...

I am strongly against s/s relationships in ME3. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, which are not relevant to this topic. I had no problem with s/s relationships in Dragon Age because they were a possibility from the very beginning.
Adding them into the 3rd, and final, game in the ME trilogy is astoundingly stupid in my opinion. So, the entire galaxy is in danger of being annihilated, Shep admitted to Liara he had no idea how we are going to win, Earth has fallen........and this is the time Shepard decides is best to explore his sexual curiosity? Really? Do not think I am bashing homosexuality. This has nothing to do with that. I am simply saying that the timing of including this in Mass Effect makes absolutely no sense.
The time they spent creating s/s relationships would have been better spent creating more dialogue so you can continue having conversations with crew members past the half way point of the game. Or creating situations where, say, Garrus and Tali are talking and you can approach the both of them. The time spent on s/s relationships could have been used to create more conversation option to keep us interested in the characters longer.

It would work much like the Suicide Mission romances did in ME2, I think. That wasn't exactly a prime situation for a budding romance, but they happened like a "this is our last chance, let's make the most of it" kind of thing. I can see something similar happening in ME3 because, like it or not (and I happen to like it), both hetero and homosexual romances will be present and they have to make them work somehow.

Modifié par Erode_The_Soul, 23 août 2011 - 04:09 .

[shepskisaac]

BigBody26 wrote...

and this is the time Shepard decides is best to explore his sexual curiosity? Really?

What are you talking about? My Shep was gay from day 1, he ain't exploring any curiosity, he'll just get a guy in ME3.

[RiouHotaru]

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.

Okay, so it's not your cup of tea.  BUT!

Would it diminish or somehow lessen your enjoyment of the game if Garrus/Tali were s/s relationship material?

I think not.  Since you won't be pushing for them in the first place.


This is the argument that never makes any sense.  People say "I don't want this, it's not my thing." ...But if it's something that you never cared about before and STILL don't care about, does it matter that it exists?

[Deejtage]

BigBody26 wrote...

I am strongly against s/s relationships in ME3. It has nothing to do with my personal beliefs, which are not relevant to this topic. I had no problem with s/s relationships in Dragon Age because they were a possibility from the very beginning.
Adding them into the 3rd, and final, game in the ME trilogy is astoundingly stupid in my opinion. So, the entire galaxy is in danger of being annihilated, Shep admitted to Liara he had no idea how we are going to win, Earth has fallen........and this is the time Shepard decides is best to explore his sexual curiosity? Really? Do not think I am bashing homosexuality. This has nothing to do with that. I am simply saying that the timing of including this in Mass Effect makes absolutely no sense.
The time they spent creating s/s relationships would have been better spent creating more dialogue so you can continue having conversations with crew members past the half way point of the game. Or creating situations where, say, Garrus and Tali are talking and you can approach the both of them. The time spent on s/s relationships could have been used to create more conversation option to keep us interested in the characters longer.

Firstly, same-sex relationships were going to be in Mass Effect from the beginning, but they were cut because of "time constraints" or something to that effect. As far as dialogue and getting to know your crew members better goes, they have said that not only will you have less squadmembers than you did in Mass Effect 2 (meaning they have less people to write for on the Normandy), they've also said that friendship paths and the like will be possible without having to romance the specific crewmember that you want to get to know better or whatnot. So, I don't think Garrus is going to be in the middle of calibrations anymore, truthfully. With all of that in mind, I think the dialogue and conversations between Shepard and the crew will be more deep and numerous, or whatever. Either way, it doesn't matter in the end, because same-sex romances have been confirmed regardless.