649 réponses à ce sujet

[Rinji the Bearded]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Just responding in kind to being branded a homophobe dude. Felt good.

So your method of responding to an alleged attack is to throw out gendered and vulgar insults?

Seems a little imbalanced and weird, doesn't it?

[upsettingshorts]

We can drop the tedious insult nonsense and move on:

Fandango9641 wrote...

why then can we not talk about the quality of interaction?

Define quality.  What makes an interaction a quality interaction?

Fandango9641 wrote... 

My objections aren’t predicated on sexual preference, they are coming from a place where I would like to see LI's be a little more sophisticated.

Define sophisticated.  In what way does the all-bi approach harm this?  In what way would a different approach be more sophisticated?

Please use examples.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 04:21 .

[Cantina]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

LOL - I love this!
I don't know about anyone else, but when I played a female mage in DA:O I just loved giving Alistair a hard time about being a Templar. I mean, I gave him a real ballbusting - especially at our first meeting. It made for some seriously interesting RP, and Steve Valentine's voice acting fit perfectly with the way he always sounded mildly suspicious when you first began to initiate flirts with him.

I'd love for them to be able to do more of that, especially with specializations, but I seem to recall reading at some point on the forum that there's a reason it's not terribly common.

For example in DA2 much of the writing (and perhaps voice acting) was complete before the specializations were finalized (like Blood Mage or Templar) so it wouldn't have been possible to link dialogue options to react to builds that might not be in the final game.

However, as I don't have a link to the post discussing this I wouldn't be offended if people took this as rumor/hearsay.

I think a lot of that was lost in the whole Hawke family mage legacy that the writers built up. It made the story mesh well together, but a small downside of that was that when you threatened a Templar as a warrior, it made just as much sense as it would if you were a mage because it's still a touchy subject for everyone in the Hawke family. Nobody, as far as I've seen in the game discriminates against warriors or rogues so those options were lost in both DA's and made extra special for mages.

I'd love to see specializations make a bigger difference in DAIII, especially among your companions. Anders (and maybe Fenris) should have dumped you as soon as you became a blood mage, IMO.

Exactly hun.

I think Anders being involved with a Templar, would be weird, but tolerable. However if the player is a Blood Mage or becomes a Blood Mage,Anders and Fenris would either break off the relationship or you could not peruse a relationship with them.

Dunno from my view point my Hawke hates Blood Mages, I would not have her get involved with Merill. I would expect the same from Fenris and Anders. Why would they want to be with a Blood Mage, when they clearly state they hate Blood Mages. Crazy.

[brushyourteeth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

You misunderstand.  What typically happens is:

I read an argument against bisexual romances in Dragon Age.  Some are transparently and unapologetically homophobic, we can agree that neither of us are defending those.  Some display a poorly disguised discomfort with bisexuality or homosexuality, such as "I don't like that he could be romancing another man in someone else's game," you can see how those are problematic, too, I take it.  Some are incredibly vague and assert that there are problems with the bisexual approach and claim there is some inherent superiority to another approach.  The latter group of posts is the one I'm talking about.  

When those posters get into a long discussion over precisely what they mean when they say how much better a straight/gay approach is, my impressions are without exception uniformly as I've described.  As such, I have come to expect more of the same.  It would be prejudicial to always assume this to be the case, I'll freely admit that, but given that posters have consistently failed to convince me otherwise it's not a position I'll easily abandon just because some people indignantly protest as I side-eye them.  If you want to convince me, convince me, don't try to make me feel bad because I've heard the same thing countless times and have drawn conclusions.

It's an issue for everyone.  On these boards new arguments are rare.   People pick up on what each other has been saying and repeat arguments, consciously or unconsciously, and if you hang around long enough the patterns become pretty easy to spot.  You have a few posters who come here often enough that they set the tone of discussion, the boundaries, the definitions of terms, and broad arguments.  It doesn't take very long for all the threads and posts to start feeling familiar.  

Listen to what some of these posters are telling you.

Your assumptions that everyone who talks about how gay/straight/bi romances can be improved must be on a homophobic crusade to eradicate equal opportunity romance options are kind of ridiculous.

I meant nothing of the kind in my original post (which should have been quite obvious) and still this assumption was made about me. After being put on the defensive I bent over backwards to explain why your assumption was unfounded. Clearly a waste of time, as everyone who read what I wrote with an open mind gathered I meant nothing of the sort by it, and my efforts to explain went completely unnoticed by you. Instead you hastily pursued a similar crusade against another poster.

If anyone on these forums is found to be prejudiced, by all means give it to them. Just don't look for enemies where there aren't any.

[upsettingshorts]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Listen to what some of these posters are telling you.

I've already responded to you specifically, my general point remains and it is one about forum trends.

Calm yourself, just because I posted after you doesn't mean every following post is still about you.

brushyourteeth wrote... 

Your assumptions that everyone who talks about how gay/straight/bi romances can be improved must be on a homophobic crusade to eradicate equal opportunity romance options are kind of ridiculous.

You should listen to what I'm telling you, since that's not my argument.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 04:23 .

[brushyourteeth]

jlb524 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
What I'm saying is that having straight or gay only LI's never limits a player's options - it simply limits their gay or straight only romance options. In an world where nobody had a problem with sexual orientation this wouldn't bother anyone. We'd simply choose another gender and/or another LI on a second playthrough.

That isn't to insinuate that you or anyone else is prejudiced because they usually romance their real-life preferred gender in a game (I do too - usually). But it does insinuate that no one should be unhappy about being unable to romance a given character based on that character's sexuality - because the option is still open to them, just not maybe in the way that they would prefer.

I know it doesn't limit those that play both genders/all sexualities.

It does limit options for those that prefer to play one gender all the time for whatever reason or for those that prefer to play only homosexual/heterosexual romances.

There's nothing wrong with that and these people are gamers too that deserve to be considered when discussing this.

On the other hand, the 'all bi' thing does not limit those that are open to playing both genders or all sexualities.

In one situation, you are going to limit people...in the other you aren't.

I definitely agree with that.

It's a fine point, but one I hoped to make anyway because I'd like to see LI's in the (probably far-off) future that are simply gay and simply straight. I liked the way it worked in ME3 (as a female Shepard, I never coveted the ability to flirt with Cortez -- I just loved and respected that he was gay). Because in truth, it doesn't limit the player. It just limits the way that one plays, and that's not quite the same thing and not quite worth the stink that quite a few forumites put up about it.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 02 mai 2012 - 04:25 .

[upsettingshorts]

brushyourteeth wrote...

What I'm saying is that having straight or gay only LI's never limits a player's options - it simply limits their gay or straight only romance options. In an world where nobody had a problem with sexual orientation this wouldn't bother anyone. We'd simply choose another gender and/or another LI on a second playthrough.

It limits the number of combinations of PC gender and Romance options by making which of the latter are available based upon the player's choice of the former.

What if, for example, I only want to play a male protagonist but want to romance everyone?

[John Epler]

Circumventing the swear filter to use a rather loaded slur is not a gangbusters idea.

Everyone else, let's take a deep breath and try to discuss things civilly and respectfully.

[brushyourteeth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Listen to what some of these posters are telling you.

I've already responded to you specifically, my general point remains and it is one about forum trends.

Calm yourself, just because I posted after you doesn't mean every following post is still about you.

brushyourteeth wrote... 

Your assumptions that everyone who talks about how gay/straight/bi romances can be improved must be on a homophobic crusade to eradicate equal opportunity romance options are kind of ridiculous.

You should listen to what I'm telling you, since that's not my argument.

Wow. Just wow.

Well, I hope it will be helpful to point out to you that you are pretty much the only person left in this thread still keeping that facet of the topic alive. So if you want it to be dropped, feel free to drop it with my full support.

[Tirigon]

Cantina wrote...

Exactly hun.

I think Anders being involved with a Templar, would be weird, but tolerable. However if the player is a Blood Mage or becomes a Blood Mage,Anders and Fenris would either break off the relationship or you could not peruse a relationship with them.

Dunno from my view point my Hawke hates Blood Mages, I would not have her get involved with Merill. I would expect the same from Fenris and Anders. Why would they want to be with a Blood Mage, when they clearly state they hate Blood Mages. Crazy.

No, it is called "dumping prejudices and learning".

They hate blood mages because, to them, bloodmages are evil halfdemon beasts who use their powers to control kings, terrorize the smallfolk and sacrifice virgins to foul "gods".

Yet Hawke is no such thing, even if he takes to bloodmagic to defeat his enemies. Thus, Anders and Fenris learn that, even though most bloodmageshappen to be indeed evil, being one does not make you evil by nature, if you were a cool guy before you learned the technique.

The Hawke they grew to like or even love is still the same.





Of course they should have known that from the beginning, but well... One is a traumatized magic-infused mutant and the other a mage terrorist who does the very thing that inspires most bloodmages to learn their power.

I suppose you cant expect them to have any common sense.

[jlb524]

brushyourteeth wrote...
It's a fine point, but one I hoped to make anyway because I'd like to see LI's in the (probably far-off) future that are simply gay and simply straight. I liked the way it worked in ME3 (as a female Shepard, I never coveted the ability to flirt with Cortez -- I just loved and respected that he was gay).

I never did either and that had nothing to do with his sexuality...he could be bisexual for all I know/care.

Furthermore, I play a lesbian Shepard and I had zero desire to romance Samantha who was 'the lesbian option'...funny that.

brushyourteeth wrote... 
Because in truth, it doesn't limit the player. It just limits the way that one plays, and that's not quite the same thing and not quite worth the stink that quite a few forumites put up about it.

This seems like double-speak to me.

How is limiting the way one plays not limiting them as a player?  If I can't play my preferred romance using my preferred protagonist, I feel limited.

Modifié par jlb524, 02 mai 2012 - 04:32 .

[Rinji the Bearded]

brushyourteeth wrote...

It's a fine point, but one I hoped to make anyway because I'd like to see LI's in the (probably far-off) future that are simply gay and simply straight. I liked the way it worked in ME3 (as a female Shepard, I never coveted the ability to flirt with Cortez -- I just loved and respected that he was gay). Because in truth, it doesn't limit the player. It just limits the way that one plays, and that's not quite the same thing and not quite worth the stink that quite a few forumites put up about it.

Is erasing bisexuality really the way to make things "better"?  I fail to see the logic in that.

And how is limiting options a good thing?

Modifié par RinjiRenee, 02 mai 2012 - 04:32 .

[Darth Krytie]

Dakota Strider wrote...


Thus, everyone has to tip toe around the topic, and say "I don't hate gays"  etc...when that should be the assumption in the first place.

To be perfectly frank, I would never make the assumption because in my experience, the hatred is there...however politely it's expressed.

I won't say that all people who dislike the "all bi" option are homophobes... I really do understand people that prefer a mix because it'd add replay value. (The same way you can have mutually exclusive characters, etc) But most people, most people that object to it, if they're honest, is because they have opinions about gays/bisexuality.

I've actually seen people claim bisexuality is a myth. (I exist, and object to this notion). And anytime I've ever gotten into a debate on LBGT content within BioWare games, opponents to whatever aspect of the content are amazingly consistent in their inability or unwillingness to defend why they feel the way they do. Citing realism fails because there are so many ways Thedas defies realism. Citing a supposed retcon fails because, no, they never made claims about certain characters one way or another. So, you're always left with this feeling...why are you objecting? And why so vehemently? 

To me, it makes less sense that Fenris would romance a mage Hawke than both male/female Hawke...or Anders romance a mage-hating Hawke....but I very rarely see people cite realism concerns there. There are probably more people who will be in a relationship with someone else regardless of their baseline sexuality than for a let's say Peta member/Taxidermist hunting meat eating, leather crafter to get married.

Modifié par Darth Krytie, 02 mai 2012 - 04:33 .

[upsettingshorts]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Wow. Just wow.

Well, I hope it will be helpful to point out to you that you are pretty much the only person left in this thread still keeping that facet of the topic alive. So if you want it to be dropped, feel free to drop it with my full support.

Uh, people keep challenging it?  Like... you?  In the post I was quoting?  

You: I dont like what youre saying
Me: But that's not what I'm saying
You: Stop talking about what you're saying!

...really?

I'd be more than happy to drop it.  Let's talk about how precisely other approaches are better in terms that aren't meaningless, vague generalities.  E.g. the specializations.  That was productive.  

Or you could respond to any of the followups to your assertion that straight/gay options are not limiting, from myself or Rinji or jlb.  They're right there.

[Curlain]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


You misunderstand.  What typically happens is:

I read an argument against bisexual romances in Dragon Age.  Some are transparently and unapologetically homophobic, we can agree that neither of us are defending those.  Some display a poorly disguised discomfort with bisexuality or homosexuality, such as "I don't like that he could be romancing another man in someone else's game," you can see how those are problematic, too, I take it.  Some are incredibly vague and assert that there are problems with the bisexual approach and claim there is some inherent superiority to another approach.  The latter group of posts is the one I'm talking about.  

When those posters get into a long discussion over precisely what they mean when they say how much better a straight/gay approach is, my impressions are without exception uniformly as I've described.  As such, I have come to expect more of the same.  It would be prejudicial to always assume this to be the case, I'll freely admit that, but given that posters have consistently failed to convince me otherwise it's not a position I'll easily abandon just because some people indignantly protest as I side-eye them.  If you want to convince me, convince me, don't try to make me feel bad because I've heard the same thing countless times and have drawn conclusions.

It's an issue for everyone.  On these boards new arguments are rare.   People pick up on what each other has been saying and repeat arguments, consciously or unconsciously, and if you hang around long enough the patterns become pretty easy to spot.  You have a few posters who come here often enough that they set the tone of discussion, the boundaries, the definitions of terms, and broad arguments.  It doesn't take very long for all the threads and posts to start feeling familiar.  

While I can certainly understand reading that how you have the postion you do (when everything does often relate to being the case of feeling like regurgitated agruments again and again, with the forums becoming a bit like Groundhog Day), and can sympathise with it.  However, I still think you take it a step further when you label the posters themselves.  Saying you find the argument's postion unconvincing and having unsound ground, and that you feel the posters are acting more from either pre-concieved opinions and/or allowing metagaming knowledge to affect their game experience is one thing - ie knowing that all LI's can romanced they hit a personal wall of disbelief and respond 'I can't believe that all LI's could be bi', though the situation in Thedas could make this perfectly normal.  Or that it reality it is that they could have a issue with removal of player control they previously though they enjoyed in this area (whether that was the case or not) etc.

However going beyond that to suggest possible discomfort or prejudice isn't fair, as that would require reading poster's minds, which none of us can do (and becomes insulting and places a horrible label on someone we have know way of knowing to be the case).

Modifié par Curlain, 02 mai 2012 - 04:38 .

[brushyourteeth]

jlb524 wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...
It's a fine point, but one I hoped to make anyway because I'd like to see LI's in the (probably far-off) future that are simply gay and simply straight. I liked the way it worked in ME3 (as a female Shepard, I never coveted the ability to flirt with Cortez -- I just loved and respected that he was gay).

I never did either and that had nothing to do with his sexuality...he could be bisexual for all I know/care.

Furthermore, I play a lesbian Shepard and I had zero desire to romance Samantha who was 'the lesbian option'...funny that.

brushyourteeth wrote... 
Because in truth, it doesn't limit the player. It just limits the way that one plays, and that's not quite the same thing and not quite worth the stink that quite a few forumites put up about it.

This seems like double-speak to me.

How is limiting the way one plays not limiting them as a player?  If I can't play my preferred romance using my preferred protagonist, I feel limited.

We're already limited - we can't romance Aveline or Varric.  Does that add to or take away from the story? I believe it adds to, but that's only my opinion. And you're right -- it all chalks up to personal preference. There's nothing wrong with having all bi (or subjectively bi, depending on who you ask) love interests. It doesn't bother me, but I'd like to see more. I'd like to see gays represented. I'd like to see straight people represented. I'd like to see all three. I'd like to be a part of a DA community where that doesn't bother anyone, but I know I'm stretching it a little far to hope for that.

[Cantina]

Tirigon wrote...

Cantina wrote...

Exactly hun.

I think Anders being involved with a Templar, would be weird, but tolerable. However if the player is a Blood Mage or becomes a Blood Mage,Anders and Fenris would either break off the relationship or you could not peruse a relationship with them.

Dunno from my view point my Hawke hates Blood Mages, I would not have her get involved with Merill. I would expect the same from Fenris and Anders. Why would they want to be with a Blood Mage, when they clearly state they hate Blood Mages. Crazy.

No, it is called "dumping prejudices and learning".

They hate blood mages because, to them, bloodmages are evil halfdemon beasts who use their powers to control kings, terrorize the smallfolk and sacrifice virgins to foul "gods".

Yet Hawke is no such thing, even if he takes to bloodmagic to defeat his enemies. Thus, Anders and Fenris learn that, even though most bloodmageshappen to be indeed evil, being one does not make you evil by nature, if you were a cool guy before you learned the technique.

The Hawke they grew to like or even love is still the same.





Of course they should have known that from the beginning, but well... One is a traumatized magic-infused mutant and the other a mage terrorist who does the very thing that inspires most bloodmages to learn their power.

I suppose you cant expect them to have any common sense.

Sorry hun, ya can twist it any way ya want. To me Blood Magic is evil. But really this is not the place to discuss this.

[upsettingshorts]

Curlain wrote...

However going beyond that to suggest possible discomfort or prejudice isn't fair, as that would require reading poster's minds, which none of us can do (and becomes insulting and places a horrible label on someone we have know way of knowing to be the case).

Did you see me individually naming posters here, though?  When I've had reason to dispute the argument of someone in this thread I've asked specific questions, because I want to know the real reasons behind them.  

It's a broad generalization, it's also kicking over anthills.  It's how you get people around here to actually start saying what they mean, instead of buzzwords and vaguery.

I don't buy the premise, essentially, and I'm going to be clear about the fact I don't.  

Cantina wrote...

Sorry hun, ya can twist it any way ya want. To me Blood Magic is evil. But really this is not the place to discuss this. 

It doesn't matter what any of us thinks personally about Blood Magic, it matters what the characters (and your character) thinks about Blood Magic.

I might play one who likes it, or one who thinks it is evil, or one who has no opinion.  That's roleplaying.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 02 mai 2012 - 04:40 .

[AkiKishi]

jlb524 wrote...

No.   It was a serious question.

Sorry, thought it was something to do with ME3's ending being amended because of fan pressure.

[brushyourteeth]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Wow. Just wow.

Well, I hope it will be helpful to point out to you that you are pretty much the only person left in this thread still keeping that facet of the topic alive. So if you want it to be dropped, feel free to drop it with my full support.

Uh, people keep challenging it?  Like... you?  In the post I was quoting?  

You: I dont like what youre saying
Me: But that's not what I'm saying
You: Stop talking about what you're saying!

...really?

I'd be more than happy to drop it.  Let's talk about how precisely other approaches are better in terms that aren't meaningless, vague generalities.  E.g. the specializations.  That was productive.  

Or you could respond to any of the followups to your assertion that straight/gay options are not limiting, from myself or Rinji or jlb.  They're right there.

Wow. That actually made me warm to you a little. Because here's how I interpreted the conversation.

You: I don't like what you're saying
Me: But that's not what I'm saying
Me: Stop talking about what you say I'm saying but I'm not!

It's a touchy subject for you. I get it. And I understand that not every reply was meant for me. But that first one definitely was, and it made some assertions about my feelings that were both false and hurtful. I'm satisfied if you can understand how that happened, and that we're actually on the same side of what shouldn't even be a controversy but is.

[Tirigon]

Cantina wrote...

Sorry hun, ya can twist it any way ya want. To me Blood Magic is evil. But really this is not the place to discuss this.

Which is an opinion you are obviously entitled to, but still a very narrrow-minded, if not downright stupid, one, and one that Anders and Fenris obviously learn to discard when faced with proof to the opposite.

[upsettingshorts]

brushyourteeth wrote...

It's a touchy subject for you. I get it.

It's just the one I've decided is most annoying today.  

[jlb524]

brushyourteeth wrote...
We're already limited - we can't romance Aveline or Varric.  Does that add to or take away from the story? I believe it adds to, but that's only my opinion.

The difference here is that they aren't LIs for anyone.

If they go to the effort to create an LI arc for Character X why should they limit who can pursue it based on gender?  The content is there...and with some tweaking can work for the other gender.  In fact, I used the Morrigan/FemWarden mod and I thought it worked well barring a few pronoun mishaps.

That is the brunt of my issue...I'm talking about content in the game that's just sitting there...but can't be accessed b/c of a gender check.  That's different from content that's not even there for any player in the first place.

 

brushyourteeth wrote... 
And you're right -- it all chalks up to personal preference. There's nothing wrong with having all bi (or subjectively bi, depending on who you ask) love interests. It doesn't bother me, but I'd like to see more. I'd like to see gays represented. I'd like to see straight people represented. I'd like to see all three. I'd like to be a part of a DA community where that doesn't bother anyone, but I know I'm stretching it a little far to hope for that.

Straight people/heterosexualiy is definitely represented in DA games.   You could argue that homosexuality/bisexuality needs more representation outside of optional romances.

[Cantina]

Tirigon wrote...

Cantina wrote...

Sorry hun, ya can twist it any way ya want. To me Blood Magic is evil. But really this is not the place to discuss this.

Which is an opinion you are obviously entitled to, but still a very narrrow-minded, if not downright stupid, one, and one that Anders and Fenris obviously learn to discard when faced with proof to the opposite.

So I'm stupid for having my own opinion?  The logic of people never ceases to amaze me!


Anyway.....back on topic.