Athayniel wrote...
General User wrote...
That's my just point! That argument can be used successfully (even if only barely) for any character. It's only when you start using it for two, or three, or four characters that things start getting silly.
See, I think you and I have a fundamental disagreement about what a Mass Effect character is and should be. I see them as being much closer to characters in a book or movies, or any other work of fiction. They have their own histories and pasts, their own likes and dislikes, their own virtues, their own failings, and yes, even their own sexual identities. I like that uniqueness, that individuality. It's what makes these characters so alive, and it's what makes me a fan of the franchise. Seeing an aspect of that uniqueness simply written off is... frustrating.
I agree with all of that, apart from the thought that making all the characters heterosexual somehow makes them unique. I know that's not exactly what you said. Your argument is that their sexual identity is part of what makes them unique and that's a fine argument. Except for any given playthrough we know nothing about most of their sexual identities and next to nothing about those we have any information on. It simply isn't part of the story. So in one dudShep playthrough Miranda is a straight woman who's found a man she can try to get into a serious relationship with. In a femShep playthrough she's a bisexual woman who's met someone she can possibly commit to in spite of that possibly making it harder for her to bear her own children.
Your argument is that they are characters in a book. My argument is that they are characters in several different books and aspects of them can change based on the choices of the person reading them. Remember, Miranda can be loyal or disloyal to Shep, she can quit Cerberus at the end or not. None of these things about Miranda is at all set in stone.
I think the characters being so dynamic is what's so great about games like Mass Effect.
And such is the nature of video games, they are an interactive medium whereas other works are not. When the audience (or player) can interact with a work of fiction, the focus obviously shifts what aspects of the work (or the characters therein) should the player be able to affect, and what aspects of the work should be beyond the player's influence.
I would argue that the best way to settle this question is to allow the player influence those things human beings could conceivably influence in the real world and disallow the player to influence those things that a real live human cannot expect to influence. And it is almost universally accepted in the medical community that sexual orientation in humans (I'm not sure about quarians or drell
) is almost always established by the end of adolescence, and almost never changes thereafter. In other words, another person's sexual identity is not something a human being can reasonably expect to change or influence.
Whereas other forms of influencing a character, being an angel on their shoulder for good or ill, so to speak (Garrus' missions are a perfect example) should be allowed and even encouraged, since those are the kind of influences/interactions that we've all experienced to one extent or another.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
