596 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

But why is that the one thing that matters? Why is the choice empty unless it fulfills you criteria for being meaningful? It is very important to people, to the point where it has far more impact on their enjoyment than many other things. And as I said, I've seen women (and men) actively argue against having in game effects. For them, it would make the game actually less enjoyable.

I repeat -- I think saying that only the in game effects matter is dismissive. I don't get to be represented in the game, but I wouldn't begrudge the people that finally do, and I think that that is a lot, lot more important than wether or not companion a, b, c and d all like my PC regardless of their sex, or wether people treat me differently or I'm able to do different things based on it.

And lets be honest, how many differences did DA:O have? There was some different dialogue occasionally -- DA2 has that as well. You had two hetero exclusive romances (and the ones that tied the most into the main plot, too). THe Dark Ritual went slightly different because well, a female PC will have some difficulty impreganting someone -- but even then, all that chabges is that you have Loghain/Alistair father the kid if you choose to do it. Which I think you can do as a male, as well...

Yeah you can. One of my male Wardens wasn't touching Morrigan with a 20 foot pole. You can deal with that Alistair.

[Rawgrim]

Ryzaki wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

But why is that the one thing that matters? Why is the choice empty unless it fulfills you criteria for being meaningful? It is very important to people, to the point where it has far more impact on their enjoyment than many other things. And as I said, I've seen women (and men) actively argue against having in game effects. For them, it would make the game actually less enjoyable.

I repeat -- I think saying that only the in game effects matter is dismissive. I don't get to be represented in the game, but I wouldn't begrudge the people that finally do, and I think that that is a lot, lot more important than wether or not companion a, b, c and d all like my PC regardless of their sex, or wether people treat me differently or I'm able to do different things based on it.

And lets be honest, how many differences did DA:O have? There was some different dialogue occasionally -- DA2 has that as well. You had two hetero exclusive romances (and the ones that tied the most into the main plot, too). THe Dark Ritual went slightly different because well, a female PC will have some difficulty impreganting someone -- but even then, all that chabges is that you have Loghain/Alistair father the kid if you choose to do it. Which I think you can do as a male, as well...

Yeah you can. One of my male Wardens wasn't touching Morrigan with a 20 foot pole. You can deal with that Alistair.

One of my wardens (the dwarven noble) actually did have a 20 foot pole, and he did it gladly.

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

But why is that the one thing that matters? Why is the choice empty unless it fulfills you criteria for being meaningful? It is very important to people, to the point where it has far more impact on their enjoyment than many other things. And as I said, I've seen women (and men) actively argue against having in game effects. For them, it would make the game actually less enjoyable.

I repeat -- I think saying that only the in game effects matter is dismissive. I don't get to be represented in the game, but I wouldn't begrudge the people that finally do, and I think that that is a lot, lot more important than wether or not companion a, b, c and d all like my PC regardless of their sex, or wether people treat me differently or I'm able to do different things based on it.

And lets be honest, how many differences did DA:O have? There was some different dialogue occasionally -- DA2 has that as well. You had two hetero exclusive romances (and the ones that tied the most into the main plot, too). THe Dark Ritual went slightly different because well, a female PC will have some difficulty impreganting someone -- but even then, all that chabges is that you have Loghain/Alistair father the kid if you choose to do it. Which I think you can do as a male, as well...

Well I was arguing in-game effects all evening. So I stuck to the topic in order to keep it from getting derailed. I never dismissed anyone for liking this and that in the game. I never said the choice was meaningless to individual players. I said that in the game itself, it has no meaning, and its pretty much never recognized.

Eh, my main issue was with calling it a "blank statement" and "nothing real". But seriously, even in DA:O it didn't matter all that much, other than cutting you off from one of the two plot important romances and not letting you impregnate someone as a female. And really, there are different ways to implement gender differences if one wanted them at all.

[Fiacre]

Ryzaki wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

But why is that the one thing that matters? Why is the choice empty unless it fulfills you criteria for being meaningful? It is very important to people, to the point where it has far more impact on their enjoyment than many other things. And as I said, I've seen women (and men) actively argue against having in game effects. For them, it would make the game actually less enjoyable.

I repeat -- I think saying that only the in game effects matter is dismissive. I don't get to be represented in the game, but I wouldn't begrudge the people that finally do, and I think that that is a lot, lot more important than wether or not companion a, b, c and d all like my PC regardless of their sex, or wether people treat me differently or I'm able to do different things based on it.

And lets be honest, how many differences did DA:O have? There was some different dialogue occasionally -- DA2 has that as well. You had two hetero exclusive romances (and the ones that tied the most into the main plot, too). THe Dark Ritual went slightly different because well, a female PC will have some difficulty impreganting someone -- but even then, all that chabges is that you have Loghain/Alistair father the kid if you choose to do it. Which I think you can do as a male, as well...

Yeah you can. One of my male Wardens wasn't touching Morrigan with a 20 foot pole. You can deal with that Alistair.

I like her but xD Still have to do that playthrough where my male HN is all "I'm engaged! I can't do that! Father-in-law to be, you'll have to." *makes puppy eyes* Been meaning to do that for ages...

[Neon Rising Winter]

Rawgrim wrote...

Well I was arguing in-game effects all evening. So I stuck to the topic in order to keep it from getting derailed. I never dismissed anyone for liking this and that in the game. I never said the choice was meaningless to individual players. I said that in the game itself, it has no meaning, and its pretty much never recognized.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but my impression is you find the choices meaningless if they don't have an effect on the game's story? Rather than say the obvious effects of gender choice - the visual appearance, voice, and references in dialogue to the character.

[Rawgrim]

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

But why is that the one thing that matters? Why is the choice empty unless it fulfills you criteria for being meaningful? It is very important to people, to the point where it has far more impact on their enjoyment than many other things. And as I said, I've seen women (and men) actively argue against having in game effects. For them, it would make the game actually less enjoyable.

I repeat -- I think saying that only the in game effects matter is dismissive. I don't get to be represented in the game, but I wouldn't begrudge the people that finally do, and I think that that is a lot, lot more important than wether or not companion a, b, c and d all like my PC regardless of their sex, or wether people treat me differently or I'm able to do different things based on it.

And lets be honest, how many differences did DA:O have? There was some different dialogue occasionally -- DA2 has that as well. You had two hetero exclusive romances (and the ones that tied the most into the main plot, too). THe Dark Ritual went slightly different because well, a female PC will have some difficulty impreganting someone -- but even then, all that chabges is that you have Loghain/Alistair father the kid if you choose to do it. Which I think you can do as a male, as well...

Well I was arguing in-game effects all evening. So I stuck to the topic in order to keep it from getting derailed. I never dismissed anyone for liking this and that in the game. I never said the choice was meaningless to individual players. I said that in the game itself, it has no meaning, and its pretty much never recognized.

Eh, my main issue was with calling it a "blank statement" and "nothing real". But seriously, even in DA:O it didn't matter all that much, other than cutting you off from one of the two plot important romances and not letting you impregnate someone as a female. And really, there are different ways to implement gender differences if one wanted them at all.

There wasn`t that much. You could become a queen if you married alistair, though. But at least it got recognized. Now we are two races down, and gender doesn`t affect in-game stuff. More and more choices are getting removed from the game. allthough adding more romance options for everyone is a good thing. But it shouldn`t come at a cost of other things that was in the series to begin with.

[katiebour]

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DarkSpiral wrote...
Is that the best you can come up with?  Compare how I react to a video game to how I react to my real lifef riends?  They are nothing remotely the same.

Immersion.  In real life.  That's ridiculous.  Try again.

The only reason for the sexuality of the characters in Dragon Age to disrupt your immersion is if it somehow interferes with your perception of reality.

Even then, that reaction is still illogical because Thedas is not reality and not bound by the same "rules" as reality.

But you insist on imposing your perception of reality onto the fantasy world of Thedas. So yes, I think how you react to similarly non-defined sexualities in real life is extremely relevant.

Thedas is the same as our worl (in medieval times) unless stated otherwise. This is true about every fantasy setting. If there are dragons about, that is an explained difference between our world and thedas. If magic excists in a setting, its real and so on. Its why the codex and lore is important in every fictional setting.

Here's an excerpt from the upcoming book World of Thedas that was the very first thing I saw when I used Amazon's preview feature to peek inside what was available (and which is no longer available, I think, because they redacted a bunch of the pages that we had available to drool over in anticipation for a mere two glorious days or so):



As near as I can tell what with the really tiny writing, it reads:

********************************

THE SEX LIVES OF EVERYDAY THEDOSIANS

What I find most interesting is that, despite the lack of open discussion on matters of human sexuality, there is commonality to be found on the subject in all Andrastian lands.

Typically, one’s sexual habits are considered natural and separate from matters of procreation, and only among the nobility, where procreation involves issues of inheritance and the union of powerful families, is it considered of vital importance.

Yet even there, a noble who has done their duty to the family might be allowed to pursue their own sexual interests without raising eyebrows.

The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender varies from land to land.  In Orlais, it is considered a quirk of character and nothing more.  In Ferelden, it is a matter of scandal if done indiscreetly but otherwise nothing noteworthy.  In Tevinter, it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but actively encouraged with favored slaves.  Nowhere is it forbidden, and sex of any kind is only considered worthy of judgement when taken to awful excess or performed in the public eye.

-From In Pursuit of Knowledge:  The Travels of a Chantry Scholar by Brother Genitivi 

****************

So there you have it.  That's how Thedosians view the spectrum of sexuality.  Buy World of Thedas!  It's coming out soon and has lots of tasty lore!

[Rawgrim]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Well I was arguing in-game effects all evening. So I stuck to the topic in order to keep it from getting derailed. I never dismissed anyone for liking this and that in the game. I never said the choice was meaningless to individual players. I said that in the game itself, it has no meaning, and its pretty much never recognized.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but my impression is you find the choices meaningless if they don't have an effect on the game's story? Rather than say the obvious effects of gender choice - the visual appearance, voice, and references in dialogue to the character.

I don`t find them completely meaningless. But they don`t show up in a meassurable way in-game. It ends up being an illusion of a choice. So your assumption is a right one. In DA:O and other rpgs, the gender choice matters. It can make certain things in game easier, or more difficult at other times. Things like that.

[Fiacre]

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Fiacre wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

But why is that the one thing that matters? Why is the choice empty unless it fulfills you criteria for being meaningful? It is very important to people, to the point where it has far more impact on their enjoyment than many other things. And as I said, I've seen women (and men) actively argue against having in game effects. For them, it would make the game actually less enjoyable.

I repeat -- I think saying that only the in game effects matter is dismissive. I don't get to be represented in the game, but I wouldn't begrudge the people that finally do, and I think that that is a lot, lot more important than wether or not companion a, b, c and d all like my PC regardless of their sex, or wether people treat me differently or I'm able to do different things based on it.

And lets be honest, how many differences did DA:O have? There was some different dialogue occasionally -- DA2 has that as well. You had two hetero exclusive romances (and the ones that tied the most into the main plot, too). THe Dark Ritual went slightly different because well, a female PC will have some difficulty impreganting someone -- but even then, all that chabges is that you have Loghain/Alistair father the kid if you choose to do it. Which I think you can do as a male, as well...

Well I was arguing in-game effects all evening. So I stuck to the topic in order to keep it from getting derailed. I never dismissed anyone for liking this and that in the game. I never said the choice was meaningless to individual players. I said that in the game itself, it has no meaning, and its pretty much never recognized.

Eh, my main issue was with calling it a "blank statement" and "nothing real". But seriously, even in DA:O it didn't matter all that much, other than cutting you off from one of the two plot important romances and not letting you impregnate someone as a female. And really, there are different ways to implement gender differences if one wanted them at all.

There wasn`t that much. You could become a queen if you married alistair, though. But at least it got recognized. Now we are two races down, and gender doesn`t affect in-game stuff. More and more choices are getting removed from the game. allthough adding more romance options for everyone is a good thing. But it shouldn`t come at a cost of other things that was in the series to begin with.

Isn't that more of a general issue, though? And wouldn't it be better solved by putting more choices in in general, be they in character creation, or actual story choices. (And I'm all for the latter. I prefer character creation to be meainly cosmetic outside of the parts where it has to impact things, like the DR, but more story choices? Yes, please.) Particularly considering how negatively it can affect people's enjoyment.

Aaaaaand I'm going to bed now. It's 4:30 am here <.<

[Neon Rising Winter]

Rawgrim wrote...

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Well I was arguing in-game effects all evening. So I stuck to the topic in order to keep it from getting derailed. I never dismissed anyone for liking this and that in the game. I never said the choice was meaningless to individual players. I said that in the game itself, it has no meaning, and its pretty much never recognized.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but my impression is you find the choices meaningless if they don't have an effect on the game's story? Rather than say the obvious effects of gender choice - the visual appearance, voice, and references in dialogue to the character.

I don`t find them completely meaningless. But they don`t show up in a meassurable way in-game. It ends up being an illusion of a choice. So your assumption is a right one. In DA:O and other rpgs, the gender choice matters. It can make certain things in game easier, or more difficult at other times. Things like that.

In that case I won't argue the point as we just have a fundamental difference of opinion on what makes it meaningful!

[Rawgrim]

katiebour wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

DarkSpiral wrote...
Is that the best you can come up with?  Compare how I react to a video game to how I react to my real lifef riends?  They are nothing remotely the same.

Immersion.  In real life.  That's ridiculous.  Try again.

The only reason for the sexuality of the characters in Dragon Age to disrupt your immersion is if it somehow interferes with your perception of reality.

Even then, that reaction is still illogical because Thedas is not reality and not bound by the same "rules" as reality.

But you insist on imposing your perception of reality onto the fantasy world of Thedas. So yes, I think how you react to similarly non-defined sexualities in real life is extremely relevant.

Thedas is the same as our worl (in medieval times) unless stated otherwise. This is true about every fantasy setting. If there are dragons about, that is an explained difference between our world and thedas. If magic excists in a setting, its real and so on. Its why the codex and lore is important in every fictional setting.

Here's an excerpt from the upcoming book World of Thedas that was the very first thing I saw when I used Amazon's preview feature to peek inside what was available (and which is no longer available, I think, because they redacted a bunch of the pages that we had available to drool over in anticipation for a mere two glorious days or so):



As near as I can tell what with the really tiny writing, it reads:

********************************

THE SEX LIVES OF EVERYDAY THEDOSIANS

What I find most interesting is that, despite the lack of open discussion on matters of human sexuality, there is commonality to be found on the subject in all Andrastian lands.

Typically, one’s sexual habits are considered natural and separate from matters of procreation, and only among the nobility, where procreation involves issues of inheritance and the union of powerful families, is it considered of vital importance.

Yet even there, a noble who has done their duty to the family might be allowed to pursue their own sexual interests without raising eyebrows.

The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender varies from land to land.  In Orlais, it is considered a quirk of character and nothing more.  In Ferelden, it is a matter of scandal if done indiscreetly but otherwise nothing noteworthy.  In Tevinter, it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but actively encouraged with favored slaves.  Nowhere is it forbidden, and sex of any kind is only considered worthy of judgement when taken to awful excess or performed in the public eye.

-From In Pursuit of Knowledge:  The Travels of a Chantry Scholar by Brother Genitivi 

****************

So there you have it.  That's how Thedosians view the spectrum of sexuality.  Buy World of Thedas!  It's coming out soon and has lots of tasty lore!

Sounds reasonable. But for the record i was never questioning how different sexualities are seen in Thedas. But the fact that every romance option was interested in Hawke, no matter what the gender was. Its too convenient and simplified.

[Silfren]

Saibh wrote...

Silfren wrote...


Several people have done this enough that it's really starting to grate on my nerves.  I totally agree that there should be decisions a PC can make, beliefs they can express, that will cut them off from romancing certain characters.  But this has NOTHING to do with the question of gender or sexual orientation!  You should have characters who will have nothing to do with your PC  because they find your beliefs or actions reprehensible, but why people keep making this point in a discussion about whether romances should be across-the-board available is mind-boggling.  You should NOT use that need of characters who will reject the PC on certain grounds to extend it to limiting romance options based on gender and orientation.  Because the issue becomes one of inclusiveness, and sorry, but wanting to play a PC who is fanatically pro-mage freedom but still gets to romance a mage-hater like Fenris is IN NO WAY COMPARABLE OR EQUAL to wanting to play a PC of the player's preferred gender while NOT being cut off from romancing their preferred LI.

They probably bring it up because it's the obvious counterpoint. Someone bringing it up a lot doesn't weaken the argument, it just means it's really obvious.

And, sorry, so long as you can argue that a character should have enough personality to reject you on the base of your race, they can you object to you on the basis of your sex. They are related, and stomping up and down because people keep bringing up that fact doesn't change it.

....I said nothing at all about race.  I said actions and beliefs.  YOU said race.  Don't project your crap onto me.  There's a REASON why Bioware would not impose limitations based on race or gender, and it has quite a lot to do with the very unpleasant implications such would have on ACTUAL people who ACTUALLY experience marginalization. 

Your concept that exclusive sexuality isn't real is wrong and frankly offensive. Oh, it might seem more forward because it's not straight up saying homophobia is wrong...just that all sexualities are wrong! Except yours. 

I didn't say that exclusive sexuality wasn't real.  I said that sexuality is more fluid that most people appreciate.  Every individual's personal sexuality may not be fluid, but the misconception I was responding to, which has been expressed implicitly OR explicitly, right here in these forums, is that sexuality only ever expresses in exactly one of three ways.  This assumption is WRONG.

What you could possibly mean by suggesting that my allegedly saying that exclusive sexuality isn't real is more forward because it doesn't straight up say that homophobia is wrong...you lost me completely on this.  Homophobia IS wrong, and I would never shy away from stating so flat-out.  I don't need to find ways to tip-toe around saying it, so what the hell you're on about with that nonsensical statement is beyond me.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mars 2013 - 03:43 .

[Rawgrim]

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Narrow Margin wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

Well I was arguing in-game effects all evening. So I stuck to the topic in order to keep it from getting derailed. I never dismissed anyone for liking this and that in the game. I never said the choice was meaningless to individual players. I said that in the game itself, it has no meaning, and its pretty much never recognized.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but my impression is you find the choices meaningless if they don't have an effect on the game's story? Rather than say the obvious effects of gender choice - the visual appearance, voice, and references in dialogue to the character.

I don`t find them completely meaningless. But they don`t show up in a meassurable way in-game. It ends up being an illusion of a choice. So your assumption is a right one. In DA:O and other rpgs, the gender choice matters. It can make certain things in game easier, or more difficult at other times. Things like that.

In that case I won't argue the point as we just have a fundamental difference of opinion on what makes it meaningful!

I am all for choices affecting the story. The choice of gender being one of them. It adds tons to the replayability. Experiencing some new stuff every playthrough, depending on class, gender, race and all that.

[Battlebloodmage]

After looking at this thread, I'm really looking forward to what Mr. Gaider has to say on his upcoming talk about sexuality and gender in video games.

[Harle Cerulean]

Battlebloodmage wrote...

After looking at this thread, I'm really looking forward to what Mr. Gaider has to say on his upcoming talk about sexuality and gender in video games.

I hope it'll be available for us to watch!  It should be interesting, particularly as it's aimed at an audience of fellow game devs.

[katiebour]

Rawgrim wrote...
I said "in-game".  List up 10 examples of how your choice of gender affects anything in-game, and I will give you a cookie.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.  

Let's see- having played most of my playthroughs with my f!Hawke, one with default!Garrett, one with evil!Marian (by virtue of the choices/dialogue she picked) and two with my m!Hawke, there are STILL things I have yet to experience in-game.  But I've seen a lot of it, so here goes:

1) Romanced!Anders calls you sweetheart as an f!Hawke- m!Hawke gets called soft-hearted, if I recall correctly.  Most of the LIs will have some sort of dialogue that's slightly changed- Fenris' beautiful woman vs. handsome man.  Multiple NPCs will acknowledge your character's gender, Gamlen and your sibling for example.

2) Ladies can romance/be flirted with by Sebastian, and can marry him.  Sorry dudes.  Lady Hawke isn't getting any either, if it makes you feel better.  

3) Anders tells m!Hawke about Karl.  Lady Hawkes apparently don't need to know that he's grieving over a good friend who was also his first lover.

4.)  Numnumnum... *ponders* not a whole lot else.

And really, isn't that the way it should be?  Men and women in Thedas are equals- why should content be locked for one or the other?  It creates a TON more work for the devs, uses game resources that could be used to make awesome content awesome-er, and again ensures that only the players who create a fem!progatonist or a man!tangonist will ever see that content.  Why create something and then hide it away?  

For romances it makes sense to acknowledge it, and having the occasional NPC flirt with you is nice (Yes I'm looking at you, Teagan, you sexy beast, and also NPC throwaway lines don't take as many resources as another full-blown companion/LI.)  In DA:O Loghain makes a nice comment at Ostagar about women being awesome to a fem!Warden.

Modifié par katiebour, 21 mars 2013 - 04:00 .

[Renmiri1]

The last one was available on podcast

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 04:00 .

[Saibh]

Silfren wrote...

....I said nothing at all about race.  I said actions and beliefs.  YOU said race.  Don't project your crap onto me.  

No, one of the things I specifically brought up is the concept of someone being a dwarf and hating humans as being restrictive to whether they're interested. You accepted these sort of restrictions as valid, but not sexuality, perhaps the most basic thing most people use to determine compatability. 

 There's a REASON why Bioware would not impose limitations based on race or gender, and it has quite a lot to do with the very unpleasant implications such would have on ACTUAL people who ACTUALLY experience marginalization. 

They already have, and they've said in this PERFECT WORLD (again, you're happily ignoring this aspect), they might. 

And, I'm sorry, the concept that not everyone in the world is available to you is not marginalization. The marginalization comes from people saying your sexuality is unimportant, is less important, isn't real, is wrong, etc. There is nothing marginilizing about a character not being interested in you because of your sex. This is an effect of a different kind of exclusionary mechanic in the real world, but it is not the reason it is exclusionary in the first place. 

I didn't say that exclusive sexuality wasn't real.  I said that sexuality is more fluid that most people appreciate.  Every individual's personal sexuality may not be fluid, but the misconception I was responding to, which has been expressed implicitly OR explicitly, right here in these forums, is that sexuality only ever expresses in exactly one of three ways.  This assumption is WRONG.

Oh, well, since you managed to use all three text formatters, I guess I'm just forced to accept your wisdom. See, the thing is, I agree with you. There are a lot of ways sexuality can express itself. I never said otherwise, but you're more than happy to read that into my words because you don't like what I have to say otherwise. But saying that a character being a sexuality not inclined to your character is somehow wrong or exclusionary in a perfect world? Yeah, that's what I'm disagreeing with. 

What you could possibly mean by suggesting that my allegedly saying that exclusive sexuality isn't real is more forward because it doesn't straight up say that homophobia is wrong...you lost me completely on this.  Homophobia IS wrong, and I would never shy away from stating so flat-out.  I don't need to find ways to tip-toe around saying it, so what the hell you're on about with that nonsensical statement is beyond me.

You are not wrong in saying there's a lot of different ways sexuality can exist. I do feel, however, you're stepping into the "and your definition of your own sexuality is wrong" territories. If I misunderstood, I apologize. I see you're frustrated, but you must also see it's frustrating for me to hear you argue points I never actually made. 

Modifié par Saibh, 21 mars 2013 - 04:27 .

[Sabariel]

So we've gone from "these characters are too bi" to "these characters are not bi enough"?

[Plaintiff]

Saibh wrote...
There is nothing marginilizing about a character not being interested in you because of your sex. 

It's certainly an incredible coincidence that the vast majority of fictional male characters just happen to not be interested in other men. 

[Saibh]

Plaintiff wrote...

Saibh wrote...
There is nothing marginilizing about a character not being interested in you because of your sex. 

It's certainly an incredible coincidence that the vast majority of fictional male characters just happen to not be interested in other men. 

So here's what I said in context:

"They already have, and they've said in this PERFECT WORLD (again, you're happily ignoring this aspect), they might

And, I'm sorry, the concept that not everyone in the world is available to you is not marginalization. The marginalization comes from people saying your sexuality is unimportant, is less important, isn't real, is wrong, etc. There is nothing marginilizing about a character not being interested in you because of your sex. This is an effect of a different kind of exclusionary mechanic in the real world, but it is not the reason it is exclusionary in the first place. "

Did you purposefully try to fake something you could be offended by so you didn't have to address any part of an argument you don't agree with?

Modifié par Saibh, 21 mars 2013 - 05:27 .

[Ryzaki]

Seeing as we *don't* live in a perfect world I'll make due with the accessible to both gender PCs LIs as an imperfect solution.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 mars 2013 - 05:33 .

[Saibh]

Ryzaki wrote...

Seeing as we *don't* live in a perfect world I'll make due with the accessible to both gender PCs LIs as an imperfect solution.

I agree. I've said this...well, basically every time I've posted in this thread. I was specifically objecting to the notion that exclusive LIs, in a perfect world, is marginalizing in and of itself. That the concept a character can reject you based on your gender is offensive or harmful, which is what Silfren was suggesting. 

As I've said, since we don't live in a perfect world, I'll favor inclusiveness.

[Ryzaki]

Saibh wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Seeing as we *don't* live in a perfect world I'll make due with the accessible to both gender PCs LIs as an imperfect solution.

I agree. I've said this...well, basically every time I've posted in this thread. I was specifically objecting to the notion that exclusive LIs, in a perfect world, is marginalizing in and of itself. That the concept a character can reject you based on your gender is offensive or harmful, which is what Silfren was suggesting. 

As I've said, since we don't live in a perfect world, I'll favor inclusiveness.

On the bolded I can agree. In a perfect world Alistair would've dropped my PC like a hot potato for siding with the werewolves, there would've been another s/s male LI in DAO than Zevran, my poor Shep wouldn't have been forever alone for 2 games...and so on.