454 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

eluvianix wrote...

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. 

It's not a fair point, it's actually a very stupid point. Genre has nothing to do with it. Using fantasy or science fiction to espouse a bigoted view is not more acceptable than using modern drama to do it.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:06 .

[Br3admax]

So fantasy has to give a rule for everything except for when it concerns the things you want? That seems a little unfair, Plantiff. I've never even seen them outright use the word homosexuality in Dragon Age. As such, everything doesn't have to be a political statement. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:08 .

[Allan Schumacher]

General TSAR wrote...

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.

I'd really prefer posts like this just not be made (ones that do little more than just call out another poster, as well as ones calling for increased snark).

[ScarMK]

Plaintiff wrote...
It's not a fair point, it's actually a very stupid point. Genre has nothing to do with it. Using fantasy or science fiction to espouse a bigoted view is not more acceptable than using modern drama to do it.

Baited and got the answer I desired.   Thank you Plaintiff.

[Plaintiff]

Br3ad wrote...
So fantasy has to give a rule for everything

I never said this ever in any place ever. In fact, I explicitly said that fantasy doesn't have to tell the reader anything at all. Once again, you're concocting my arguments out of your imagination and not actually reading a single word I say.

And it's not even an argument that has any relevance here, because that was about the existence of scientific principles that underpin the internal workings of the Dragon Age setting. This is about how real-world attitudes have influenced the depiction of minority groups in the media product titled 'Dragon Age'.

They are two completely separate concepts with zero overlap. I've explained this to you as simply as I possibly can, now, so if you don't get it, then please, for the love of God, stop wasting my time. Just don't talk to me, at all, ever.

except for when it concerns the things you want? That seems a little unfair, Plantiff. I've never even seen them outright use the word homosexuality in Dragon Age. As such, everything doesn't have to be a political statement.

I never said all media products 'have' to be political statements.

But they are political statements, regardless. It's not something that can be avoided. The perceived absence of political statement is, itself, a political statement.

If you think Dragon Age doesn't say anything about homosexuality just because it never used the word, then you are blind. And that's the nicest way I can put it. I seriously can't think of a more polite term.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:28 .

[Plaintiff]

ScarMK wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
It's not a fair point, it's actually a very stupid point. Genre has nothing to do with it. Using fantasy or science fiction to espouse a bigoted view is not more acceptable than using modern drama to do it.

Baited and got the answer I desired.   Thank you Plaintiff.

I'm sure that's what you think happened, but you clearly haven't understood a single word I said. Not just in this thread, but anywhere ever.

[Statare]

Br3ad wrote...

So fantasy has to give a rule for everything except for when it concerns the things you want? That seems a little unfair, Plantiff. I've never even seen them outright use the word homosexuality in Dragon Age. As such, everything doesn't have to be a political statement. 

As all humans have viewpoints and opinions, we are all inherently politcal beings. As all cultural products, including videogames, are made by people with opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints, they reflect a politic. 

And, maybe they consciously chose to not use the word homosexuality? Michel Foucault wrote in his "History of Sexuality" that the term did not appear in our world until the mid to late 1800s, so maybe in Thedas they don't have a psycho-scientific term for something because they don't have psychoanalytics? Hence their choice to not say "homosexuality" could be political. Heteronormativity is a politic as much as wanting more equality is a politic.

[Hellion Rex]

Plaintiff wrote...

ScarMK wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
It's not a fair point, it's actually a very stupid point. Genre has nothing to do with it. Using fantasy or science fiction to espouse a bigoted view is not more acceptable than using modern drama to do it.

Baited and got the answer I desired.   Thank you Plaintiff.

I'm sure that's what you think happened, but you clearly haven't understood a single word I said. Not just in this thread, but anywhere ever.

A bit acidic, Plaintiff. 

Modifié par eluvianix, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:30 .

[nightscrawl]

Plaintiff wrote...

It's not a fair point, it's actually a very stupid point. Genre has nothing to do with it. Using fantasy or science fiction to espouse a bigoted view is not more acceptable than using modern drama to do it.

This is an interesting point, especially since there are fantasy and sci-fi works that go out of their way to present relative utopias, free from suffering, prejudice, and the like. Star Trek for example.

Bigotry, or the lack thereof, in entertainment can be used for a number of purposes: to represent reality, throw a light on a problem many people might not recognize in their daily lives, or illustrate how absurd quibbles over minor differences are.

I suppose my favorite Star Trek episode along those lines is Let That Be Your Last Battlefield. The two aliens appear basically similar to us (the viewer) -- they are literally half black and half white -- and the crew. Later on we learn that the difference in their culture is that one group is black on the left side, while the other is black on the right side. It is absurd, and Capt. Kirk (and hopefully the viewer) responds incredulously.

To go back to the s/s angle, sometimes presenting intense bigotry can lead a person to feel that their own casual bigotry is indeed wrong (I can't give an example from existing media). But also presenting no bigotry, showing certain groups as just normal human beings, can help people to lose their view of them as "others" and think of them as people. Both methods can work, but like anything else, it depends on the execution and the person absorbing the material; one method might be more effective than another for different people.

[edit]
Another example and method I can give is from the movie District 9, which is essentially a diatribe against apartheid. This film uses aliens in the place of black South Africans, and of course, both the black and white South Africans are persecutors of the aliens in this situation.

There are many ways to drive home a political point in entertainment. Gene Roddenberry typically used a sledge hammer in Star Trek, but that isn't always necessary, as in District 9 which is more subtle, if still obvious.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:47 .

[Br3admax]

Statare wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

So fantasy has to give a rule for everything except for when it concerns the things you want? That seems a little unfair, Plantiff. I've never even seen them outright use the word homosexuality in Dragon Age. As such, everything doesn't have to be a political statement. 

As all humans have viewpoints and opinions, we are all inherently politcal beings. As all cultural products, including videogames, are made by people with opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints, they reflect a politic. 

And, maybe they consciously chose to not use the word homosexuality? Michel Foucault wrote in his "History of Sexuality" that the term did not appear in our world until the mid to late 1800s, so maybe in Thedas they don't have a psycho-scientific term for something because they don't have psychoanalytics? Hence their choice to not say "homosexuality" could be political. Heteronormativity is a politic as much as wanting more equality is a politic.

Having political beliefs does not make every single decision a political statement. 

[Statare]

Br3ad wrote...

Statare wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

So fantasy has to give a rule for everything except for when it concerns the things you want? That seems a little unfair, Plantiff. I've never even seen them outright use the word homosexuality in Dragon Age. As such, everything doesn't have to be a political statement. 

As all humans have viewpoints and opinions, we are all inherently politcal beings. As all cultural products, including videogames, are made by people with opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints, they reflect a politic. 

And, maybe they consciously chose to not use the word homosexuality? Michel Foucault wrote in his "History of Sexuality" that the term did not appear in our world until the mid to late 1800s, so maybe in Thedas they don't have a psycho-scientific term for something because they don't have psychoanalytics? Hence their choice to not say "homosexuality" could be political. Heteronormativity is a politic as much as wanting more equality is a politic.

Having political beliefs does not make every single decision a political statement. 

The definition of politic is "adjective : (of an action) seeming sensible and judicious under the circumstances." This means that a choice was made reflecting circumstances. The choice is key, because different people could come to different conclusions and choose different actions. Every action reflects a politic, a choice.

Edit: my original post was engaging in a politic of color and formating.

Modifié par Statare, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:45 .

[Plaintiff]

eluvianix wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

ScarMK wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
It's not a fair point, it's actually a very stupid point. Genre has nothing to do with it. Using fantasy or science fiction to espouse a bigoted view is not more acceptable than using modern drama to do it.

Baited and got the answer I desired.   Thank you Plaintiff.

I'm sure that's what you think happened, but you clearly haven't understood a single word I said. Not just in this thread, but anywhere ever.

A bit acidic, Plaintiff. 

On the contrary, it was exceedingly generous. ScarMK doesn't understand my argument, and that's just a fact. Or, if ScarMK does understand, then he or she is making a very convincing display of ignorance. I'm actually being helpful.

I take special care to express my arguments in the most accessible way I can, using the simplest words I can think of at the time. Despite this, posters continue, repeatedly, to misrepresent my arguments and try to tell me I've said something when I've actually said the exact opposite. They also like to drag in previous arguments about entirely different topics, and take quotes out of context to try and make me appear confused or hypocritical.

Why I keep trying to reduce my arguments to their simplest possible expression, I have no idea, because it's never made the slgihtest bit of difference. My time would be better spent banging my head against a literal brick wall. At least there'd be a slight possibilty of making a dent.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:50 .

[Lluthren]

Don't they always make fun of all romances?

[Allan Schumacher]

Br3ad wrote...

Having political beliefs does not make every single decision a political statement. 

Unfortunately it really does come across that way.

The only way to move away from the status quo, it seems, is to make a "political statement."  If this is the case, then remaining firmly in the status quo really seems to be a political statement in its own right, even if one doesn't intend it to be.


Doubly so since I am skeptical that we could add something like a homosexual character and not have someone take it as a political statement.

[Silfren]

Br3ad wrote...

Statare wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

So fantasy has to give a rule for everything except for when it concerns the things you want? That seems a little unfair, Plantiff. I've never even seen them outright use the word homosexuality in Dragon Age. As such, everything doesn't have to be a political statement. 

As all humans have viewpoints and opinions, we are all inherently politcal beings. As all cultural products, including videogames, are made by people with opinions, beliefs, and viewpoints, they reflect a politic. 

And, maybe they consciously chose to not use the word homosexuality? Michel Foucault wrote in his "History of Sexuality" that the term did not appear in our world until the mid to late 1800s, so maybe in Thedas they don't have a psycho-scientific term for something because they don't have psychoanalytics? Hence their choice to not say "homosexuality" could be political. Heteronormativity is a politic as much as wanting more equality is a politic.

Having political beliefs does not make every single decision a political statement. 

No, but you are kidding yourself if you think that media which does NOT include LGBT persons is not making one.  Any media which has an all-white, all-straight IS making a political statement.  The people who complain about such statements in media which features a high ratio of minority characters simply don't gripe about it in the other because they don't recognize it, not because it isn't there.

That's the long and short of it.  Hell, any time people here complain that Bioware shouldn't include a given group of people in the game because it wouldn't be realistic to do so, they are making such statements about the way they perceive the world, even if that perception is extremely inaccurate against historical reality.  On a darker bent, I daresay some people making such statements are arguing for the way they want the world to be.

[Hellion Rex]

Plaintiff wrote...

On the contrary, it was exceedingly generous. ScarMK doesn't understand my argument, and that's just a fact. Or, if ScarMK does understand, then he or she is making a very convincing display of ignorance.

I take special care to express my arguments in the most accessible way I can, using the simplest words I can think of at the time. Despite this, posters continue, repeatedly, to misrepresent my arguments and try to tell me I've said something when I've actually said the exact opposite.

Why I keep trying to reduce my arguments to their simplest possible expression, I have no idea, because it's never made the slgihtest bit of difference. My time would be better spent banging my head against a literal brick wall. At least there'd be a slight possibilty of making a dent.

I honestly don't give a hoot if Scar gets your point or not. It does not excuse the way you have been replying to people who cannot follow your argument. And the bolded part is just plain rude man. Not cool. 

[Silfren]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Having political beliefs does not make every single decision a political statement. 

Unfortunately it really does come across that way.

The only way to move away from the status quo, it seems, is to make a "political statement."  If this is the case, then remaining firmly in the status quo really seems to be a political statement in its own right, even if one doesn't intend it to be.

Yes.  One way of altering the status quo involves making things become more acceptable through normalization.  And one way to do that is for video games to include LGBT characters (or trans* characters, or PoCs, etc) and have them all receive the exact same kind of non-issue characterization and story that the straight white guy characters get. 

Modifié par Silfren, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:52 .

[nightscrawl]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Unfortunately it really does come across that way.

The only way to move away from the status quo, it seems, is to make a "political statement."  If this is the case, then remaining firmly in the status quo really seems to be a political statement in its own right, even if one doesn't intend it to be.


Doubly so since I am skeptical that we could add something like a homosexual character and not have someone take it as a political statement.

Indeed. Tacit approval is probably the biggest hurdle to change. If you disagree, but say or do nothing, then nothing ever changes. There always has to be some person, or in this case of Bioware, entity, that is willing to actually do something and go against the status quo. Sure there are indy games that might do the same thing, but Bioware is a big player in the industry and can effect change because they are so big. I for one am proud to give Bioware my money for this reason.

[Plaintiff]

eluvianix wrote...
I honestly don't give a hoot if Scar gets your point or not.

Well you should. Ambivalence towards ignorance is inexcusable.

It does not excuse the way you have been replying to people who cannot follow your argument. And the bolded part is just plain rude man. Not cool.

You crusade against bad manners, I'll focus on real problems.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 26 novembre 2013 - 05:58 .

[Silfren]

nightscrawl wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Unfortunately it really does come across that way.

The only way to move away from the status quo, it seems, is to make a "political statement."  If this is the case, then remaining firmly in the status quo really seems to be a political statement in its own right, even if one doesn't intend it to be.


Doubly so since I am skeptical that we could add something like a homosexual character and not have someone take it as a political statement.

Indeed. Tacit approval is probably the biggest hurdle to change. If you disagree, but say or do nothing, then nothing ever changes. There always has to be some person, or in this case of Bioware, entity, that is willing to actually do something and go against the status quo. Sure there are indy games that might do the same thing, but Bioware is a big player in the industry and can effect change because they are so big. I for one am proud to give Bioware my money for this reason.

Same here.  I actually bought Dragon Age only because a friend described it on her blog as being "the least sexist game" she had ever played.  That is what got my attention in the first place, and the other ways in which Bioware tries to be inclusive--which is not perfect; there are problems which need improvement--are the reasons why I continue to give them my money. 

[billy the squid]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Having political beliefs does not make every single decision a political statement. 

Unfortunately it really does come across that way.

The only way to move away from the status quo, it seems, is to make a "political statement."  If this is the case, then remaining firmly in the status quo really seems to be a political statement in its own right, even if one doesn't intend it to be.


Doubly so since I am skeptical that we could add something like a homosexual character and not have someone take it as a political statement.

No it comes across that way when people take the "holier than thou art" attitude when they undermine criticism with cheap intellectually barren accusations to try and give the impression of bias.

Do that and making a political statement tends to stick in people's craw, and speaking for the status quo, it's irritating to have some irrate person nattering in your ear about checking privilige etc. when you criticise the character's shoddy implementation.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
That's the long and short of it.  Hell, any time people here complain that Bioware shouldn't include a given group of people in the game because it wouldn't be realistic to do so, they are making such statements about the way they perceive the world, even if that perception is extremely inaccurate against historical reality.  On a darker bent, I daresay some people making such statements are arguing for the way they want the world to be.

The moment you make that statement an absolute, is the moment it becomes innacurate. Perhaps some act exactly in the way you're describing for the reason you perceive but you should not place everyone within the same bag. A great many number of people could simply be requesting some consistency within the DA universe which is different from ours and does not need to mirror our demographics.
So, if user Z were to say "Please don't include x-ethnicity npcs in the game." you would infer from that that
a) User Z doesn't like x-ethnicity.
 User Z thinks that x-ethnicity was never present in the historical Europe upon which the game is, presumably, based. (and yes, I do know that David Gaider has said plenty of times that Thedas is not Europe)

Maybe, the only reason user Z would rather there not be x-ethnicity ingame is because, up until now, x-ethnicity has been absent and we have met representatives of all nations and there is no ingame reason why a previously invisible or inexistent group of people should suddenly become relevant.
Just because a person might not be pro-inclusion at the expense of everything else doesn't make that person a bigot.

Modifié par MisterJB, 26 novembre 2013 - 06:16 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
That's the long and short of it.  Hell, any time people here complain that Bioware shouldn't include a given group of people in the game because it wouldn't be realistic to do so, they are making such statements about the way they perceive the world, even if that perception is extremely inaccurate against historical reality.  On a darker bent, I daresay some people making such statements are arguing for the way they want the world to be.

The moment you make that statement an absolute, is the moment it becomes innacurate. Perhaps some act exactly in the way you're describing for the reason you perceive but you should not place everyone within the same bag. A great many number of people could simply be requesting some consistency within the DA universe which is different from ours and does not need to mirror our demographics.
So, if user Z were to say "Please don't include x-ethnicity npcs in the game." you would infer from that that
a) User Z doesn't like x-ethnicity.
 User Z thinks that x-ethnicity was never present in the historical Europe upon which the game is, presumably, based. (and yes, I do know that David Gaider has said plenty of times that Thedas is not Europe)

Maybe, the only reason user Z would rather there not be x-ethnicity ingame is because, up until now, x-ethnicity has been absent and we have met representatives of all nations and there is no ingame reason why a previously invisible or inexistent group of people should suddenly become relevant.
Just because a person might not be pro-inclusion at the expense of everything else doesn't make that person a bigot.

Nevertheless, your reasons for not wanting a given ethnicity in game IS asserting a political statement, whether you consciously wish to or not.  That player is saying that they are perfectly okay with the game excluding a group of people.  If they privilege their preference for what they insist is only proper for reasons of consistency over the concerns of people who are bloody sick and tired of being excluded, made invisible, or just flat out erased, that is a form of bigotry. 

Bigotry does not have to be conscious or overt to exist.  Being willing to continue to disenfranchise poeple through their continued excludion in media qualifies, regardless of how benign you think those reasons are.

Modifié par Silfren, 26 novembre 2013 - 06:26 .

[ElitePinecone]

Statare wrote...

For instance, for a male Hawke you can already be in a s/s romance (I bet this is true for female Hawke too), and your mother in Act 2 will say "now all that's left is to find you a wife (probably husband for female)". It's left for the player to either disavow that in their head, headcanon it, or ignore it. It is ambiguous content that assumes normalcy for a straight Hawke and gives no recourse for a non-straight Hawke. It's a bit weird, that a non-straight Hawke never gets to tell their mamá querida that she should quit looking. It's a subtle issue, that to me is a bit trivializing and assuming of either a heterosexual or silenced queer subjectivity. Does that make sense?

This is a good example, I'd actually totally forgotten that this scene happened. 

The generous assumption is that the usual course of action for a noble family *would* be to marry their children off to suitable opposite-sex partners for pragmatic reasons (though the Human Noble family's reaction to a s/s romance in the DA:O was nonchalance), or that this was a mistaken plot flag firing and Mama Hawke should've had other content exclusive for Hawkes in a same-sex relationship at that point.

But on the face of it, it does seem a bit awkward - and games assuming the protagonist's heterosexuality is a particularly sore point for me.

[billy the squid]

Plaintiff wrote...

except for when it concerns the things you want? That seems a little unfair, Plantiff. I've never even seen them outright use the word homosexuality in Dragon Age. As such, everything doesn't have to be a political statement.

I never said all media products 'have' to be political statements.

But they are political statements, regardless. It's not something that can be avoided. The perceived absence of political statement is, itself, a political statement.

If you think Dragon Age doesn't say anything about homosexuality just because it never used the word, then you are blind. And that's the nicest way I can put it. I seriously can't think of a more polite term.

I take time away, and low and behold on my return I see the same retarded circular logic espoused by you, then again I have rarely seen you make a post which is burdened by your own emotional baggage.

I wasn't aware that all aspects of whatever your flavour of the month is must be paraded in a form of media like some grotesque pantomime or the lack there of is a political statement by virtue of the fact it's not covered to appease people.

If you like something and want things to cater to your personal prefrences have at it. But, cut the crap, dressing it up as a pesudo social justice "right" over a wrong is such utter horseshit. If the media in this case doesn't use the word homosexuality or dance examples infront of the consumer's face in some ham handed manner, but included it  without making a game of "look how progressive we are" then I'd consider that a bonus.

If you haven't noticed you are the minority and that will determine what a commercial company caters to, the same as everyone else who favours a particular aspect in their game and doesn't get it, you're no different. Don't think of yourself as deserving special treatment.