512 réponses à ce sujet

[Deathstyk85]

aymanhaq wrote...


All the above is perfectly valid. What is surprising is how no one bothers considering this from a moral standpoint. Yes there is more sex on tv and even in ads than there is in this game. But that doesnt change the fact that sex being so openly depicted is morally wrong. Wrong is wrong is wrong. With atheists i can concede a bit. They dont even believe in God when the proof is right in front of them that he exists, but to each his own. However none of the major religions condone this type of depiction. Fact is this is just another greedy, money scheme becoming the norm in todays game market. Sex=money. So we give them sex. Don't bother looking up what your faith tells you to do. Personally i dont like the ingame sex because it goes against my religion. End of story.

well its hard for you to justify your point by saying its morally wrong, seeing as how morals are flexible and different for each individual. secondly putting in your religious two cents doesnt help your point, all you pretty much said is "i find it offensive, because i believe it is, so it is"
and secondly, for the most part, religion doesnt play a major role in their deciscion making because it has nothing to do with it. when religion starts to control everything that goes on in a society, it never ends well. example, the spanish inquisitions, the crusades, many other more current events that i wont go into because its not neccesary. point its, if you dont like the sex in the game, either dont buy the game, and there for voice your opinion by not supporting it, or dont have sex in the game.(if you consider akward clothed cuddling sex)
i doubt religion supports gratuitous violence, wich is in this and many other games. sooooo, why are you playing it in the first place? thats right, because you made an informed deciscion that its not reality, but instead a video game.

[Marhkus]

Jack_Cheze wrote...

2)Sex scenes in video games typically suck because most programmers have never had any

Your thinking about what programmers were 10 years ago. You know, Video Game DeVs are like the 'New Rock Stars' now. The nerds are taking over, the time of the JOCK is at an end my friends...

****! I have to learn C++

[TheMadCat]

Decent article.

Sex is just not needed. It does not make the story deeper.

I agree to a point, you can have a great love story without it ever diving into sex. At the same time having sex doesn't necessarily make the story anymore shallow or artificial. The pinnacle of the physical side of a love relationship is sex and can be just as telling of a relationships strength as them falling in battle and you kneeling by their side crying in grief, sharing a few final precious words. (Haven't finished the entire game yet, if something like this happens please don't spoil it or I shall hunt you down.)

So no, sex is not needed. No portrayal of physical affection is really needed. Kissing, hugging, hand shakes, really none of that is needed. But just because something is not needed doesn't mean it cannot be used to further a point and add in another dimension. If your character slept with Morrigane don't you think things would change a bit between you two, with the other members of the party who now make look differently at you two? In reality it can make a story deeper, and can add a whole new level to the relationship and thoughts of your character, your love interest, and the rest of your companions.

[Deathstyk85]

Marhkus wrote...

Jack_Cheze wrote...

2)Sex scenes in video games typically suck because most programmers have never had any

Your thinking about what programmers were 10 years ago. You know, Video Game DeVs are like the 'New Rock Stars' now. The nerds are taking over, the time of the JOCK is at an end my friends...

****! I have to learn C++

this is very true. if you work for a gaming company, you pretty much have gauranteed ****** whenever you want. its like that intel commercial where the guy who invented the thumb drive has people fawning over him and everyone going crazy.
games arnt just for nerds any more, prettyy much everyone plays some sort of video game, when you go into a school, you dont hear kids talking about what sport they play, you hear them talking about what kind of video games they play. lol
grown men get together for amazing gaming sessions, and they bring ****es, thats right, ****es come to these kinds of things. you know why? cause they like it, and because they know guys like it. lol;)

[aymanhaq]

Dark83 wrote...

With regards to my religion, there is absolutely no proof that God does not exist. There is also absolutely no proof that God exists. It is a matter of Faith. Religion deals with the intangibles - by its very nature there is no evidence or proof beyond what is in your own heart. If you need proof to validate your beliefs, then you lack faith. (This is why there is no conflict between science and religion - they cover entirely different things.)

Clearly our religions are different. Mine actually provides signs within science of Gods existence. Scientific proof that can be quantified. My religion deems God created science and THAT is why there is no conflict between science and religion. I believe what i believe because i have proof that it is absolutely true. IMO only a fool would decide on God and religion, a matter bigger than life and death with absolutely no proof. Faith is what keeps you following the tenants of that religion. Merely recognizing that he exists is not enough. Comparing the two, I'd say mine is the better one...would you not agree?

If you want to continue this conversaton i suggest we do it privately, this forum was not created for this purpose. Ill send you a PM just in case.

[Deathstyk85]

aymanhaq wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

With regards to my religion, there is absolutely no proof that God does not exist. There is also absolutely no proof that God exists. It is a matter of Faith. Religion deals with the intangibles - by its very nature there is no evidence or proof beyond what is in your own heart. If you need proof to validate your beliefs, then you lack faith. (This is why there is no conflict between science and religion - they cover entirely different things.)

Clearly our religions are different. Mine actually provides signs within science of Gods existence. Scientific proof that can be quantified. My religion deems God created science and THAT is why there is no conflict between science and religion. I believe what i believe because i have proof that it is absolutely true. IMO only a fool would decide on God and religion, a matter bigger than life and death with absolutely no proof. Faith is what keeps you following the tenants of that religion. Merely recognizing that he exists is not enough. Comparing the two, I'd say mine is the better one...would you not agree?

If you want to continue this conversaton i suggest we do it privately, this forum was not created for this purpose. Ill send you a PM just in case.

this has the classics signs of the "holier than thou" type situation lol.
also reminds me of little kids "my dad can beat up your dad" only put in religion instead of dad..lol

[aymanhaq]

Deathstyk85 wrote...

well its hard for you to justify your point by saying its morally wrong, seeing as how morals are flexible and different for each individual. secondly putting in your religious two cents doesnt help your point, all you pretty much said is "i find it offensive, because i believe it is, so it is"
and secondly, for the most part, religion doesnt play a major role in their deciscion making because it has nothing to do with it. when religion starts to control everything that goes on in a society, it never ends well. example, the spanish inquisitions, the crusades, many other more current events that i wont go into because its not neccesary. point its, if you dont like the sex in the game, either dont buy the game, and there for voice your opinion by not supporting it, or dont have sex in the game.(if you consider akward clothed cuddling sex)
i doubt religion supports gratuitous violence, wich is in this and many other games. sooooo, why are you playing it in the first place? thats right, because you made an informed deciscion that its not reality, but instead a video game.

Well like you said, i stated my two cents. Much like anyone on this thread. I didnt mean offense. I will say that your memory is too short. Go back further and you will find that at a time when religion was 'newer' and hence truer tro its original message, states based on that religion flourished for centuries on end, both economically and scientifically. And they existed far far longer than any of the current superpowers have existed for.

[aymanhaq]

Deathstyk85 wrote...

this has the classics signs of the "holier than thou" type situation lol.
also reminds me of little kids "my dad can beat up your dad" only put in religion instead of dad..lol

Not really...I'm not talking about beating anyone up. Plus im not spewing random rhetoric, i have proof. Lastly get back to the topic at hand. Im not turning this forum in a religious debate.

[aymanhaq]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

You sound like a muslim. 

Just sayin'

Its fine. Thing is that these forums were not made for religious discussions and it was not my intent to turn this forum into one. Better get back to the topic at hand.

Modifié par aymanhaq, 04 décembre 2009 - 02:28 .

[TheMadCat]

Yeah no need to get down into religion, all that will accomplish is a quick and hard lockdown.

[ZeroPlan]

I really want to now wich countries you meant with flourishing. When i look back in the european middleage they were far away from that. The only societies were this could be right at this time were in asia or the middle east.

[Kaosgirl]

aymanhaq wrote...

Dark83 wrote...

With regards to my religion, there is absolutely no proof that God does not exist. There is also absolutely no proof that God exists. It is a matter of Faith. Religion deals with the intangibles - by its very nature there is no evidence or proof beyond what is in your own heart. If you need proof to validate your beliefs, then you lack faith. (This is why there is no conflict between science and religion - they cover entirely different things.)

Clearly our religions are different. Mine actually provides signs within science of Gods existence. Scientific proof that can be quantified.

I find that unlikely.  I've witnessed far too many attempts at such that were just essentially subjective reinterpretation of both scripture and evidence to force them into fitting.

aymanhaq wrote...
Faith is what keeps you following the tenants of that religion. Merely recognizing that he exists is not enough.
Comparing the two, I'd say mine is the better one...would you not agree?

A better approach to faith, perhaps.  But if I find the tenants themselves deplorable, I might have trouble seeing it as a "better" religion.  Worshipping an all-powerful sadistic jackass is, to me, the greater evil than being damned by said all-powerful sadistic jackass.

[Deathstyk85]

ZeroPlan wrote...

I really want to now wich countries you meant with flourishing. When i look back in the european middleage they were far away from that. The only societies were this could be right at this time were in asia or the middle east.

most likely asia, they did fairly well for themselves when they werent having random civil wars/territory spouts

and they had no problems talking about sex openly, in fact, almost no one did back in the good 'ol days. its a part of life. like my favorite t shirt says, sex, do it for the kids.
also yeah the only bad thing about the sex thats in this game, is the fact that it made me feel akward, like someone was going to walk in and go "WTF is that.." and i would reply " i dont know! it just happened! and im so confused! i thought they were supposed to be doing it or something!"

[MerinTB]

This isn't an original thought, but I'm going to put this out there -
if you removed religion from the discussion, would sex be considered "bad" outside of planned procreation?

You could argue yes, due to disease and unwanted pregnancy. However, medicine and protection can solve both those issues, going as far as vasectomies and monogamous relations with a partner who has no STDs.

If unwanted pregnancy and disease are removed from the equation, what is left? Emotional pain, perhaps, in situations where one person expected more than the other from the relationship? But does sex have to be in the equation for that to happen? What about a good friendship, which evolves into dating (with no sex) but then the one person falling for someone else? The pain any more or less due to sex or no sex? I'd argue that's situational, and in some cases sex (or no sex) could make things either more or less painful in the loss. But I don't think there's a direct relation that can be charted as it always making things worse if sex was involved. And in any case let's just assume we are talking about a couple who've been together for a long time and don't have intercourse with anyone else.

So, if you remove unwanted pregnancy and disease via medicine and protection (let's say vasectomy on the guy and the partners have been together (with only each other) for over a decade with no STDs between them), and you remove the emotional component (both because I argue that hurt feelings, depression, can happen at varying levels of intensity regardless of sex being in the situation AND because our example is a monogamous relationship) - where does the "bad" come in?
You can't fall back on your holy book, your place of worship's traditions and teachings, or the instructions from your supernatural being - these are your personal beliefs, and not shared by those who have a different (or no) holy book, a different (or no) place of worship, and a different (or no) set of instructions from the same (or different (or many different (or no))) supernatural being -

so where does the monogamous, "fixed", disease free couple's sexual activities become wrong? Where is the immorality?

Put your belief in your god aside for a moment, I'll put aside my non-belief in anything supernatural aside, and let's try and come at this on some common ground - what is moral outside of religious beliefs. (If you have no sense of morality outside of your religious belief, I think we may have identified an issue in us trying to discuss this.)

After all, sex in a video game isn't going to result in disease, pregnancy, or hurt feelings.
Actions someone takes outside of the game may cause those, but the game having sex in it cannot be held responsible for what people do.

Whether sex in the game is immoral or not comes down, almost universally, to one's religious beliefs - for outside of religion, where is sex wrong (given the no pregnancy, no disease, long-term monogamous relationship situation described)? If you have to revert to scenarios (diseases, unwanted pregnancies, cheating on partners, etc.) then you are not talking about the act of sex but the careless acts of sex or the abuse of trust, issues that can exist without sex in other situations - like owning a gun, driving a car, having a friendship, working at a job - and the carelessness or abuse that can come from people regardless of what the situation is.

Modifié par MerinTB, 04 décembre 2009 - 04:50 .

[Alexus_VG]

Whoa I'm getting a little confused here. Before I went to sleep we were discussing sex in Dragon Age or atlest in games. Have we moved on to just sex in general because it could be argued this may not be the place for such a debate.

[Sa Seba]

This thread has it all. Sex, Religion..... wait, politics is missing.
If you don't like the sex scenes in game, how about using the escape button?

I think someone should sacrifice him/herself and teach aymanhaq about the bees and the flowers.

Religion hardly ever stops humankind from still behaving like animals anyway.

Modifié par Sa Seba, 04 décembre 2009 - 06:46 .

[squeed]

mass effect the alien scene was well done and the fact that the human skin color scenes were cut down from that annoyed me, then the bad angle in underwear stuff in dragon age ...please if you are not going to put sex appeal in the sex scene just take the whole plot idea out altogether, but really the thing that distracted me completely from one awsome plot was the hair statically stuck onto the forsest ladys nipples, REALLY??? like taking four steps back if you ask me she have an accident with superglue... was superglue around back then?

[squeed]

mass effect the alien scene was well done and the fact that the human skin color scenes were cut down from that annoyed me, then the bad angle in underwear stuff in dragon age ...please if you are not going to put sex appeal in the sex scene just take the whole plot idea out altogether, but really the thing that distracted me completely from one awsome plot was the hair statically stuck onto the forsest ladys nipples, REALLY??? like taking four steps back if you ask me she have an accident with superglue... was superglue around back then?

[Xaltar81]

squeed wrote...

but really the thing that distracted me completely from one awsome plot was the hair statically stuck onto the forsest ladys nipples, REALLY??? like taking four steps back if you ask me she have an accident with superglue... was superglue around back then?

Let me clarify something here. Game developers have strict guidlines to follow reguarding nudity in games. Comments like this will likely result in a fully clothed forest lady in DAO 2 because they CAN'T make her show nipples. And that is the point of this topic, we are discussing the stupidity of the aforementioned restrictions. Any 3d artist with a modicum of skill can tell looking at the wireframe of the "unclothed model" in Adinos' model viewer that the "bra" and panties were added after the fact and rather hurridly done too. There are badly cut quads that simply weren't cleaned up and left smoothing errors on the mesh. This tells me that throughout the dev period the bioware guys were using actuall nudes but added the underwear for release because of restrictions. I could be wrong but I highly doubt it. Censorship in games is rediculous and you can thank religious groups an conservatives for that. The ignorant fools that think only 12 year olds play games. Look at the age and gender thread lol.

[Bryy_Miller]

If you don't like the sex scenes in game, how about using the escape button?

You are assuming that we don't already do this.

[Alexus_VG]

Here is a thought. Why not try for constructive crits as opposed to whow that realy sucked or hey where are the boobies. Maybe that way the developers might work on imroving certain things that were lacking in the cutscenes in patches, expansions or future games as opposed to removing said content alltogether.



As for those of you that thought that the romance would be better of without the sex, I've only persued one of the romance options from begginig through to the end but if I recall correctly the option was there to persue it without the sex happening. It was largely dependent on your PC aggreeing to it after all.

[Bryy_Miller]

I did the sex scene primarily because I wanted to see how hilarious it was.



Also, Aymanhaq, it is impossible to have scientific proof of God. If you want to believe that it is proof, fine. But please do not act like your subjectivity allows you to slap others beliefs around.

[Inarai]

aymanhaq wrote...

Deathstyk85 wrote...

this has the classics signs of the "holier than thou" type situation lol.
also reminds me of little kids "my dad can beat up your dad" only put in religion instead of dad..lol

Not really...I'm not talking about beating anyone up. Plus im not spewing random rhetoric, i have proof. Lastly get back to the topic at hand. Im not turning this forum in a religious debate.

Well, that would be a monumental event.

But, it comes down to this:  You have your morality, fine.  You have NO RIGHT, period end of story, to try to mandate that as some sort of universal code of conduct.  Every right you attempt to exercise, you must acknowledge everyone else holds as well - this means that no right offers you the freedom to control the conduct of others.

[MerinTB]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Also, Aymanhaq, it is impossible to have scientific proof of God. If you want to believe that it is proof, fine. But please do not act like your subjectivity allows you to slap others beliefs around.

This is truth.

A key concept of science is falsifiability - that is that any given hypothesis, to be proven true, must be able to be proved false.

You CANNOT disprove an omniscient, omnipotent God exists.  If a God is all powerful, then God can do anything.  Including defy all laws of the natural world.  It'd be like trying to prove and invisible, intangible, undetectable pink unicorn is not standing right next to you - you cannot disprove it, it is not falsibiable because you cannot test for its existence, and thereforever you cannot prove it exists.

Being unable to prove something doesn't exist does not mean it does exist.