642 réponses à ce sujet

[Harle Cerulean]

Plaintiff wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Speaking of Skyrim, it's pretty damn hilarious that there are three Argonians that you can marry, but only one Redguard.

And no Wood Elves!  Seriously, wtf.  (No Khajiit, either - not even for Khajiit PCs.  Beats me.)  Also, no male high elves, and only one female high elf.

I'm not sure who decided which NPCs would be marriable, but I'm fairly certain they were drunk when they made the choices.

I only play Khajiit in Skyrim (It's just impossible to make a human that I could stand to look at for any length of time). I got bored with Skyrim pretty quick, but if I ever go back to it, I'll have my Khajiit marry an Argonian, and make hideous cat-lizard babies.

With the Hearthfire DLC, you could adopt!  You could be a catperson married to a lizardperson with a Nord (or Breton or Redgaurd) rugrat.

[Rawgrim]

Plaintiff wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Speaking of Skyrim, it's pretty damn hilarious that there are three Argonians that you can marry, but only one Redguard.

And no Wood Elves!  Seriously, wtf.  (No Khajiit, either - not even for Khajiit PCs.  Beats me.)  Also, no male high elves, and only one female high elf.

I'm not sure who decided which NPCs would be marriable, but I'm fairly certain they were drunk when they made the choices.

I only play Khajiit in Skyrim (It's just impossible to make a human that I could stand to look at for any length of time). I got bored with the game pretty quick, but if I ever go back to it, I'll have my Khajiit marry an Argonian, and make hideous cat-lizard babies.

I think they lay eggs, actually. So...furry eggs...Nice.

[Xilizhra]

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You haven`t restrained yourself at all earlier. You have called people bigots for not agreeing with you, and you called me deranged because I thought Merrill was too young for me. Thats usually when you lose a discussion, you know. When you move away from the subject being discussed, and just do personal attacks against the oposition.

For the first, you're getting me confused with someone else; I just defended the usage of the word. For the second, you were objectively wrong and your perceptions were highly skewed. If I used the wrong word choice, I'll admit to that, but it's not really a matter of opinion; you were wrong.

And yet several people agreed with me. They all saw why someone would think Merrill was too young and naive.

Multiple people can be wrong at the same time, it's hardly a great feat.

Exactly. Everyone is wrong but you.

That kind of thing happens sometimes, true.

[jillabender]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Plaintiff: This isn't a thread arguing my analogy - so I'll explain a little and then move on. I own a garden center - a business that targets approx. 80% women. To that end - marketing is targeted at women. We sell more flowers - because women like flowers over shrubs. And - during Christmas - we make a lot of money off trees, wreaths, etc.

As an aside - a fellow garden center became surrounded by a large jewish population. As a result - their Christmas season is far more diminished than my own. So they compensate with other products. If I carried equal parts Christmas/Hannuka goods - I'd be closing my doors in two/three years.  Since - as you aptly pointed out - you only choose one product (and during the majority of the year - a person's faith is irrellevant at my establishment).  So I actually think the analogy is pretty good.  But again - not the point of the thread.

I was simply stating that "if it were necessary" - not trying to downplay the relevance of representation. 

I'm not against equal representation - but even as the target minority - I'd always choose for more straight romances if I had to make a choice due to resources.

I don't believe there's a business in the world that wouldn't choose their largest money making audience - if the choice is necessary (if it isn't - then equality for all - sure)

Anyway - didn't mean to bust the vibe of the thread.

As I said in my PM to you, I apologize for misinterpreting your post. With respect, I'm not sure your analogy applies here, for the same reason Plaintiff cited - this is a case of a single product being sold to a variety of groups, not a case of a vendor choosing between different products that are geared to different groups. But I certainly don't think there's anything bigoted about what you're saying.

Modifié par jillabender, 16 février 2013 - 06:28 .

[sarakirrer]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Speaking of Skyrim, it's pretty damn hilarious that there are three Argonians that you can marry, but only one Redguard.

And no Wood Elves!  Seriously, wtf.  (No Khajiit, either - not even for Khajiit PCs.  Beats me.)  Also, no male high elves, and only one female high elf.

I'm not sure who decided which NPCs would be marriable, but I'm fairly certain they were drunk when they made the choices.  Case in point, Octeive San, the elderly, retired drunk in Solitude with a grown daughter - he's marriable.  XD

Yeah, they made some reeeeeeeally strange choices about which NPCs you could marry in that game (and by extension, the ones you couldn't).

[sarakirrer]

jillabender wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Plaintiff: This isn't a thread arguing my analogy - so I'll explain a little and then move on. I own a garden center - a business that targets approx. 80% women. To that end - marketing is targeted at women. We sell more flowers - because women like flowers over shrubs. And - during Christmas - we make a lot of money off trees, wreaths, etc.

As an aside - a fellow garden center became surrounded by a large jewish population. As a result - their Christmas season is far more diminished than my own. So they compensate with other products. If I carried equal parts Christmas/Hannuka goods - I'd be closing my doors in two/three years.  Since - as you aptly pointed out - you only choose one product (and during the majority of the year - a person's faith is irrellevant at my establishment).  So I actually think the analogy is pretty good.  But again - not the point of the thread.

I was simply stating that "if it were necessary" - not trying to downplay the relevance of representation. 

I'm not against equal representation - but even as the target minority - I'd always choose for more straight romances if I had to make a choice due to resources.

I don't believe there's a business in the world that wouldn't choose their largest money making audience - if the choice is necessary (if it isn't - then equality for all - sure)

Anyway - didn't mean to bust the vibe of the thread.

As I said in my PM to you, I apologize for misinterpreting your post. With respect, I'm not sure your analogy applies here, for the same reason Plaintiff cited - this is a case of a single product being sold to a variety of groups, not a case of choosing between products. But I certainly don't think there's anything bigoted about what you're saying.

I don't think you said anything bigoted, either. Bringing up resource allocation/business practices is a valid point!

[Plaintiff]

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Speaking of Skyrim, it's pretty damn hilarious that there are three Argonians that you can marry, but only one Redguard.

And no Wood Elves!  Seriously, wtf.  (No Khajiit, either - not even for Khajiit PCs.  Beats me.)  Also, no male high elves, and only one female high elf.

I'm not sure who decided which NPCs would be marriable, but I'm fairly certain they were drunk when they made the choices.

I only play Khajiit in Skyrim (It's just impossible to make a human that I could stand to look at for any length of time). I got bored with the game pretty quick, but if I ever go back to it, I'll have my Khajiit marry an Argonian, and make hideous cat-lizard babies.

I think they lay eggs, actually. So...furry eggs...Nice.

Arjiit!

Khagonians?

Quickly, someone draw what a Khajiit-Argonian baby would look like!

Modifié par Plaintiff, 16 février 2013 - 05:58 .

[jillabender]

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but some sentiments on the topic of characters with "subjective sexualities" have come up in this thread that I find really problematic, and I'd like to address that.

I get that some people prefer set sexualities over subjective (fluid and open to interpretation) sexualities for romanceable characters, and I do like the idea of having characters representing a range of sexualities, but I agree with BioWare that giving characters set sexualities is less important than treating same-sex romances and straight romances equally.

It bothers me when people express the sentiment "I have nothing against bisexuality, but it feels unrealistic to have so many bisexual characters in a game." Leaving aside the fact that the romance options in DA2 are better described as having subjective sexualities, I get the strong sense that the people who make those kinds of comments simply feel uncomfortable about anything that challenges their idea that heterosexuality should always be treated as the norm.

Modifié par jillabender, 16 février 2013 - 07:31 .

[Rawgrim]

jillabender wrote...

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but some sentiments on the topic of characters with "subjective sexualities" have come up in this thread that I find really problematic, and I'd like to address that.

I get that some people prefer set sexualities over subjective (fluid and open to interpretation) sexualities for romanceable characters, and I do like the idea of having characters representing a rage of sexualities, but I agree with BioWare that giving characters set sexualities is less important than treating same-sex romances and straight romances equally.

It bothers me when people express the sentiment "I have nothing against bisexuality, but it feels unrealistic to have so many bisexual characters in a game." Leaving aside the fact that the romance options in DA2 are better described as having subjective sexualities, I get the strong sense that the people who make those kinds of comments feel simply feel uncomfortable about anything that challenges their idea that heterosexuality should always be treated as the norm.

Well, as I said, I find it unrealistic that everyone is BI. But I also said that it would be better to have 2 bisexual options, 1 gay, and just 1 straight option. So same sex relationship doesn`t challenge my heterosexual views or whatever.

[Xilizhra]

Well, as I said, I find it unrealistic that everyone is BI. But I also said that it would be better to have 2 bisexual options, 1 gay, and just 1 straight option. So same sex relationship doesn`t challenge my heterosexual views or whatever.

So... what, are both women bisexual with one gay man and one straight one? The other way around? Some other combination? How is this going to work, and how is it in any way superior to what we have?

[Harle Cerulean]

Plaintiff wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Speaking of Skyrim, it's pretty damn hilarious that there are three Argonians that you can marry, but only one Redguard.

And no Wood Elves!  Seriously, wtf.  (No Khajiit, either - not even for Khajiit PCs.  Beats me.)  Also, no male high elves, and only one female high elf.

I'm not sure who decided which NPCs would be marriable, but I'm fairly certain they were drunk when they made the choices.

I only play Khajiit in Skyrim (It's just impossible to make a human that I could stand to look at for any length of time). I got bored with the game pretty quick, but if I ever go back to it, I'll have my Khajiit marry an Argonian, and make hideous cat-lizard babies.

I think they lay eggs, actually. So...furry eggs...Nice.

Arjiit!

Khagonians?

Quickly, someone draw what a Khajiit-Argonian baby would look like!

?

(Word to the wise: never google image search "furry crocodile."  I realized about a second too late what kind of results that was going to get me... I changed it to "hairy" instead of furry, as soon as I could, oh god.)

[Rawgrim]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, as I said, I find it unrealistic that everyone is BI. But I also said that it would be better to have 2 bisexual options, 1 gay, and just 1 straight option. So same sex relationship doesn`t challenge my heterosexual views or whatever.

So... what, are both women bisexual with one gay man and one straight one? The other way around? Some other combination? How is this going to work, and how is it in any way superior to what we have?

Sorry. 1 gay for each gender. 2 bisexuals, and 1 straight for each.

[Xilizhra]

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, as I said, I find it unrealistic that everyone is BI. But I also said that it would be better to have 2 bisexual options, 1 gay, and just 1 straight option. So same sex relationship doesn`t challenge my heterosexual views or whatever.

So... what, are both women bisexual with one gay man and one straight one? The other way around? Some other combination? How is this going to work, and how is it in any way superior to what we have?

Sorry. 1 gay for each gender. 2 bisexuals, and 1 straight for each.

So you want six LIs, and five of them are going to be into the PC? Is that really less problematic than four bisexual people? And doesn't that just make even more resources be consumed by romance plots?

[Rawgrim]

Xilizhra wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, as I said, I find it unrealistic that everyone is BI. But I also said that it would be better to have 2 bisexual options, 1 gay, and just 1 straight option. So same sex relationship doesn`t challenge my heterosexual views or whatever.

So... what, are both women bisexual with one gay man and one straight one? The other way around? Some other combination? How is this going to work, and how is it in any way superior to what we have?

Sorry. 1 gay for each gender. 2 bisexuals, and 1 straight for each.

So you want six LIs, and five of them are going to be into the PC? Is that really less problematic than four bisexual people? And doesn't that just make even more resources be consumed by romance plots?

Running into 3 sexualties is more belivable than just running into 1.

[Xilizhra]

Running into 3 sexualties is more belivable than just running into 1.

My suspension of disbelief isn't broken either way, and I'll never advocate for anything other than that which we have in DA2 now.

[Rawgrim]

Xilizhra wrote...

Running into 3 sexualties is more belivable than just running into 1.

My suspension of disbelief isn't broken either way, and I'll never advocate for anything other than that which we have in DA2 now.

Wich is partially the reason why DA2 sold badly. Shortcuts.

[jillabender]

Rawgrim wrote...

jillabender wrote...

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but some sentiments on the topic of characters with "subjective sexualities" have come up in this thread that I find really problematic, and I'd like to address that.

I get that some people prefer set sexualities over subjective (fluid and open to interpretation) sexualities for romanceable characters, and I do like the idea of having characters representing a range of sexualities, but I agree with BioWare that giving characters set sexualities is less important than treating same-sex romances and straight romances equally.

It bothers me when people express the sentiment "I have nothing against bisexuality, but it feels unrealistic to have so many bisexual characters in a game." Leaving aside the fact that the romance options in DA2 are better described as having subjective sexualities, I get the strong sense that the people who make those kinds of comments simply feel uncomfortable about anything that challenges their idea that heterosexuality should always be treated as the norm.

Well, as I said, I find it unrealistic that everyone is BI. But I also said that it would be better to have 2 bisexual options, 1 gay, and just 1 straight option. So same sex relationship doesn`t challenge my heterosexual views or whatever.

I certainly don't want to paint everyone who's dissatisfied with the subjective sexualities with the same brush, but I do think that there is a problem with the way many people express the view that "having so many bisexual love interests in the game is unrealistic."

My issue is that in a world where gay, bisexual and pansexual people weren't viewed as lesser, people wouldn't think twice about a story in which many characters are potentially interested in people of both genders - because they wouldn't see same-sex or bisexual attraction as anything out of the ordinary.

Modifié par jillabender, 16 février 2013 - 07:53 .

[Xilizhra]

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Running into 3 sexualties is more belivable than just running into 1.

My suspension of disbelief isn't broken either way, and I'll never advocate for anything other than that which we have in DA2 now.

Wich is partially the reason why DA2 sold badly. Shortcuts.

I'm fairly sure that the romances were an extremely minor part of that, especially since Inquisition is repeating the pattern without being nearly so rushed.

[Thrillian]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Thats kind of a problem. My character determining a companions sexuality, in a way. Feels like a sim rather than an rpg. People just changing sexuality and whatsnot, just to cater to my needs or whatever.

They're not your needs that are being catered to, but the needs of those who've been historically disenfranchised from this kind of thing. It's none of your concern.

Not to mention that in any given playthrough, the majority of your companions are not bi. As an example If your pc is male Anders is gay, if your pc is female Anders is straight. That is not the same thing as bi.

No, Anders is always pansexual - he says so himself, ffs.  Do I really need to link the post where Gaider says that while your perception may change between playthroughs, who Anders is doesn't change?  Not telling f!Hawke about Karl doesn't make him straight, it makes him not telling the woman he's crushing on that he likes dick because it's irrelevant.

I beg your pardon, I meant no offence.  Wow.  All I was trying to say is that the only way to know that some companions (I just used Anders as an example) like both men and women is by playing through the game as both a man and a woman in different play throughs.

[Rixatrix]

jillabender wrote...

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but some sentiments on the topic of characters with "subjective sexualities" have come up in this thread that I find really problematic, and I'd like to address that.

I get that some people prefer set sexualities over subjective (fluid and open to interpretation) sexualities for romanceable characters, and I do like the idea of having characters representing a rage of sexualities, but I agree with BioWare that giving characters set sexualities is less important than treating same-sex romances and straight romances equally.

It bothers me when people express the sentiment "I have nothing against bisexuality, but it feels unrealistic to have so many bisexual characters in a game." Leaving aside the fact that the romance options in DA2 are better described as having subjective sexualities, I get the strong sense that the people who make those kinds of comments feel simply feel uncomfortable about anything that challenges their idea that heterosexuality should always be treated as the norm.

+1.  You worded this just right, don't buy into anything that says otherwise.

I agree, equality for SS/OS relationship is far more important than "realism" in sexuality.  First off, the characters weren't even all "bi."  Some of them were as a story point, but the rest were Hawke-sexual.   In any given playthrough, the love interests will be what you make of them.  

The argument that PC-sexuality makes a story inconsistent across multiple playthroughs is innately flawed by the fact that many variables have such an effect.  Doing a quest differently, choosing (not) to recruit a character, making any choice really will make the story "inconsistent" and thus "unrealistic" across multiple playthroughs.  I fail to see how this type of "realism" really matters... to me at least, it seems inconsequential, whereas the issue of gay/straight/bi equality, by comparison, is FAR more substantial.

[Harle Cerulean]

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Thrillho_82 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Thats kind of a problem. My character determining a companions sexuality, in a way. Feels like a sim rather than an rpg. People just changing sexuality and whatsnot, just to cater to my needs or whatever.

They're not your needs that are being catered to, but the needs of those who've been historically disenfranchised from this kind of thing. It's none of your concern.

Not to mention that in any given playthrough, the majority of your companions are not bi. As an example If your pc is male Anders is gay, if your pc is female Anders is straight. That is not the same thing as bi.

No, Anders is always pansexual - he says so himself, ffs.  Do I really need to link the post where Gaider says that while your perception may change between playthroughs, who Anders is doesn't change?  Not telling f!Hawke about Karl doesn't make him straight, it makes him not telling the woman he's crushing on that he likes dick because it's irrelevant.

I beg your pardon, I meant no offence.  Wow.  All I was trying to say is that the only way to know that some companions (I just used Anders as an example) like both men and women is by playing through the game as both a man and a woman in different play throughs.

 

Sorry, I did jump down your throat a bit there.  I'm a bit touchy when it comes to bi or pan erasure, since we get it from all sides.  Still, I should have been more polite.  My apologies.

[Battlebloodmage]

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Running into 3 sexualties is more belivable than just running into 1.

My suspension of disbelief isn't broken either way, and I'll never advocate for anything other than that which we have in DA2 now.

Wich is partially the reason why DA2 sold badly. Shortcuts.

DA2 was bad because of the art style, repetitive dungeons, no variation in monsters, less customizations, etc. It all has to do with gameplay, and I don't think it has to do with romance at all. If bisexuality is a reason for people not buying a game, Skyrim wouldn't have sold that well. Romance is just a subplot, and I doubt people would base their buying decision on it. 

[Rawgrim]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Running into 3 sexualties is more belivable than just running into 1.

My suspension of disbelief isn't broken either way, and I'll never advocate for anything other than that which we have in DA2 now.

Wich is partially the reason why DA2 sold badly. Shortcuts.

DA2 was bad because of the art style, repetitive dungeons, no variation in monsters, less customizations, etc. It all has to do with gameplay, and I don't think it has to do with romance at all. If bisexuality is a reason for people not buying a game, Skyrim wouldn't have sold that well. Romance is just a subplot, and I doubt people would base their buying decision on it. 

They said the romances got "bisexualized" because of a shortcut too. That was what i was getting at. i think Plaintiff had a quote about it, or something.

[jillabender]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

jillabender wrote...

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but some sentiments on the topic of characters with "subjective sexualities" have come up in this thread that I find really problematic, and I'd like to address that.

I get that some people prefer set sexualities over subjective (fluid and open to interpretation) sexualities for romanceable characters, and I do like the idea of having characters representing a rage of sexualities, but I agree with BioWare that giving characters set sexualities is less important than treating same-sex romances and straight romances equally.

It bothers me when people express the sentiment "I have nothing against bisexuality, but it feels unrealistic to have so many bisexual characters in a game." Leaving aside the fact that the romance options in DA2 are better described as having subjective sexualities, I get the strong sense that the people who make those kinds of comments feel simply feel uncomfortable about anything that challenges their idea that heterosexuality should always be treated as the norm.

+1.  You worded this just right, don't buy into anything that says otherwise.

I agree, equality for SS/OS relationship is far more important than "realism" in sexuality.  First off, the characters weren't even all "bi."  Some of them were as a story point, but the rest were Hawke-sexual.   In any given playthrough, the love interests will be what you make of them.  

The argument that PC-sexuality makes a story inconsistent across multiple playthroughs is innately flawed by the fact that many variables have such an effect.  Doing a quest differently, choosing (not) to recruit a character, making any choice really will make the story "inconsistent" and thus "unrealistic" across multiple playthroughs.  I fail to see how this type of "realism" really matters... to me at least, it seems inconsequential, whereas the issue of gay/straight/bi equality, by comparison, is FAR more substantial.

Thank you! As I said above, I hope that one day attitudes will change to the point where non-straight sexualities are seen as a normal part of human variation, and stories that feature many non-straight characters aren't seen as anything out of the ordinary.

[Rawgrim]

jillabender wrote...

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

jillabender wrote...

I apologize for going on a bit of a tangent, but some sentiments on the topic of characters with "subjective sexualities" have come up in this thread that I find really problematic, and I'd like to address that.

I get that some people prefer set sexualities over subjective (fluid and open to interpretation) sexualities for romanceable characters, and I do like the idea of having characters representing a rage of sexualities, but I agree with BioWare that giving characters set sexualities is less important than treating same-sex romances and straight romances equally.

It bothers me when people express the sentiment "I have nothing against bisexuality, but it feels unrealistic to have so many bisexual characters in a game." Leaving aside the fact that the romance options in DA2 are better described as having subjective sexualities, I get the strong sense that the people who make those kinds of comments feel simply feel uncomfortable about anything that challenges their idea that heterosexuality should always be treated as the norm.

+1.  You worded this just right, don't buy into anything that says otherwise.

I agree, equality for SS/OS relationship is far more important than "realism" in sexuality.  First off, the characters weren't even all "bi."  Some of them were as a story point, but the rest were Hawke-sexual.   In any given playthrough, the love interests will be what you make of them.  

The argument that PC-sexuality makes a story inconsistent across multiple playthroughs is innately flawed by the fact that many variables have such an effect.  Doing a quest differently, choosing (not) to recruit a character, making any choice really will make the story "inconsistent" and thus "unrealistic" across multiple playthroughs.  I fail to see how this type of "realism" really matters... to me at least, it seems inconsequential, whereas the issue of gay/straight/bi equality, by comparison, is FAR more substantial.

Thank you! As I said above, I hope that one day attitudes will change to the point where non-straight sexualities are seen as a normal part of human variation, and stories that feature many non-straight characters aren't seen as anything out of the ordinary.

I hope they are seen as normal too. But the cynic in me tells me it will never happen. The bible has a phrase in it where it says to kill men who sleeps with men etc. As long as huge religions has a say in such things, we will have huge groups of people that sees homosexuality as evil and unnatural.

Stires with non-straight characters are becoming more and more frequent, though. so that bit is moving in the right direction, at least.