454 réponses à ce sujet

[Statare]

Sorry for being a big bad scary queer brown person vocalizing opinions that threaten the hegemony.

Seriously, though, this Latindi@ is taking a break. It's been fun. Super swell.

*bows* *curtsies* *and kisses all the bourgeois white folk and offers them a peace-burrito*

[efd731]

Congratulations to everyone we discovered that no one likes being treated like crap for any reason, and that allthough inequalities exist the BSN is equipped to handle them (maybe some sarcasm this time) however it's 1:30 I'm Canada, and I need sleep.

[Fredward]

Silfren wrote...
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.

Huh. Maybe now would be a good time to mention that I'm not straight and have a disability that's required 8 major surgeries and two years of my life just to get me to walk a decade or so longer.

So trust me when I say I get it. I get what it feels like looking at every single image in our modern world and knowing that I am represented by absence more often than not. It helps that women and PoC and LGBT people ALL get infinitely more representation than anyone with a disability. I know how bitter it tastes when you are so far beneath the notice of the general public that you rarely even show up as caricatures so often contributed to other minorities. I see the inequalities people never even notice, I see how the oh-so-considerate wheelchair aisle in a bank is far too narrow for an actual wheelchair, or how there are books stacked so high at the end that no person in a wheelchair would even be able to see the accountant - if there was one of course. I see how awkward people get around anyone with an obvious disability, how they modulate their speech, how they change their stance, how they avert their eyes so you don't see the pity and vague revulsion in them. I know what it is to become a category rather than a person. I get it. So do not presume to lecture me, to ascribe views to me. You do not know me.

Now that the indignant rant part of this post is over lemme try and properly articulate exactly what I mean. Oh and please forgive any poor choice of words, English is not my first language and it's still early. I like to think that I can still communicate a broad idea.

We want equality right? Representation that acknowledges our existence and portrays us in a believable and realistic way. The normal people we actually are and not a distinct set of stereotypes so often attributed to us by the ruling hegemony. At least that is what I assume we want. Equality. Not retribution. Not for the media to create a counter image that is just as vile and exclusive as that which we are arguing against. Except this time instead of purposefully excluding (or worse, just forgetting) millions the wish is to exclude billions. We have been oppressed, are oppressed, for ****ing centuries so clearly a little payback is necessary, yes? What harm is there in portraying all white heterosexual men as rich, entitled bourgeois dicks yeah? Isn't that what they are? They're an active part of the dominant society aren't they? The very symbol of everything we are not. Sometimes this kind of exclusion is justified, when the goal is to undermine the status quo, to hold up a mirror and ask "do you see?" But not when the goal is exclusion in and off itself. Which is what I see happen so very often. Formerly oppressed groups gain status and they do not ask for equality they ask for reparation. They ask for someone to be held accountable for a past that cannot be fixed. Instead of looking forward they choose to keep pointing backwards, keep asking for someone to fix that. And I get it. It's the natural response, it's the easy response. It's the "well they never acknowledged our concerns so why should I pay any attention to theirs?" kinda rhetoric that ensures we're doomed to be caught in this loop where we are never actually free of that inequality but keep it alive forever by clinging to past injustice to justify current prejudice. Yeah. Reverse-ism. Petty, reactionary, hypocritical BS that ensures continued inequality, imagined or otherwise, better than even the ingrained beliefs of millenia old preconceptions.

So yeah. I get upset when I see posts like whatshisface's where he proclaims to not see the problem with reactionary inequality. That it wouldn't be so bad. Because why? It's only inequality when it's your minority? Because inequality is confined to minorities? Because you can't be prejudiced against Society's Default? Spare me. There is still problems in our society, oodles of them, anyone who denies this is either delusional or blinded by their own privilege but the way to fix that is not to become the exact thing you're fighting against just for your minority of choice. That isn't equality. 

[wolfhowwl]

Plaintiff wrote...

efd731 wrote...

Dhiro 

why though

Because I think wanting/expecting a different sexuality(for a game character) simply for the sake that it appeals to you is silly regardless. There is headcanon for a reason, and bioware is writing the story not us. My last post got away from me,(apologies to all) but what I'm trying to say is that bioware makes a good mix of characters, and no specific sexuality matters in-game. All the furor is here on the BSN over a rather small game issue.

Do you think it's 'silly' for people to ask for other particular gameplay features that appeal to them, such as overhead cameras or crafting systems?

The tactical camera is actually important unlike who gets bang who in the tacked on dating sim.

[Fredward]

M25105 wrote...
"Privileged people" I see the social justice warriors are out in full force. Now we just need the tranny lovers to also demand that they're given equal "screen time".

Considering myopic privileged person #336 has just arrived that would help fill out the roster, yeah.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

...So how about that twerkin?

I personally think the game should focus on having a good story and good design instead of making all the characters bangable to either gender. At most, I'd put one bi character in the game as well as one completely gay character. That's it. This game isn't about pandering to same-sex relationships. This isn't about equality of sexual orientation in player choice, this is about a good game. I'm all for you RP'ing a character that swings wherever you want them too, but not if it starts detracting from the experience.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 26 novembre 2013 - 12:53 .

[Ravensword]

sandalisthemaker wrote...

Ravensword wrote...

sandalisthemaker wrote...

I CAN TWERK TO ANYTHING.  AND I MEAN ANYTHING. ALPINE YODELING, DEATH METAL. IT'S ALL GOOD.

NO TWERKING ALLOWED TO ANY GENRE!

JUST TRY IT. YOU WILL LOVE IT.
OH WHAT AM I SAYING. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT THOSE WHO ARE MOST VEHEMENTLY TWERKOPHOBIC ARE ACTUALLY CLOSETED TWERKING FIENDS.  NO SHAME GURL. OUT 'N PROUD IS WHERE IT'S AT.

No, no, no. Twerking leads to this:



If you're wondering about the image; two reasons: A, it's b/c I was too lazy to look for it, and since someone had posted it on my wall, I might as well use it. B, it's actually better looking and a lot easier on the eyes than an actual image of Miley Cyrus. Also, Nic Cage makes everything better.

[In Exile]

Silfren wrote...
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. 

Personally, I think that an RPG like Bioware designs is the best vehicle to create a game with a cast that is predominantly, say, women or PoCS or LGBT persons or all of the above. If the setting recognizes that (i) players can be of all genders. appearance and orientations and (ii) allows the player to be of any gender, apperance or orientation, then I think it's hard to say the game's given enough of an outlet for the player not to feel excluded. I don't think that would work in reverse - because of all the historical discrimination reasons - but I do think there's a lot of leeway to be inclusive will still filling an important hole in media for unrepresented groups. 

[Statare]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

...So how about that twerkin?

I personally think the game should focus on having a good story and good design instead of making all the characters bangable to either gender. At most, I'd put one bi character in the game as well as one completely gay character. That's it. This game isn't about pandering to same-sex relationships. This isn't about equality of sexual orientation in player choice, this is about a good game. I'm all for you RP'ing a character that swings wherever you want them too, but not if it starts detracting from the experience.

I agree with you, but we had some people implying a good game can't exist with more gay, bi, or not, straight, white, male characters than we normally have. A Bioware game with all "minority" characters could still have an amazing story, but some people decided that things like gender, orientation, and race affect the quality story....

Modifié par Statare, 26 novembre 2013 - 03:27 .

[Statare]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Silfren wrote...
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.

Huh. Maybe now would be a good time to mention that I'm not straight and have a disability that's required 8 major surgeries and two years of my life just to get me to walk a decade or so longer.

So trust me when I say I get it. I get what it feels like looking at every single image in our modern world and knowing that I am represented by absence more often than not. It helps that women and PoC and LGBT people ALL get infinitely more representation than anyone with a disability. I know how bitter it tastes when you are so far beneath the notice of the general public that you rarely even show up as caricatures so often contributed to other minorities. I see the inequalities people never even notice, I see how the oh-so-considerate wheelchair aisle in a bank is far too narrow for an actual wheelchair, or how there are books stacked so high at the end that no person in a wheelchair would even be able to see the accountant - if there was one of course. I see how awkward people get around anyone with an obvious disability, how they modulate their speech, how they change their stance, how they avert their eyes so you don't see the pity and vague revulsion in them. I know what it is to become a category rather than a person. I get it. So do not presume to lecture me, to ascribe views to me. You do not know me.

Now that the indignant rant part of this post is over lemme try and properly articulate exactly what I mean. Oh and please forgive any poor choice of words, English is not my first language and it's still early. I like to think that I can still communicate a broad idea.

We want equality right? Representation that acknowledges our existence and portrays us in a believable and realistic way. The normal people we actually are and not a distinct set of stereotypes so often attributed to us by the ruling hegemony. At least that is what I assume we want. Equality. Not retribution. Not for the media to create a counter image that is just as vile and exclusive as that which we are arguing against. Except this time instead of purposefully excluding (or worse, just forgetting) millions the wish is to exclude billions. We have been oppressed, are oppressed, for ****ing centuries so clearly a little payback is necessary, yes? What harm is there in portraying all white heterosexual men as rich, entitled bourgeois dicks yeah? Isn't that what they are? They're an active part of the dominant society aren't they? The very symbol of everything we are not. Sometimes this kind of exclusion is justified, when the goal is to undermine the status quo, to hold up a mirror and ask "do you see?" But not when the goal is exclusion in and off itself. Which is what I see happen so very often. Formerly oppressed groups gain status and they do not ask for equality they ask for reparation. They ask for someone to be held accountable for a past that cannot be fixed. Instead of looking forward they choose to keep pointing backwards, keep asking for someone to fix that. And I get it. It's the natural response, it's the easy response. It's the "well they never acknowledged our concerns so why should I pay any attention to theirs?" kinda rhetoric that ensures we're doomed to be caught in this loop where we are never actually free of that inequality but keep it alive forever by clinging to past injustice to justify current prejudice. Yeah. Reverse-ism. Petty, reactionary, hypocritical BS that ensures continued inequality, imagined or otherwise, better than even the ingrained beliefs of millenia old preconceptions.

So yeah. I get upset when I see posts like whatshisface's where he proclaims to not see the problem with reactionary inequality. That it wouldn't be so bad. Because why? It's only inequality when it's your minority? Because inequality is confined to minorities? Because you can't be prejudiced against Society's Default? Spare me. There is still problems in our society, oodles of them, anyone who denies this is either delusional or blinded by their own privilege but the way to fix that is not to become the exact thing you're fighting against just for your minority of choice. That isn't equality. 

Neither me nor Silfren were saying we don't want games that are inclusive. We were asked a hypothetical question about if somehow a game could ever be written with all gay characters and whether we would like it or feel bad for non-gay people, we responded (I responded explicitly sarcasticly). I really do agree with you more than you may think, and I'm glad you shared all this. I enjoyed reading it, and I agree with almost all of it.

<3

Modifié par Statare, 26 novembre 2013 - 03:42 .

[Ianamus]

Plaintiff wrote...

EJ107 wrote...
I never said that the player shouldnt have access to every LI or that there should be an unequal number of options. I said that the companions should have fixed sexualities, which could mean any number of options/orientations. All bisexual is still fixed sexualities, as long as they are actually portrayed as bisexual, not a vague mess.

Not everyone in real life has a 'fixed sexuality'. And of the ones that do, they don't all fit comfortably in your boxes.

Why does anyone, least of all a fictional character, have to consent to being labelled for your comfort and convenience?

Do you rember Hendel? The homosexual security chief in the Mass effect book series who suddenly became attracted to Asari in the infamous Mass Effect: Deception? 

Obviously that doesn't matter. there are people in real life who don't have a "fixed sexuality". What was the problem with making him suddenly attracted to women when before he showed no attraction to them? Sexuality is fluid, our understanding of it is only a social construct. 

Can you see now how harmful this argument is?

It's about representation. Most people in real life do have a sexual identity, and they want to feel represented in media. We still haven't had a specifically homosexual companion in a Dargon Age game, and how are we going to have one unless it is made clear that they are? 

Modifié par EJ107, 26 novembre 2013 - 03:42 .

[Statare]

EJ107 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EJ107 wrote...
I never said that the player shouldnt have access to every LI or that there should be an unequal number of options. I said that the companions should have fixed sexualities, which could mean any number of options/orientations. All bisexual is still fixed sexualities, as long as they are actually portrayed as bisexual, not a vague mess.

Not everyone in real life has a 'fixed sexuality'. And of the ones that do, they don't all fit comfortably in your boxes.

Why does anyone, least of all a fictional character, have to consent to being labelled for your comfort and convenience?

Do you rember Hendel? The homosexual security chief in the Mass effect book series who suddenly became attracted to Asari in the infamous Mass Effect: Deception? 

Obviously that doesn't matter. there are people in real life who don't have a "fixed sexuality". What was the problem with making him suddenly attracted to women when before he showed no attraction to them? Sexuality is fluid, our understanding of it is only a social construct. 

Can you see now how harmful this argument is?

It's about representation. Most people in real life do have a sexual identity, and they want to feel represented in media. We still haven't had a specifically homosexual companion in a Dargon Age game, and how are we going to have one unless it is made clear that they are? 

Hypothetically Asari are not female, but if they really look like that and don't have male and female parts then they really are more female than male, regardless of alienness cause no alien would look so human-like <_<

Anyway. I think you are getting at something. In both DA games, the only characters (besides the player-character) who engage in relations stricktly with one gender are straight. Therefore the games are complicant in implying that heterosexual desire is foundational, and same sex desire is an additional, melleable, preference for all people. In the series (at least videogames) there have been no lesbian, gay, or aesexual main-characters. You only have characters who say they view men and women the same, and not who say, you know, I only like my own gender, sorry. Or even who say, you know, I like you, but I'd never sleep with you, but I still want you to be more than a friend. 

Sexuality may be fluid, but arguably it is never straight characters that challenge assumptions of stable sexuality, and as a result non-straight orientations are placed into a group where more liberties are taken and not given the "high seriousness" that characters like Allistair or Sebastian get in regards to love.

[Secretlyapotato]

I didn't like how it was in DA2, they made it super politically correct. Wtf why is Anders having a banter catfight with Merrill over Hawke? o.O

[esper]

Secretlyapotato wrote...

I didn't like how it was in DA2, they made it super politically correct. Wtf why is Anders having a banter catfight with Merrill over Hawke? o.O

Because they were both in love with Hawke.

[Ridwan]

Secretlyapotato wrote...

I didn't like how it was in DA2, they made it super politically correct. Wtf why is Anders having a banter catfight with Merrill over Hawke? o.O

That's why. It kills the soul of diversity and conversation if everyone has to be super considerate with a hivemind mentality.

[Ianamus]

Statare wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EJ107 wrote...
I never said that the player shouldnt have access to every LI or that there should be an unequal number of options. I said that the companions should have fixed sexualities, which could mean any number of options/orientations. All bisexual is still fixed sexualities, as long as they are actually portrayed as bisexual, not a vague mess.

Not everyone in real life has a 'fixed sexuality'. And of the ones that do, they don't all fit comfortably in your boxes.

Why does anyone, least of all a fictional character, have to consent to being labelled for your comfort and convenience?

Do you rember Hendel? The homosexual security chief in the Mass effect book series who suddenly became attracted to Asari in the infamous Mass Effect: Deception? 

Obviously that doesn't matter. there are people in real life who don't have a "fixed sexuality". What was the problem with making him suddenly attracted to women when before he showed no attraction to them? Sexuality is fluid, our understanding of it is only a social construct. 

Can you see now how harmful this argument is?

It's about representation. Most people in real life do have a sexual identity, and they want to feel represented in media. We still haven't had a specifically homosexual companion in a Dargon Age game, and how are we going to have one unless it is made clear that they are? 

Hypothetically Asari are not female, but if they really look like that and don't have male and female parts then they really are more female than male, regardless of alienness cause no alien would look so human-like <_<

Anyway. I think you are getting at something. In both DA games, the only characters (besides the player-character) who engage in relations stricktly with one gender are straight. Therefore the games are complicant in implying that heterosexual desire is foundational, and same sex desire is an additional, melleable, preference for all people. In the series (at least videogames) there have been no lesbian, gay, or aesexual main-characters. You only have characters who say they view men and women the same, and not who say, you know, I only like my own gender, sorry. Or even who say, you know, I like you, but I'd never sleep with you, but I still want you to be more than a friend. 

Sexuality may be fluid, but arguably it is never straight characters that challenge assumptions of stable sexuality, and as a result non-straight orientations are placed into a group where more liberties are taken and not given the "high seriousness" that characters like Allistair or Sebastian get in regards to love.

Exactly. While I can see the argument that we don't need to know exactly what sexuality the characters are and that sexuality is fluid and whatnot, I still find issue with the fact that almost every single main charcter and every companion who has shown attraction, has show attraction to the opposite gender. It just so happens that some express attraction to the same gender as well. 

I love the fact that Bioware are including people of different sexual orientations in their games, but when you only have straight people and a slew of people on varying scales of bisexuality you are still not including a large group of people.

I really liked the fact that Samantha Traynor not only indicated that she liked the same sex, but that she wasn't interested in men that way. Instead of just having people who were straight and bisexual it showed that homosexual people do exist in the Mass Effect universe, and that they too can play a key role in the story. It doesn't even need to be an LI, any charcter could do this, and I think it's something that Inquisition should include. 

Modifié par EJ107, 26 novembre 2013 - 04:22 .

[Nefla]

So...how about those party banters?

[Plaintiff]

wolfhowwl wrote...
The tactical camera is actually important unlike who gets bang who in the tacked on dating sim.

Says who? You?

Maybe I say the camera view is unimportant, that calling it a 'tactical' camera is a fallacy and that if the players whining for it were truly tactically minded, they'd learn to work with the tools they were given instead of demanding new ones.

Whereas the marginalisation of minorities is a real problem in the real world, and how they are depicted in any media, especially videogames, is far more important than any specific  gameplay issue within a single game, be it Dragon Age or anything else.

[ScarMK]

Plaintiff wrote...
Says who? You?

Maybe I say the camera view is unimportant, that calling it a 'tactical' camera is a fallacy and that if the players whining for it were truly tactically minded, they'd learn to work with the tools they were given instead of demanding new ones.

Whereas the marginalisation of minorities is a real problem in the real world, and how they are depicted in any media, especially videogames, is far more important than any specific  gameplay issue within a single game, be it Dragon Age or anything else.

But Dragon Age is fantasy and the real world doesn't apply here, does it Plaintiff?

Modifié par ScarMK, 26 novembre 2013 - 04:47 .

[Br3admax]

I hope we get great party banter about tactical camera. They never talked about it much in the first two games, and I hope that DA:I fixes that.

[Hellion Rex]

Nefla wrote...

So...how about those party banters?

yes, I like those!

[Hellion Rex]

ScarMK wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Says who? You?

Maybe I say the camera view is unimportant, that calling it a 'tactical' camera is a fallacy and that if the players whining for it were truly tactically minded, they'd learn to work with the tools they were given instead of demanding new ones.

Whereas the marginalisation of minorities is a real problem in the real world, and how they are depicted in any media, especially videogames, is far more important than any specific  gameplay issue within a single game, be it Dragon Age or anything else.

But Dragon Age is fantasy and the real world doesn't apply here, does it Plaintiff?

fair point. 

[General TSAR]

Hmm an exploding S/S romance thread, Plaintiff must complaining again.
(Clicks on thread)
I'm like Nostradamus.
........
No problem.....as long as there are snarky remarks.

Modifié par General TSAR, 26 novembre 2013 - 04:52 .

[Hazegurl]

Secretlyapotato wrote...

I didn't like how it was in DA2, they made it super politically correct. Wtf why is Anders having a banter catfight with Merrill over Hawke? o.O

The anti PC hysteria is just as bad as PC hysteria.  

[Plaintiff]

ScarMK wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Says who? You?

Maybe I say the camera view is unimportant, that calling it a 'tactical' camera is a fallacy and that if the players whining for it were truly tactically minded, they'd learn to work with the tools they were given instead of demanding new ones.

Whereas the marginalisation of minorities is a real problem in the real world, and how they are depicted in any media, especially videogames, is far more important than any specific  gameplay issue within a single game, be it Dragon Age or anything else.

But Dragon Age is fantasy and the real world doesn't apply here, does it Plaintiff?

All media products, regardless of genre, reflect and inform the society that made them. As such, the way they present certain groups absolutely should be scrutinised.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:03 .