454 réponses à ce sujet

[Fredward]

efd731 wrote...
my apologies once again, sarcasm doesn't show well via text.

Nah my bad, haven't had my coffee yet. I don't even really know what this conversation is about.

[Silfren]

Statare wrote...

efd731 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...

Statare wrote...

hmmm. In a world where all sexual orientations are treated equally, possibly. But in a prejudiced society, especially our heteronormative society, arguing for an under-represented sexual orientation, such as homosexuality or bisexuality or aesexuality, to be represented is a strategy aimed at equal representation, so it's anti-heteronormative. It's employed to oppose biases.

Yes.  And not to mention that you literally cannot argue that heterosexuality is somehow underrepresented in video games.

i never intended to say that heterosexuality was not the norm (is it still the majority?) but that regardless of which side of the argument you are on, you are biased. Say bioware did a game with all homosexual characters? Would you simply say "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?"  Or "it's okay guys, we've been there too next game might be better"

While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?", because I am not in Middle School, I would not feel bad for the priviledged people for being left out. Y'all can go play the hundreds of other games written for you, or watch any of the tv shows or movies that glorify your life. Even so, there are things I might complain about, like Euro-centriciscim, pro-captialistic messages, lack of representation of people of color, etc. etc. It never ends. What can I say, I'm a greedy, anti-assumtions of normativity kind of person of color trying to be a thorn in the side of someone somewhere. (sarcasm, but not really).

<3

[IST]

 Are you kidding?

As a heterosexual male, I was hammered from all  sides to partake in same sex relationships in DA2, now this is my question: if my party members 'know me so well as to adventure with me', shouldn't they know what way I swing????

I don't propersition my gay girl friends/collegues as I know them well enough to respect their orientation, and know that it would no doubt be unwelcomed, can't we expect the same from our squadmates?

[efd731]

i never intended to say that heterosexuality was not the norm (is it still the majority?) but that regardless of which side of the argument you are on, you are biased. Say bioware did a game with all homosexual characters? Would you simply say "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?"  Or "it's okay guys, we've been there too next game might be better"

[/quote]

While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?", because I am not in Middle School, I would not feel bad for the priviledged people for being left out. Y'all can go play the hundreds of other games written for you, or watch any of the tv shows or movies that glorify your life. Even so, there are things I might complain about, like Euro-centriciscim, pro-captialistic messages, lack of representation of people of color, etc. etc. It never ends. What can I say, I'm a greedy, anti-assumtions of normativity kind of person of color trying to be a thorn in the side of someone somewhere. (sarcasm, but not really).

[/quote]

so....yeah, if that's how you feel about it, how can you blame hetero people for not wanting that to change? No matter what a game does someone feels slighted. Everything is currently biased towards a hetero viewpoint, but if it were to be reversed, would anyone in the minority right now really she's a tear?

[Ryzaki]

DEMIKLY wrote...

 Are you kidding?

As a heterosexual male, I was hammered from all  sides to partake in same sex relationships in DA2, now this is my question: if my party members 'know me so well as to adventure with me', shouldn't they know what way I swing????

I don't propersition my gay girl friends/collegues as I know them well enough to respect their orientation, and know that it would no doubt be unwelcomed, can't we expect the same from our squadmates?

No no you weren't. At most Anders and Isabela hit on you first. Fenris gives you a awkward compliment that you can take romantically (or you can pick the neutral option and take it as the compliment it was) and Merrill has to be hit on first.

It's not that hard not to pick the heart option.

That said it would be nice not to get hit on first if you already have an LI. Tali announcing her crush is awkward with a Liaramancer or Ashleymancing Shep.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 26 novembre 2013 - 06:21 .

[wolfhowwl]

Statare wrote...

efd731 wrote...

RinjiRenee wrote...

Statare wrote...

hmmm. In a world where all sexual orientations are treated equally, possibly. But in a prejudiced society, especially our heteronormative society, arguing for an under-represented sexual orientation, such as homosexuality or bisexuality or aesexuality, to be represented is a strategy aimed at equal representation, so it's anti-heteronormative. It's employed to oppose biases.

Yes.  And not to mention that you literally cannot argue that heterosexuality is somehow underrepresented in video games.

i never intended to say that heterosexuality was not the norm (is it still the majority?) but that regardless of which side of the argument you are on, you are biased. Say bioware did a game with all homosexual characters? Would you simply say "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?"  Or "it's okay guys, we've been there too next game might be better"

While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?", because I am not in Middle School, I would not feel bad for the priviledged people for being left out. Y'all can go play the hundreds of other games written for you, or watch any of the tv shows or movies that glorify your life. Even so, there are things I might complain about, like Euro-centriciscim, pro-captialistic messages, lack of representation of people of color, etc. etc. It never ends. What can I say, I'm a greedy, anti-assumtions of normativity kind of person of color trying to be a thorn in the side of someone somewhere. (sarcasm, but not really).

The hetero lovers don't have to worry about leaving left out, after all that is where most of the money is and Bioware won't be abandoning that.

They will keep swapping gender pronouns in the name of inclusivity and everyone can go home happy.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 26 novembre 2013 - 06:21 .

[Br3admax]

If BioWare really made a homosexual character only game I would probably laugh to be honest. That's even dumber than making heterosexual only games. At least you'll stand to make a profit the other way. Of course I'd give them props for having the courage either way.

Modifié par Br3ad, 26 novembre 2013 - 06:23 .

[Ryzaki]

I'd rather they have just 1 LI for each gender and have both LIs be bi. That way everyone gets the same lack of choice.

Least that way those 2 LIs can have very rich development

[Jorji Costava]

DEMIKLY wrote...

 Are you kidding?

As a heterosexual male, I was hammered from all  sides to partake in same sex relationships in DA2, now this is my question: if my party members 'know me so well as to adventure with me', shouldn't they know what way I swing????

I don't propersition my gay girl friends/collegues as I know them well enough to respect their orientation, and know that it would no doubt be unwelcomed, can't we expect the same from our squadmates?

I don't think it's a tenet of good writing that characters behave in the ways that I'd most want them to behave. I would definitely prefer that my buddies not stab me in the back, but that doesn't mean it's bad writing when Zevran tries to do it at Denerim. If anything, I'd say that NPCs should have the ability to do things that the player doesn't like a bit more often; it gives the characters a greater degree of agency.

[Statare]

DEMIKLY wrote...

 Are you kidding?

As a heterosexual male, I was hammered from all  sides to partake in same sex relationships in DA2, now this is my question: if my party members 'know me so well as to adventure with me', shouldn't they know what way I swing????

I don't propersition my gay girl friends/collegues as I know them well enough to respect their orientation, and know that it would no doubt be unwelcomed, can't we expect the same from our squadmates?

yeah, I know. When Fenris and Anders corner you in the Blooming Rose and beg you to sleep with them. What was Bioware thinking when they wrote DAII???

They did not hammer you from all sides. Now imagine being a girl, dressing pretty, and going to a bar around closing time. That is being harrassed from all sides. Nowhere in DAII did the male characters harrass you to sleep with them. Unless your idea of harrassment is politely being asked if you'd be interested. If that is the case, open your eyes.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Character availability/sexuality/whatever the hell you want to call it, just like a lot of things, should not be open to everyone. I'm all for putting in elements to appeal to different fanbases, but I'd prefer doing so reasonably. Not every character should be into your gender, or available at all. Though I do find it funny that there is less complaining at the thought a character is not romancable at all than if he/she/it would only like men/women/golems.

I've always felt that this issue had a great deal of double standard involved, because if Bioware took this "Never lock anything away from anyone because their feelings might get hurt" approach with some other game elements you'd never hear the end of it.

And please, can we not have any more situations like "Anders" in DA2. He's damn near unbearable, and to find out it's a male-Hawke only thing just made it more irritating. You go to rescue this guy (who's his lover) from the chantry (because he's his lover) because the Templars are going to do something bad to this guy (who's his lover, unless the repeated hammering in of it hasn't gotten to the player yet). Then after the events, in the very first conversation that you can trigger - which can happen almost immediately afterward - you're put into a situation where you either have to hit on him, or not. Unless you somehow know to avoid that branch in advance, and then good luck. Minutes after this guy who's so very important to him dies, anyone not into him has to take a massive rep hit, and both options are written to make Hawke sound as digusted as possible at the very idea. All the subtlety of a hand grenade.

[AresKeith]

osbornep wrote...

DEMIKLY wrote...

 Are you kidding?

As a heterosexual male, I was hammered from all  sides to partake in same sex relationships in DA2, now this is my question: if my party members 'know me so well as to adventure with me', shouldn't they know what way I swing????

I don't propersition my gay girl friends/collegues as I know them well enough to respect their orientation, and know that it would no doubt be unwelcomed, can't we expect the same from our squadmates?

I don't think it's a tenet of good writing that characters behave in the ways that I'd most want them to behave. I would definitely prefer that my buddies not stab me in the back, but that doesn't mean it's bad writing when Zevran tries to do it at Denerim. If anything, I'd say that NPCs should have the ability to do things that the player doesn't like a bit more often; it gives the characters a greater degree of agency.

This

[Fredward]

Statare wrote...
While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?", because I am not in Middle School, I would not feel bad for the priviledged people for being left out. Y'all can go play the hundreds of other games written for you, or watch any of the tv shows or movies that glorify your life.

I have such a problem with this kind of reasoning. You can't fix the past people. If media suddenly inverted and there were only non-white disabled lesbians (hyperbole but I hope the point communicates) used as protags and the white heterosexual male was actively being excluded it would be just as bad. A game filled with only gay people for no other reason than to exclude straight people (and not say make a political statement or whatever) is wrong. How can you argue for equality on one hand, to not judge people by the way they were born, but then give the okay for something to exclude people for the way they were born? Yeah I get it. They're the majority. By chance they got wacked with the happystick when they got emancipated from the womb. That doesn't justify going "HAH! Now you can get to feel what it feels like!" It's petty. It's reactionary. And it doesn't change anything.

[Br3admax]

Just tell him to act professional and pick the big, bad, scary, mean option. No loss of Friendship. No other consequences. It's not that big a deal.

[Statare]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Statare wrote...
While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?", because I am not in Middle School, I would not feel bad for the priviledged people for being left out. Y'all can go play the hundreds of other games written for you, or watch any of the tv shows or movies that glorify your life.

I have such a problem with this kind of reasoning. You can't fix the past people. If media suddenly inverted and there were only non-white disabled lesbians (hyperbole but I hope the point communicates) used as protags and the white heterosexual male was actively being excluded it would be just as bad. A game filled with only gay people for no other reason than to exclude straight people (and not say make a political statement or whatever) is wrong. How can you argue for equality on one hand, to not judge people by the way they were born, but then give the okay for something to exclude people for the way they were born? Yeah I get it. They're the majority. By chance they got wacked with the happystick when they got emancipated from the womb. That doesn't justify going "HAH! Now you can get to feel what it feels like!" It's petty. It's reactionary. And it doesn't change anything.

I'm glad you have a problem with a kind of reasoning that does not match your own.

By definition it would change something, no? Because no longer would white, wealthy, straight-acting, men feel entitled to the Earth at the expense of someone somewhere.

[Ryzaki]

AresKeith wrote...

This

I agree with this. But I still rather have all bi LIs  I'd rather they be bi than suffer from female alien romancing renedouche who spouted anti alien crap every five seconds though.

Basically I'd rather they reacted to my choices in game than decisions I made in character generation.

[In Exile]

Statare wrote...
While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?",

Maybe a bit too over the top for the banter? 

Silfren wrote...
If Bioware made a game with an all-homosexual cast, I would sing their praises from all corners of the land, actually.  And yes, part of that WOULD be to scoff at any anyone who decided to whinge about it, especially if they made ignorant comments about pandering and social agendas.   

And no, it wouldn't be "just as bad" or some kind of "reverse" bigotry.  

Bioware just needs to recognize that everyone has a specific type, and be careful to include a viable range of options of physically. More than one body model, is where I'm going with this. 

DEMIKLY wrote...
As a heterosexual male, I was hammered from all  sides to partake in same sex relationships in DA2, now this is my question: if my party members 'know me so well as to adventure with me', shouldn't they know what way I swing????

Well, you probably should have guessed what Fenris and Anders meant by "Join us for a Sandwich?" when the response you picked was (<3) Yes. 

Modifié par In Exile, 26 novembre 2013 - 06:34 .

[Fredward]

Statare wrote...
I'm glad you have a problem with a kind of reasoning that does not match your own.

By definition it would change something, no? Because no longer would white, wealthy, straight-acting, men feel entitled to the Earth at the expense of someone somewhere.

Yeah, instead you've given minority X a fleeting taste of the privelige they have never, will never and should never have. The kind of privelige you get at the expense of others. The goal shouldn't be Minority rules over Majority the goal should be equality. The goal should be that despite the fact that minority x is a minority they should have an equal right to be represented. It shouldn't be "lets all chill in this bigoted idyll but it's okay that it's bigoted because we are usually the victims of bigots." What.

[efd731]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Statare wrote...
While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?", because I am not in Middle School, I would not feel bad for the priviledged people for being left out. Y'all can go play the hundreds of other games written for you, or watch any of the tv shows or movies that glorify your life.

I have such a problem with this kind of reasoning. You can't fix the past people. If media suddenly inverted and there were only non-white disabled lesbians (hyperbole but I hope the point communicates) used as protags and the white heterosexual male was actively being excluded it would be just as bad. A game filled with only gay people for no other reason than to exclude straight people (and not say make a political statement or whatever) is wrong. How can you argue for equality on one hand, to not judge people by the way they were born, but then give the okay for something to exclude people for the way they were born? Yeah I get it. They're the majority. By chance they got wacked with the happystick when they got emancipated from the womb. That doesn't justify going "HAH! Now you can get to feel what it feels like!" It's petty. It's reactionary. And it doesn't change anything.

insert the Morgan freeman "he's right you know" image here lol.

[efd731]

And statare, that kind of attitude isn't what makes majorities go "well, they're reasonable people and appear to have a point, maybe we should listen!" It makes them cling with every ounce of effort they can muster to what they have, because it feels like it's being stolen, instead of seeing that they've been abusing what they have

[Statare]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Statare wrote...
I'm glad you have a problem with a kind of reasoning that does not match your own.

By definition it would change something, no? Because no longer would white, wealthy, straight-acting, men feel entitled to the Earth at the expense of someone somewhere.

Yeah, instead you've given minority X a fleeting taste of the privelige they have never, will never and should never have. The kind of privelige you get at the expense of others. The goal shouldn't be Minority rules over Majority the goal should be equality. The goal should be that despite the fact that minority x is a minority they should have an equal right to be represented. It shouldn't be "lets all chill in this bigoted idyll but it's okay that it's bigoted because we are usually the victims of bigots." What.

See. If you really read what I wrote, you would know I was saying I would not feel that bad if Bioware made an "all homosexual" game for all the "left out" straight people who'd be too weirded out to play a possibly good game simply because it had the gays in it. I then went on to say I would complain about it, still, if it did things like under-represent transgenderd people, people of color, non-european viewpoints, etc.

But if you want to interpret that as me saying I want a society ruled by gay people, you can, but that is a hyperbole. I'm so glad my desire to see more gay characters, more people of color, and less borring straight guys with borring father issues and white complexions that whine about things like "honor" is so phantasmagoric for you. The fact is, I am arguing for a game that more accurately represents the vast amount of diversity of players who play Bioware games. I am not asking for Bioware to make exclusive games. I was simply asked if I would feel bad for straight people who did not want to play a game with only gay characters, and I would not. That's their loss. I've played lots of games with only straight characters that I have enjoyed playing. Similarly I have made my avatar look white, when I am not white, and been okay with it. Because I had to. I would have prefered not to, but you know, I'm used to it. Maybe straight, white guys would get used to things too.

[Silfren]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Statare wrote...
While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?", because I am not in Middle School, I would not feel bad for the priviledged people for being left out. Y'all can go play the hundreds of other games written for you, or watch any of the tv shows or movies that glorify your life.

I have such a problem with this kind of reasoning. You can't fix the past people. If media suddenly inverted and there were only non-white disabled lesbians (hyperbole but I hope the point communicates) used as protags and the white heterosexual male was actively being excluded it would be just as bad. A game filled with only gay people for no other reason than to exclude straight people (and not say make a political statement or whatever) is wrong. How can you argue for equality on one hand, to not judge people by the way they were born, but then give the okay for something to exclude people for the way they were born? Yeah I get it. They're the majority. By chance they got wacked with the happystick when they got emancipated from the womb. That doesn't justify going "HAH! Now you can get to feel what it feels like!" It's petty. It's reactionary. And it doesn't change anything.

I would have a lot more sympathy for this if it weren't for the fact that the people who make this argument, insisting that doing the same thing in reverse would be just as wrong, NEVER care about it being wrong until they're the ones being adversely affected.  Perhaps you as an individual don't feel this way, but I can tell you from direct personal experience, whether the subject is women, or PoCs, or LGBT persons, or whatever: the people in the dominant group who suddenly feel the need to be all self-righteous and affronted over the indignity of dealing with a problem by throwing it into reverse and making THEM feel excluded and marginalized...they ONLY ever feel the need to raise a hue and cry when the shoe is on their foot for a change, and that's why it's hard to give a good g*ddamn about their feelings. 

The reality is that that if you don't notice the disparity and don't see why it's a serious problem so long as it does not affect you...but you do suddenly take notice when it suddenly starts to affect you, and only then do you feel the need to object...then I'm not going to care much about the whole "but...but...but reverse ism OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!"  Not when your reaction makes it clear that you don't care so much about the inequity of the situation so much as your own possible loss of privilege.

Edited grammar for possible clarity issues.  It's late.

Modifié par Silfren, 26 novembre 2013 - 07:07 .

[Statare]

Silfren wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Statare wrote...
While I would not say, "hah!! Suck it hetero lovers, how does it feel?", because I am not in Middle School, I would not feel bad for the priviledged people for being left out. Y'all can go play the hundreds of other games written for you, or watch any of the tv shows or movies that glorify your life.

I have such a problem with this kind of reasoning. You can't fix the past people. If media suddenly inverted and there were only non-white disabled lesbians (hyperbole but I hope the point communicates) used as protags and the white heterosexual male was actively being excluded it would be just as bad. A game filled with only gay people for no other reason than to exclude straight people (and not say make a political statement or whatever) is wrong. How can you argue for equality on one hand, to not judge people by the way they were born, but then give the okay for something to exclude people for the way they were born? Yeah I get it. They're the majority. By chance they got wacked with the happystick when they got emancipated from the womb. That doesn't justify going "HAH! Now you can get to feel what it feels like!" It's petty. It's reactionary. And it doesn't change anything.

I would have a lot more sympathy for this argument if it weren't for the fact that the people who make this argument, that doing the same thing in reverse would be just as wrong, NEVER care about it being wrong until they're the ones being adversely affected.  Perhaps you as an individual don't feel this way, but I can tell you from direct personal experience, whether the subject is women, or PoCs, or LGBT persons, or whatever: the people in the dominant group who suddenly feel the need to be all self-righteous and affronted over the indignity of dealing with a problem by throwing it into reverse and making THEM feel excluded and marginalized...they ONLY ever feel the need to raise a hue and cry when the shoe is on their foot for a change, and that's why it's hard to give a good g*ddamn about their feelings. 

The reality is that that if you don't notice the disparity, and don't see why it's a serious problem, when it does not affect you...but you do suddenly take notice when it suddenly starts to affect you, and only then do you feel the need to object...then I'm not going to care much about the whole "but...but...but reverse ism OMGWTFBBQ!!!!!!"  Not when your reaction makes it clear that you don't care so much about the inequity of the situation so much as your own possible loss of privilege.

Beautiful.

[Silfren]

efd731 wrote...

And statare, that kind of attitude isn't what makes majorities go "well, they're reasonable people and appear to have a point, maybe we should listen!" It makes them cling with every ounce of effort they can muster to what they have, because it feels like it's being stolen, instead of seeing that they've been abusing what they have

Actually, history indicates that majority groups will cling to what they have for fear of having it stolen regardless of the attitude minority groups take.  Exhorting them to be "polite" or "reasonable" about it typically is just a silencing technique.  I have very seldom seen reliable evidence that adhering to a proper tone or attitude does anything positive for the marginalized group.  It just makes them easier to disregard.

[Silfren]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Statare wrote...
I'm glad you have a problem with a kind of reasoning that does not match your own.

By definition it would change something, no? Because no longer would white, wealthy, straight-acting, men feel entitled to the Earth at the expense of someone somewhere.

Yeah, instead you've given minority X a fleeting taste of the privelige they have never, will never and should never have. The kind of privelige you get at the expense of others. The goal shouldn't be Minority rules over Majority the goal should be equality. The goal should be that despite the fact that minority x is a minority they should have an equal right to be represented. It shouldn't be "lets all chill in this bigoted idyll but it's okay that it's bigoted because we are usually the victims of bigots." What.

Correction: "The goal should be that irrespective of the fact that minority x is a minority they should have an equal right to be represented."  "Despite" carries a rather pernicious connotation.  Think about it.