604 réponses à ce sujet

[FoxHound109]

Ferris95 wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Hitting a
nerve? Nah, I was just pointing out that you aren't nearly as clever or funny as
you think yourself to be. Sorry if the truth hurts. Come back around when your "argument" is more
than boring .jpegs and .gifs.

So I was right then?

(image removed)

Oh and while Foxhound admittedly uses a LOT of pictures to get his point across; the fact stands that his arguments are still more logical and coherent than the vast majority of other posters. That would include you as well Recon.

I like this human. He understands.

General point: I post .gifs because they're about as valid as 90% of the "arguments" in this thread. There isn't an argument to be had in the first place. Neither side will budge, and the idea of having any sort of "mature" debate with someone here in these types of threads is a near impossibility. Sure, posting ponies doesn't forward any argument, but it's certainly worlds more entertaining (for me).

[Youknow]

MACharlie1 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Sundance31us wrote...

The thought that someone can be so insecure about their sexuality that a s/s option on a dialogue wheel can be a threat is...disappointing. <_<

This is precisley the type of generic counter argument I've come to accept. One completely devoid of thought.

OOooo! I get to bring in some of my research from a term paper I wrote this semester.

A-hem. Studies have proven, based on penile circumfrence, that men who dislike homosexuals were far more stimulated (as in, the circumfrence of their penis increased) when viewing intimacy between two males then men who didn't dislike homosexuals. Want the citation? 

I guess. It seems like a better read than here. 

But I don't think security has anything to do with it. I mean, it's almost like you'd assume that a person that's against S/S romance in ME3 is going to be straight. I mean, what if they just wanted Vega and that's it and no one else? Just so they'd balance out the nonsense from earlier but not have to worry about any of the other characters in the game? 

[Kawamura]

ReconTeam wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
To give the most options available to all people playing?

And screw over most players who like some depth of character in the process?

This thread makes zombie Kim Jung-il mad.

I see no change in depth of character.

[jlb524]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
There only was one fallacy, and that was Jlb's replacing X with a completely unrelated commodity..

Do you know what an analogy is?

Yes, getting to ride a bus isn't the same thing as picking an option to romance a character in a video game but it's all about the similarities in the relationship between the comparison and... why do I bother.

The analogy itself still has to make some sense, dear.

"Denying left-handed people choice in hotel bed size" and  "Denying redheads the ability to super-size their burger meal"

[MACharlie1]

Kawamura wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Sundance31us wrote...

The thought that someone can be so insecure about their sexuality that a s/s option on a dialogue wheel can be a threat is...disappointing. <_<

This is precisley the type of generic counter argument I've come to accept. One completely devoid of thought.

OOooo! I get to bring in some of my research from a term paper I wrote this semester.

A-hem. Studies have proven, based on penile circumfrence, that men who dislike homosexuals were far more stimulated (as in, the circumfrence of their penis increased) when viewing intimacy between two males then men who didn't dislike homosexuals. Want the citation? 

Real world > term paper.

While I don't approve of the use of the word "proven", things like studies exist so  we can try to get the big picture each of us as individuals is incapable of finding out on our own. Yes?

Well. And to get funding.

You're right - I shouldn't use the word proven. It has been shown that...

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

Wow, and nobody complains when FemShep is confirmed to be into women. This thread doesn't help the stereotype that gamers are a bunch of whiny man-children.

Shepard can be into dudes. It's in the game. It's not forced upon you and it's not going away. Deal with it.

[Youknow]

FoxHound109 wrote...

Ferris95 wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Hitting a
nerve? Nah, I was just pointing out that you aren't nearly as clever or funny as
you think yourself to be. Sorry if the truth hurts. Come back around when your "argument" is more
than boring .jpegs and .gifs.

So I was right then?

(image removed)

Oh and while Foxhound admittedly uses a LOT of pictures to get his point across; the fact stands that his arguments are still more logical and coherent than the vast majority of other posters. That would include you as well Recon.

I like this human. He understands.

General point: I post .gifs because they're about as valid as 90% of the "arguments" in this thread. There isn't an argument to be had in the first place. Neither side will budge, and the idea of having any sort of "mature" debate with someone here in these types of threads is a near impossibility. Sure, posting ponies doesn't forward any argument, but it's certainly worlds more entertaining (for me).

Some might if there was less playground fighting and more actual discussion. The problem is that I distinctly remember discussinng this in another topic, it came to the point that it felt like I was being attacked as a person rather than my actual argument. I haven't been able to take the entire thing seriously since. Especially seeing as how, I even tried to be fair and argue pro both sides at points. 

[Inquisitor Recon]

Kawamura wrote...
I see no change in depth of character.

So when everybody is made into Shepard-sexuals because somewhere some obsessive player wants to sleep with them you don't see that cutting into the quality of the story in any way?

Lets just take the next step and replace the team with robots with no opinions of their own whatsoever.

[Kawamura]

ReconTeam wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
I see no change in depth of character.

So when everybody is made into Shepard-sexuals because somewhere some obsessive player wants to sleep with them you don't see that cutting into the quality of the story in any way?

Lets just take the next step and replace the team with robots with no opinions of their own whatsoever.

What parts do you feel will be negatively effected? 

[Youknow]

ReconTeam wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
I see no change in depth of character.

So when everybody is made into Shepard-sexuals because somewhere some obsessive player wants to sleep with them you don't see that cutting into the quality of the story in any way?

Lets just take the next step and replace the team with robots with no opinions of their own whatsoever.

The issue is if they were originally meant to be romancable. Changing the character is bad. Having a character introduced on the other hand is different. The problem is that sexuality is a rather delicate topic, and some do not like to reveal their sexualities immediately. 

[Kaiser Shepard]

FoxHound109 wrote...

Ferris95 wrote...

FoxHound109 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Hitting a
nerve? Nah, I was just pointing out that you aren't nearly as clever or funny as
you think yourself to be. Sorry if the truth hurts. Come back around when your "argument" is more
than boring .jpegs and .gifs.

So I was right then?

(image removed)

Oh and while Foxhound admittedly uses a LOT of pictures to get his point across; the fact stands that his arguments are still more logical and coherent than the vast majority of other posters. That would include you as well Recon.

I like this human. He understands.

General point: I post .gifs because they're about as valid as 90% of the "arguments" in this thread. There isn't an argument to be had in the first place. Neither side will budge, and the idea of having any sort of "mature" debate with someone here in these types of threads is a near impossibility. Sure, posting ponies doesn't forward any argument, but it's certainly worlds more entertaining (for me).

I guess that says a lot about you, then.

jlb524 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
There only was one fallacy, and that was Jlb's replacing X with a completely unrelated commodity..

Do you know what an analogy is?

Yes, getting to ride a bus isn't the same thing as picking an option to romance a character in a video game but it's all about the similarities in the relationship between the comparison and... why do I bother.

The analogy itself still has to make some sense, dear.

"Denying left-handed people choice in hotel bed size" and  "Denying redheads the ability to super-size their burger meal"

What's the point you're trying to make now? You still make no sense at all.

[MACharlie1]

ReconTeam wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
I see no change in depth of character.

So when everybody is made into Shepard-sexuals because somewhere some obsessive player wants to sleep with them you don't see that cutting into the quality of the story in any way?

Lets just take the next step and replace the team with robots with no opinions of their own whatsoever.

Why does everything have to be about sex? (wait, did I honestly ask that?) 

All of the romances in ME have so far been (with the exception of the Consort) on a deep and meaningful level that is beyond just bumping uglies. Dontcha get it? It's not about the sex. It's about the intimate and emotional connection people want their Shepards to have with the members of the same sex. 

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Kawamura wrote...
I see no change in depth of character.

Kelly looks so dumb to me for her obsession on everyone.

[FoxHound109]

Youknow wrote...

Some might if there was less playground fighting and more actual discussion. The problem is that I distinctly remember discussinng this in another topic, it came to the point that it felt like I was being attacked as a person rather than my actual argument. I haven't been able to take the entire thing seriously since. Especially seeing as how, I even tried to be fair and argue pro both sides at points. 

It won't. Ever. You're asking too much here. Go back to my post on page six, the first one I made there. Read it and keep it in mind every time one of these threads come up. You'll see that it's like reading the same scrip over and over. It's fascinating. We've been down this road before and nothing changes. Hence why I, predictably as well, post pointless images for my own amusement. And yes, these threads ALWAYS get personally.

[Cuddlezarro]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
I see no change in depth of character.

Kelly looks so dumb to me for her obsession on everyone.

well she is a ginger and thus has no soul *goes back to lurking*

[Kawamura]

Jedi Sentinel Arian wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
I see no change in depth of character.

Kelly looks so dumb to me for her obsession on everyone.

Note the fact that your problem was her obsession on everyone. Is this the same as all LI's being open to both sexes of Shep?

[Inquisitor Recon]

Kawamura wrote...
What parts do you feel will be negatively effected? 

To put it simply, the end result is a collection of charaters that are not as well defined and not as individualistic. Despite whatever new age thinking some may have on the matter, somebody's sexuality is part of who they are. It is also easier to relate with somebody with the same interests on this matter.

[Youknow]

MACharlie1 wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
I see no change in depth of character.

So when everybody is made into Shepard-sexuals because somewhere some obsessive player wants to sleep with them you don't see that cutting into the quality of the story in any way?

Lets just take the next step and replace the team with robots with no opinions of their own whatsoever.

Why does everything have to be about sex? (wait, did I honestly ask that?) 

All of the romances in ME have so far been (with the exception of the Consort) on a deep and meaningful level that is beyond just bumping uglies. Dontcha get it? It's not about the sex. It's about the intimate and emotional connection people want their Shepards to have with the members of the same sex. 

Perhaps they should have just made the relationships a friendship sort of thing. Where it's not really clear if the person harbors romantic feelings towards the PC but it's not exactly left out to field if they don't. I don't know if you've played the game, but sort of how Chrono Cross has the whole thing with Serge and Kid. It's implied that Kid and Serge like each other at least enough to be comrades, but it never actually states if she's in love with him. So it's left up to player interpretation. 

But to be fair, some of the romances did feel like quick sex. 

[shepskisaac]

ReconTeam wrote...

Oddly enough, none of that pointed out any reason why Bioware should make everybody bisexual.

It would be some awfully wacky logic if you were suggesting that should make everybody bisexual because ME doesn't take into account how ugly or pretty Shepard is. One flaw doesn't justify another.

With so many flaws already there, one more 'flaw' won't make a difference. Especially in a series like Mass Effect where morality actually plays a huge role in the entire franchise thus is a MUCH bigger flaw if it ain't considered by LIs than sexual orientation that plays absolutely no role in the story. Start your crusade by whining how morality ai't considered in romances availability conditionals. If you don't, you're a hypocrite.

Ohh and BTW, none of these are really "flaws". With all the realistic romance availability factors & conditionals ignored, it is obvious this was a concious design path taken by BioWare. Not an accident or flaws they missed. Romances in ME franchise are bonus content that allows further customization of the Shep and more personalized experience. That's why they ain't restricted based on looks, morality and other factors. Making an exception for sexual orienation has no basis and is not cohesive with the general design approach they've taken.

When the LIs become available based on other realistic factors such as morality, actions, and of course when ManShep doesn't have a harem of women, then I could agree with you sexual orientation proportions should also be treated realistically.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 19 décembre 2011 - 05:55 .

[PinkDiamondstl]

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

Wow, and nobody complains when FemShep is confirmed to be into women. This thread doesn't help the stereotype that gamers are a bunch of whiny man-children.

Shepard can be into dudes. It's in the game. It's not forced upon you and it's not going away. Deal with it.

It feels forced. Why make Shepard bi now? The saver of the earth ,the hero a butt hunter.

[Kawamura]

ReconTeam wrote...

Kawamura wrote...
What parts do you feel will be negatively effected? 

To put it simply, the end result is a collection of charaters that are not as well defined and not as individualistic. Despite whatever new age thinking some may have on the matter, somebody's sexuality is part of who they are. It is also easier to relate with somebody with the same interests on this matter.

How are they not well defiined? 

Are all heterosexual men not well defined or individualistic because they all have the same sexual orientation? Are all monosexual people not well defined or individualistic because they all have the same sexual orientation?

[Youknow]

FoxHound109 wrote...

Youknow wrote...

Some might if there was less playground fighting and more actual discussion. The problem is that I distinctly remember discussinng this in another topic, it came to the point that it felt like I was being attacked as a person rather than my actual argument. I haven't been able to take the entire thing seriously since. Especially seeing as how, I even tried to be fair and argue pro both sides at points. 

It won't. Ever. You're asking too much here. Go back to my post on page six, the first one I made there. Read it and keep it in mind every time one of these threads come up. You'll see that it's like reading the same scrip over and over. It's fascinating. We've been down this road before and nothing changes. Hence why I, predictably as well, post pointless images for my own amusement. And yes, these threads ALWAYS get personally.

 
Perhaps I am merely naive then. But I do believe that if people were willing to be just a bit more flexible, you could at least come to some sort of mutal respect for one another. Not necessarily agreement, but .just respect. I know it's easy to take the quick route and make snarky remarks to people , but such actions only prepetuate the madness rather than retard it. 

[slimgrin]

jlb524 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
There only was one fallacy, and that was Jlb's replacing X with a completely unrelated commodity..

Do you know what an analogy is?

Yes, getting to ride a bus isn't the same thing as picking an option to romance a character in a video game but it's all about the similarities in the relationship between the comparison and... why do I bother.

The analogy itself still has to make some sense, dear.

"Denying left-handed people choice in hotel bed size" and  "Denying redheads the ability to super-size their burger meal"

Maybe this is inappropriate, but what would you tell a gay person who asked why Bioware won't write gay characters? Would you tell them, 'suck it up and play Bi'

Modifié par slimgrin, 19 décembre 2011 - 05:59 .

[Red by Full Metal Jacket]

PinkDiamondstl wrote...

Red by Full Metal Jacket wrote...

Wow, and nobody complains when FemShep is confirmed to be into women. This thread doesn't help the stereotype that gamers are a bunch of whiny man-children.

Shepard can be into dudes. It's in the game. It's not forced upon you and it's not going away. Deal with it.

It feels forced. Why make Shepard bi now? The saver of the earth ,the hero a butt hunter.

I love your homophobia despite you having the word "Pink" in your username.  Curious, where are you from?

Modifié par Red by Full Metal Jacket, 19 décembre 2011 - 05:59 .