596 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

Sabariel wrote...

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

The original post was a complain about Fenris and Merril not being sufficiently bisexual, so we've gone full circle.

[Plaintiff]

Saibh wrote...

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?

That depends, did you purposefully misunderstand Silfren's argument as her misusing the term "marginalization" as an excuse to whine about not being able to date any fictional character she wants? Because that wasn't what she was talking about at all.

She was saying that DA2 does not place arbitrary limitations on characters of a particular race or gender because its writers are sensitive to the fact that female and minority gamers have enough of that crap to put up with in real life.

When you say "You're not being marginalized just because a character won't date you", you're completely missing the point. The act of marginalization is in the creation of content designed exclusively for a heteronormative audience, while simultaneously leaving the non-heteronormative audience out in the cold.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 21 mars 2013 - 06:15 .

[New Display Name]

Making all love interests available to the both genders seems more efficient, if there are to be same sex romances anyway. Make 4 love interests, make them available to both genders, and then "everyone" has two choice or more.

Modifié par HJF4, 21 mars 2013 - 06:04 .

[Iakus]

Having a single dungeon map used over and over is efficient too.

Just sayin'.

[Saibh]

Plaintiff wrote...

That depends, did you purposefully misunderstand Silfren's argument as her misusing the term "marginalization" as an excuse to whine about not being able to date any fictional character she wants? Because that wasn't what she was talking about at all.

She was saying that Bioware does not place arbitrary limitations on characters of a particular race or gender because Bioware is sensitive to the fact that female and minority gamers have enough of that crap to put up with in real life.

And you're really missing the "perfect world" aspect again, as Silfren did. 

In and of itself, there is NOTHING marginalizing about someone not picking you because you're a woman or a man. 

I'm saying that her argument is on its own merits completely flawed. If she wants to argue that BioWare shouldn't go back to the old method because there aren't enough fair choices for not-straight people? Not an argument here. But since she is, in fact, arguing the idea that if at any time a character rejects you because they are not interested in your gender, that this is marginializing, even if you have twenty other options, yeah, I disagree.

The act of marginalization is in the creation of content designed exclusively for a heteronormative audience.

It absolutely is not if there is an equal amount of content designed for everyone else and this has been my entire point this entire time. 

She was saying that Bioware does not place arbitrary limitations on characters of a particular race or gender 

It's not "arbitrary"--you're disregarding everyone's sexuality, not just heterosexuals, when you say stuff like this. And they actually do. Unless you've forgetten that Mass Effect 3 was possessed of several exclusive romances. 

iakus wrote...

Having a single dungeon map used over and over is efficient too.
Just sayin'.

But every player has to experience that. The issue with this was a lack of diversity, which you cannot accuse multiple love interests of. 

Modifié par Saibh, 21 mars 2013 - 06:17 .

[New Display Name]

iakus wrote...

Having a single dungeon map used over and over is efficient too.

Just sayin'.

That's not really similar much at all.

[Plaintiff]

Saibh wrote...
And you're really missing the "perfect world" aspect again, as Silfren did.

I don't understand what this "perfect world" crap has to do with anything. Whether or not we live in a perefect world is actually irrelevent to the discussion.

In and of itself, there is NOTHING marginalizing about someone not picking you because you're a woman or a man.

Also irrelevent.

I'm saying that her argument is on its own merits completely flawed. If she wants to argue that BioWare shouldn't go back to the old method because there aren't enough fair choices for not-straight people? Not an argument here. But since she is, in fact, arguing the idea that if at any time a character rejects you because they are not interested in your gender, that this is marginializing, even if you have twenty other options, yeah, she's wrong.

But she's not.

The more you continue to happily ignore the parts of my argument that have already addressed what you said, the more I am convinced that you are not willing to listen to points that don't agree with yours. That if someone disagrees with you, you want to find something wrong with them as a person so that their opinion doesn't mean anything anyway.

I've read through all your posts and I don't understand what arguments of mine they were supposed to be addressing

It absolutely is not if there is an equal amount of content designed for everyone else and this has been my entire point this entire time.

What do you think the word "exclusive" means?

But since you made a fuss, I editted my post to clarify. I'd also like to add that "separate but equal" game content sounds nice in principle, but we know that in practice it never really works out that way.

It's not "arbitrary"--you're disregarding everyone's sexuality, not just heterosexuals, when you say stuff like this.

It is absolutely arbitrary, because it's fiction. There's no reason for any character to be one way and not another, except the author's own desires. There's no reason, for instance, that Alistair could not have been gay. His sexuality does not actually render him incapable of ruling Ferelden and producing heirs. The decision to make him straight was therefore arbitrary.

And they actually do. Unless you've forgetten that Mass Effect 3 was possessed of several exclusive romances.

In this you are correct. I already editted my post to specify DA2, because actually, Bioware overall pretty much sucks at inclusivity. It's nice that they're trying, but that doesn't give them a free pass when they do something problematic.

[Renmiri1]

Saibh wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

That depends, did you purposefully misunderstand Silfren's argument as her misusing the term "marginalization" as an excuse to whine about not being able to date any fictional character she wants? Because that wasn't what she was talking about at all.

She was saying that Bioware does not place arbitrary limitations on characters of a particular race or gender because Bioware is sensitive to the fact that female and minority gamers have enough of that crap to put up with in real life.

And you're really missing the "perfect world" aspect again, as Silfren did. 

I don't get it

Why do you go to this "perfect world" that does not exist in Thedas in DA or here on Earth RL ?

My  Hawke won't date people who Yodel. In a world of yodelers this is highly offensive, Shall I proceed to discuss the ins and outs of yodeling now ?

We are discussing concrete examples in game, not this "perfect world" you are making up. And not my world full of touchy yodelers. Both those worlds have nothing to do with the issue and are completely irrelevant to the OP and the discussion.

And so is this video

Modifié par Renmiri1, 21 mars 2013 - 06:31 .

[Saibh]

Plaintiff wrote...

What do you think the word "exclusive" means?

But since you made a fuss, I editted my post to clarify. I'd also like to add that "separate but equal" game content sounds nice in principle, but we know that in practice it never really works out that way.

Which is where the whole 'perfect world' argument comes in.

I'm saying that her argument is fundamentally based on the idea that ANY exclusiveness is AUTOMATICALLY bad. 

The point of the perfect world concept is to demonstrate that it's not true. The context in which it is wrong is that BioWare doesn't do equal, exclusive options because it isn't feasible. If it were feasible (hence, in a perfect world), equal, exclusive options are not automatically marginalizing or wrong. 

It is absolutely arbitrary, because it's fiction. There's no reason for any character to be one way and not another, except the author's own desires. There's no reason, for instance, that Alistair could not have been gay. His sexuality does not actually render him incapable of ruling Ferelden and producing heirs. The decision to make him straight was therefore arbitrary.

Most parts of his character are arbitrary then. 

The thing behind everyone's arguments here is that they'd like for the companions to be treated as if they are people. As I've said time and again, my objection is not actually to the bi companions. I'm alright with that. Inclusiveness takes precendence. But if it weren't for the fact that there's a limited amount of resources, it would be nice for characters to feel as if they are individuals. Many people do not feel as if they are. They feel as if they are player-dictated puppets. Some people will disagree with this being a bad thing. 

Let me ask you, what would you think if someone complained that Fenris wasn't female, because they're not interested in men? See, BioWare still has made the option of dating this character. You can date them based on your sex, but you think it's unfair they've made a character you like that you don't want to date because they're not the right sex.

In both cases, the gamer's only objection is that they are excluded from a character they like on the basis of their sexuality. How is this person's complaints any less valid? Silfren's example of a person being disappointed that Alistair was not available to them still applies here, only rather than gay men being excluded, lesbians are.

This is my issue with it. The concept of having a character be uninterested in you is not, in and of itself, bad. It's that this exclusivness leads to a less than equal amount of choice. 

Renmiri1 wrote...

We are discussing concrete examples in game, not this "perfect world" you are making up. And not my world full of touchy yodelers. Both those worlds have nothing to do with the issue and are completely irrelevant to the OP and the discussion.

I'm saying that if BioWare had the resources to make an equal amount of romances for everyone, there would be no problem with a character being uninterested in you based on your sex. However, that's not the real world, that's a perfect world. 

[DarkSpiral]

Renmiri1 wrote...

I don't get it

Why do you go to this "perfect world" that does not exist in Thedas in DA or here on Earth RL ?

My  Hawke won't date people who Yodel. In a world of yodelers this is highly offensive, Shall I proceed to discuss the ins and outs of yodeling now ?

We are discussing concrete examples in game, not this "perfect world" you are making up. And not my world full of touchy yodelers. Both those worlds have nothing to do with the issue and are completely irrelevant to the OP and the discussion.

And so is this video

I think, and I could be wrong, that Saibh is talking about a situation in which game designers have the time and resources to create equal amounts of content for various inclinations.

I mainly assume this is what she means because that is what DG said he'd prefer to do, but doesn't have the resources to actually do it.

[TEWR]

David Gaider wrote...

but the bigger crime is evidently that he doesn't like it and you get 10 whole Rivalry points for doing so. This is, as near as I can tell, the equivalent of kicking him in the head (despite the fact that you can get Anders to max Friendship in Act 1 alone about twice over, if you're keen to) and thus inexcusable.

My issue with is more along the lines of the fact that his disapproval of what you say manifests in points when it was stated, by your own words in fact, that the Friendship and Rivalry system would not at all be affected by how "nice" you were to the companions. You said this prior to DAII's release.

I do mind the points, granted, but not for reasons one might think. I don't care that I may have to go out of my way to earn them back. It's more that if you're basing a system dependent solely on whether the PC agrees with the thoughts and ideologies of the companions, giving points in either way because of how nice you are to them just seems odd.

It's one thing to show approval or disapproval in cutscenes. It helps the relationship be displayed. But to have that relationship also display itself on a point meter that was described as having nothing to do with the idea of niceties?

Boggles the mind a bit. Now, obviously, real life works differently such that if you are an ass to someone, they're not going to like you very much. But that's irrelevant to how the system in DAII was described.

LPPrince wrote...

Yep I'm lost.

Yeah, I don't get it either. They're bisexual but they're not bisexual but they are but they aren't but...

I mean, here...

David Gaider wrote...

Meaning that... bisexuality itself is indicative of inconsistency?

It seems like he's admitting they're bisexual since they can be romanced by either gender.

My mind is blowing itself up trying to make heads or tails of this whole thing....

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

The Irony is that whenever I put an "End of line" comment in a thread there won't be any lock-down and It guarantees its survival!

[LPPrince]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Yep I'm lost.

Yeah, I don't get it either. They're bisexual but they're not bisexual but they are but they aren't but...

I mean, here...

David Gaider wrote...

Meaning that... bisexuality itself is indicative of inconsistency?

It seems like he's admitting they're bisexual since they can be romanced by either gender.

My mind is blowing itself up trying to make heads or tails of this whole thing....

I guess labeling a character as hetero or bi or otherwise is a bad thing? Thats sort of the vibe I was getting earlier when the word "label" started getting used by a few fine folk here.

[LPPrince]

I guess the point behind not using those terms for a character would be to make it more inclusive to those out here who also don't use that terminology.

[Fiacre]

LPPrince wrote...

I guess the point behind not using those terms for a character would be to make it more inclusive to those out here who also don't use that terminology.

Personally, I just think it's pointless. Sure, Merrill could be bi. She could also be pan, and you wouldn't really notice a difference in game. Fenris could be bi- or pansexual, but he could also be demisexual. And what about rmantic attraction? Maybe he identifies as biromantic. Or as panromantic. Or as somethig completely different. There's no reason to try and fit everything into three distinct boxes -- as in "If they aren't straight or gay, they have to be bi, if they aren't bi, they have to be straight or gay (depending on the player character's sex)". Why? There's a lot more than these three sexualities.

As they are fictional characters, not real people, it's on their creators to decide what they identify as, and if the creators didn't give them a label, they don't use one, and trying to "force" one on them is both pointless and borderline offensive when one considers the real world implications of people trying to define anothers sexuality for them. (Which does, indeed, happen.)

[imbs]

I love how no one on this board actually cares about gameplay. Why does a thread about sexuality get 21 pages ? DA should be a game not a dating simulator

[Silfren]

imbs wrote...

I love how no one on this board actually cares about gameplay. Why does a thread about sexuality get 21 pages ? DA should be a game not a dating simulator

Yet you clearly care enough about it to click on the thread and leave a comment.

Hint:  The fact that people care about how the romances are presented does NOT mean they don't also care about gameplay; it doesn't even mean they don't care MORE about gameplay.  Personally, I don't actually care much about the gameplay beyond minimizing the segregation so that stupid sh*t doesn't happen, like a Mage!Hawke not being recognized as such by anti-mage templars, but I do care about the story, and the romace element is part of the story, whether you like it or not. 

This whole "DA is not a dating sim!!!!!11111" is something of a paranoid overreaction. 

[Kidd]

imbs wrote...

I love how no one on this board actually cares about gameplay. Why does a thread about sexuality get 21 pages ? DA should be a game not a dating simulator

Being able to neatly sort the NPCs by sexual orientation is very important. How could we have immersion without characters openly and non-subtly stating their preferences right out the gate à la ME3?

(clarified)

[SgtElias]

imbs wrote...

I love how no one on this board actually cares about gameplay. Why does a thread about sexuality get 21 pages ? DA should be a game not a dating simulator

I love how some people come into this thread simply to complain that it exists, instead of contributing to it in any meaningful way. Why would anyone waste their time in such a manner?

[imbs]

Silfren wrote...

Yet you clearly care enough about it to click on the thread and leave a comment.

UGH

Silfren wrote...
Hint:  The fact that people care about how the romances are presented does NOT mean they don't also care about gameplay; it doesn't even mean they don't care MORE about gameplay.  Personally, I don't actually care much about the gameplay beyond minimizing the segregation so that stupid sh*t doesn't happen, like a Mage!Hawke not being recognized as such by anti-mage templars, but I do care about the story, and the romace element is part of the story, whether you like it or not. 

This whole "DA is not a dating sim!!!!!11111" is something of a paranoid overreaction. 

Except gameplay does take a backseat to lore/story/romances on these boards. There are like 10 lore/story/romance threads for every gameplay thread, and the gameplay threads get about 5 pages and die every single time. I know EA has this whole h8 is not a game campaign going n all but maybe they should focus on gameplay a bit.

Ofcourse I care how much attention this utter garbage is getting. The gameplay in these games has gotten worse and worse per new Bioware game, whilst they pander to the idiots who can't imagine a game where they can't romance the crap out of everyone regardless of anything else.

I'd prefer a Bioware game where the gameplay doesn't only range from boring to outright bad but where romances are an afterthought, an addition at best. Why do you people care, seriously?

Modifié par imbs, 21 mars 2013 - 01:17 .

[Ryzaki]

There's a weird weird idea to make a gameplay thread.

You know instead of whining in this thread you could make a thread offering gameplay improvements.I don't go i nto gameplay threads talking about romances.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 21 mars 2013 - 01:21 .

[Silfren]

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.

ROFL.  No, that's not even remotely vaguely CLOSE to what I was suggesting.   I'd spell it out for you, but I see that Plaintiff already beat me to it. 

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mars 2013 - 01:22 .

[Ryzaki]

Silfren your quotes are messed up I did not say that.

[imbs]

SgtElias wrote...

imbs wrote...

I love how no one on this board actually cares about gameplay. Why does a thread about sexuality get 21 pages ? DA should be a game not a dating simulator

I love how some people come into this thread simply to complain that it exists, instead of contributing to it in any meaningful way. Why would anyone waste their time in such a manner?

Such blatant hypocrisy should be illegal if you ask me

[imbs]

Ryzaki wrote...

There's a weird weird idea to make a gameplay thread.

You know instead of whining in this thread you could make a thread offering gameplay improvements.I don't go i nto gameplay threads talking about romances.

It's a waste of time.