1981 réponses à ce sujet

[What a Succulent Ass]

David7204 wrote...

It's a fact and a perception. You seem to be implying perceptions can only exist on false premises.

Nope.

And only conditionally, if you mean to use "perceived" as "observed." A fact (specifically sociocultural facts) is a neutral thing; its meaning, its connotations, are all dependent upon the observer. What conclusions a person extrapolates from a fact are going to be products of their socialisation.

[BlueMagitek]

Silfren wrote...

Some people only like to play a particular gender.  Others don't care which gender they play, but they want to experience a particular LI as a particular gender.  The much vaunted option of two LIs for hetero, two for bi, two for homosexual does not address this. 

There is not a sufficiently good reason not to make the LIs all-inclusive.  The "but...realism!" argument is an exceedingly stupid one that holds no water in a fictional world that very specifically does NOT have the same real-world hangups about sexual orientation or identity or preference.  Thedas does not have our biases, so there is no reason at all why extra-hetero sexuality would not be much more common...really, there's no reason why Thedas would simply not recognize different categories of sexual orientation at all.  A person can engage in sex with people of any gender without ever once thinking of themselves as being bi at all.  In point of fact this mindset is likely to be more common in a world that doesn't have sexual hangups. 

 The whole thing about class and race doesn't really apply, because as I said before, sexual identity is something that affects people playing DA in a way that playing elves or dwarves or getting the chance to play a warrior, mage, or rogue do not. 

And what entitles them to have each and every potentially romance-able character available to every possible player character?  Such thinking leads to, as noted before, pro-Mage pro-Slavery Hawkes romancing Fenris, or Merrill and Anders still hanging around a Hawke who despises them for who they are.  The choices that a player makes in and with their character should offer different options in the game's world, rather than the world bending around for them (akin to the Starcraft 2 missions which twist themselves so Raynor is never wrong).

I did not make the "realism" argument, so I won't address it.

Your point appears to rely more on the outside world, which is almost completely pointless to consider when it comes to a fictional world. 

[David7204]

Silfren wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's a fact and a perception. You seem to be implying perceptions can only exist on false premises.

Random Jerkface, wanna join me in the oven? It's a much more productive venture, I'm afraid.

Is this nonsense how you intend to prove your point?

[Thomas Andresen]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Hrm. Well, I disagree that it's the best possible solution save for those players who desire the power to romance anyone they fancy regardless of the NPCs preferences or stance vis a vis the PC, but so be it. We don't have to agree.

I guess I'm one of those who prefers realism to inclusivity in her RPGs. As shaky as it may be at times.

It's just an observation, but the people who are generally in favour of the "DA2 approach" seem to be, more often than not, focused on the fact that love interests "ignoring the player character's gender" is insignificant compared to them "ignoring the player character's actions".

[Silfren]

David7204 wrote...

It's a fact and a perception. You seem to be implying perceptions can only exist on false premises.

No.  Not in the least.  The fact is that most engineers are not women, because men make up 90% of all engineers.

A perception would be that no women engineers exist, or, better yet, that because there are so few of them, women must just suck at being engineers.

The first is a fact, the second is a perception.  There IS a difference.

[someguy1231]

For me, making all LIs playersexual is immersion-breaking because it reminds me I'm in a programmed, artificial environment. Making all the companions regardless of their diverse cultures/upbringings/etc inexplicably have the hots for whoever my player-character is instantly takes me out of the game. I've always believed that the player should feel like they're part of the game's world, rather than the game's world revolving around them. Playersexual companions is a major example of the latter.

[Silfren]

Thomas Andresen wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Hrm. Well, I disagree that it's the best possible solution save for those players who desire the power to romance anyone they fancy regardless of the NPCs preferences or stance vis a vis the PC, but so be it. We don't have to agree.

I guess I'm one of those who prefers realism to inclusivity in her RPGs. As shaky as it may be at times.

It's just an observation, but the people who are generally in favour of the "DA2 approach" seem to be, more often than not, focused on the fact that love interests "ignoring the player character's gender" is insignificant compared to them "ignoring the player character's actions".

This.  Ever so much this.  I'm getting really damned frustrated at the way so many people conflate rejection on sexual preference grounds with rejection on grounds of PC choices or ideological differences.

[David7204]

Random Jerkface wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It's a fact and a perception. You seem to be implying perceptions can only exist on false premises.

Nope.

And only conditionally, if you mean to use "perceived" as "observed." A fact (specifically sociocultural facts) is a neutral thing; its meaning, its connotations, are all dependent upon the observer. What conclusions a person extrapolates from a fact are going to be products of their socialisation.

It's also sometimes going to be products of reasoning. Which is my entire point you claim I missed. Not everything is a result of 'indoctrination by the patriarchy,' and that's frankly not only insulting, but an incredibly lazy explanation of such phenomena. 

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Some people only like to play a particular gender.  Others don't care which gender they play, but they want to experience a particular LI as a particular gender.  The much vaunted option of two LIs for hetero, two for bi, two for homosexual does not address this. 

There is not a sufficiently good reason not to make the LIs all-inclusive.  The "but...realism!" argument is an exceedingly stupid one that holds no water in a fictional world that very specifically does NOT have the same real-world hangups about sexual orientation or identity or preference.  Thedas does not have our biases, so there is no reason at all why extra-hetero sexuality would not be much more common...really, there's no reason why Thedas would simply not recognize different categories of sexual orientation at all.  A person can engage in sex with people of any gender without ever once thinking of themselves as being bi at all.  In point of fact this mindset is likely to be more common in a world that doesn't have sexual hangups. 

 The whole thing about class and race doesn't really apply, because as I said before, sexual identity is something that affects people playing DA in a way that playing elves or dwarves or getting the chance to play a warrior, mage, or rogue do not. 

And what entitles them to have each and every potentially romance-able character available to every possible player character?  Such thinking leads to, as noted before, pro-Mage pro-Slavery Hawkes romancing Fenris, or Merrill and Anders still hanging around a Hawke who despises them for who they are.  The choices that a player makes in and with their character should offer different options in the game's world, rather than the world bending around for them (akin to the Starcraft 2 missions which twist themselves so Raynor is never wrong).

I did not make the "realism" argument, so I won't address it.

Your point appears to rely more on the outside world, which is almost completely pointless to consider when it comes to a fictional world. 

No, it does not lead to those things.  This is just stupid version of the slippery slope argument.  

[Zazzerka]

I just watched a six minute video teaching me how to do this "Stanky Leg."

Worth it.

[BlueMagitek]

Silfren wrote...

No, it does not lead to those things.  This is just stupid version of the slippery slope argument. 

What if a player character wants to be pro-Tevinter but still want to romance Fenris?

[daaaav]

LPPrince wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

So, no, I’m quite fine with selecting a few characters and having them be romantic options and letting the rest be simply what they are. My preference is that the romances cover a range of styles and sexualities as evenly as we can, and that they have comparable levels of content, and leave it at that. If someone doesn’t find something to their liking in that particular game, chances are we’ll have a whole different batch in the next game (I do find it rather amusing how people always assume we’ll write exactly the same characters in the next game as the current one— even though we never have, the assumption is the same after every game). In the meantime, there are hopefully friendships and rivalries among the followers that you can develop, and reasons to appreciate each of them beyond whether they can be sexed to your liking, as well as that whole other thing we wrote.You know. The plot.

I hope hope hope they get the resources to afford that and they actually decide to go that route.

Relationships that end terribly, relationships that never get off the ground, relationships that are happily ever after, relationships that involve cheating, romance options of homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual natures, etc etc

I didn't get what I wanted in DA2, so I hope I get it in DA:I.

/sigh with all due respect to Mr Gaider, which is it? Is Thedas an egalitarian paradise or is this mess a product of the writers using a technique to substitute for insufficient rescources? The highlighted quote would certainly suggest the latter. The problem with the egalitarian solution is that in this case, the citizens of Thedas cannot teach us real human beings how they achieved this remarkable state of being. I would like to live in a world where sexual orientation is about as relevant socially as someones preference in clothing colors but unfortunately, citizens of Thedas are mum on the subject.

[Seboist]

Morocco Mole wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Wait people are calling a gay poster a bigot against gays because he doesn't like DA2's handling of romances?

I'm probably the gay poster in question and I find it real funny that people think I'm a bigot because I dislike all bi romances.

MODEDIT: Post Deleted - Please don't chime in in this thread if you're sole point is to attempt to derail it.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 30 juin 2013 - 06:02 .

[LPPrince]

Well, I suggest reading his entire blog on the subject(unless you already have).

I just quoted that part because I think Mr. Gaider wants the same thing I want, or rather I should say I think I want the same thing he does- options of all different kinds when it comes to romances, with the options and differences ranging from sexualities to types of relationships to whether they end up happy or bitter, etc etc.

Modifié par LPPrince, 30 juin 2013 - 05:57 .

[Silfren]

daaaav wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

So, no, I’m quite fine with selecting a few characters and having them be romantic options and letting the rest be simply what they are. My preference is that the romances cover a range of styles and sexualities as evenly as we can, and that they have comparable levels of content, and leave it at that. If someone doesn’t find something to their liking in that particular game, chances are we’ll have a whole different batch in the next game (I do find it rather amusing how people always assume we’ll write exactly the same characters in the next game as the current one— even though we never have, the assumption is the same after every game). In the meantime, there are hopefully friendships and rivalries among the followers that you can develop, and reasons to appreciate each of them beyond whether they can be sexed to your liking, as well as that whole other thing we wrote.You know. The plot.

I hope hope hope they get the resources to afford that and they actually decide to go that route.

Relationships that end terribly, relationships that never get off the ground, relationships that are happily ever after, relationships that involve cheating, romance options of homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual natures, etc etc

I didn't get what I wanted in DA2, so I hope I get it in DA:I.

/sigh with all due respect to Mr Gaider, which is it? Is Thedas an egalitarian paradise or is this mess a product of the writers using a technique to substitute for insufficient rescources? The highlighted quote would certainly suggest the latter. The problem with the egalitarian solution is that in this case, the citizens of Thedas cannot teach us real human beings how they achieved this remarkable state of being. I would like to live in a world where sexual orientation is about as relevant socially as someones preference in clothing colors but unfortunately, citizens of Thedas are mum on the subject.

Eh, for one thing, you seem to be approaching the question from the assumption that Thedosians started out living in a homophobic society and later achieved a homophobic-free state. 

It's more likely that sex-based bigotry never developed in the first place.  Is the idea really that inconceivable?

[someguy1231]

Personally, I think many of the people arguing for making all LIs playersexual are doing so less in the name of "inclusiveness" and more out of flat-out laziness. They just want everything accessible to them regardless of their race/gender/etc and don't want to go through the time of creating another character and doing another playthrough.

Hmm, funny, isn't Bioware usually criticized if they make their games more "accessible"?

[Plaintiff]

BlueMagitek wrote...
And what entitles them to have each and every potentially romance-able character available to every possible player character?  Such thinking leads to, as noted before, pro-Mage pro-Slavery Hawkes romancing Fenris, or Merrill and Anders still hanging around a Hawke who despises them for who they are.

DA:O had set sexualities and you could still romance Alistair or Morrigan even if they thought you were terrible, based purely on the fact that you were the "right gender", and you plied them with worthless trinkets.

The choices that a player makes in and with their character should offer different options in the game's world, rather than the world bending around for them (akin to the Starcraft 2 missions which twist themselves so Raynor is never wrong).

There's a very obvious difference between in-story choices and the meta-story choices made during character creation. Nobody is protesting the notion of LIs rejecting their character based on in-game actions. DA2 already does this, and it does it without arbitrarily excluding homosexual characters from story content.

The games don't gate story content based on race, skin colour, nationality, age, religion, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight or anything else, even though we know for a fact that some of these biases are prevalent in Thedas. So why should gender matter even slightly?

When a PC gets arbitrarily locked out of romance content for being the wrong race, or class, or anything other than his own in-plot actions, then I will accept the gating of content based on gender.

I did not make the "realism" argument, so I won't address it.

Then what is your argument? That people should be prevented from accessing certain options just 'cause?

Your point appears to rely more on the outside world, which is almost completely pointless to consider when it comes to a fictional world.

Silfren is arguing for inclusivity because Thedas is a fictional world. What thread have you been reading?

[David7204]

I would much rather live in a world where sexuality does matter than in a world where it doesn't.

[daaaav]

Silfren wrote...



Eh, for one thing, you seem to be approaching the question from the assumption that Thedosians started out living in a homophobic society and later achieved a homophobic-free state. 

It's more likely that sex-based bigotry never developed in the first place.  Is the idea really that inconceivable?

True

[What a Succulent Ass]

David7204 wrote...

It's also sometimes going to be products of reasoning. Which is my entire point you claim I missed. Not everything is a result of 'indoctrination by the patriarchy,' and that's frankly not only insulting, but an incredibly lazy explanation of such phenomena. 

...My G, did you even read what I wrote? "Product of reasoning" like how? A bunch of n*ggas got in a circle and thought real hard about women not going into engineering?

Let me get into this The Secret secret bullsh*t then, son. All of you need to think me into existence a dollar.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 30 juin 2013 - 06:05 .

[The Hierophant]

Zazzerka wrote...
I just watched a six minute video teaching me how to do this "Stanky Leg."
Worth it.

Until today i haven't heard of the stanky leg for years. What's next the chicken noodle soup? lol

Modifié par The Hierophant, 30 juin 2013 - 06:02 .

[daaaav]

David7204 wrote...

I would much rather live in a world where sexuality does matter than in a world where it doesn't.

Once again I must draw attention to the difference between sexual orientation and sexuality as a whole. This is OT anyway.

[Allan Schumacher]

David7204 wrote...

I would much rather live in a world where sexuality does matter than in a world where it doesn't.

Please clarify precisely what you mean here by "sexuality."