677 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Thedas isn't a medieval setting, it is a fantasy world, and it's not obligated to reflect the discrimination of any "real world" place or time.

[Killdren88]

Can't we just enjoy whatever story they come out with and not tear it to pieces just because X group was not represented in the game? I'd rather just enjoy my game then allow it to turn into a platform. If they do put people of different creeds in fine, that is super, but please, I rather not have hot button issues and the can of worms that comes with. ets just enjoy the game and have fun.

[MrMrPendragon]

Petedj06 wrote...

ArcherTactlenecks wrote...

Can't we just have a separate video game that's totally dedicated to transgenders and other minorities?

I don't get why we're fighting over the viability of a transgender NPC, who's role is probably not even going to be that beacon of "minority awareness" supporters are hoping for.

Why separate? Honestly, I want to know? Why not have it all at once? Why must the LBGT crowed have their own games. Why do streight people have to have there own games. I like BioWare games, I want to play them. I will play them, and I never shy away from more content in a game.

Well I thought the whole purpose of this damn argument was to highlight minority awareness. Isn't that what the last 10 pages of this thread kept on saying - add transgenders for the sake of "awareness" and "diversity".

More content isn't always good. Just because one ingredient tastes good on its own, doesn't mean it tastes good when you mix it with something else.

Now, "good" can only be set by the people who actually make the story. So you don't know if transgender characters are good, I don't know if they're good, no one knows.

And yet, here we all are debating one thing after another as if that's going to suddenly make a spark of magic poof out a good enough reason to make a transgender NPC get a role that's big enough to make sure that "awareness" beacon can reach across all demographics and not just appeal to that specific minority.

Like you, I also love playing Bioware games. I may not share the same amount of love for transgenders, but I don't mind them in OUR game.

But if we're so noble and bent on pushing this diversity issue, what I said about making something that's specifically for that goal isn't that bad right? Or do we just not care about that anymore and instead just want transgender npcs in this game just because we feel like it?

[Fredward]

DeinonSlayer wrote...
Every negative review for Ender's Game that I read on the first page of RottenTomatoes couldn't help sniping at Card's political views. Every single one. He made no money off the movie after selling the rights to Lion's Gate. The boycotters and blacklisters were (financially) hurting just about everyone except their "target."

That's what I'm getting at. Requests are fine. Inclusion is absolutely fine. I just don't want to see a spread in society where writers are cowed, where person/subject/political stance X has to be included... that may not have come out as clearly as I'd hoped.

This isn't unreasonable at all. We may not agree on where exactly that tipping point is but that kind of social justice bullying would be just as wrong as the alternative.

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...
I think it's frankly spam at
this point to demand bioware add things into the games like this. They
go to lots of LGBT sponsered or heavily focused events, and gaider
himself has panels at these sections. He's stated what it is they're
doing, and at this point in production they've probably more or less
locked everything down, so it's not like they'd see these treads and
change their course anyway. It's a meaningless effort of getting things
into the game, and he's more then aware of the desire for
"representation" that he'll more then likely try to work in characters
representing these groups anyway.

Additionally, I disagree with a
lot of the logic used in demand/request threads like this, often
finding they approach the issues with kid gloves and lax standards for
the quality of the characters in question, focusing on the superficial
elements rather then the characters personality or how their desired
traits these people are giving them would affect their daily life and
personality, or outlook on the world. Deeper characterization
discussions are something I have been flamed for trying to start, saying
I endorsed discrimination in the real world because I felt someone with
these combination of traits would face discrimination in the dragon age
world, and that they should face it from NPC's given the medievil
setting and all.

So call it vindictive, but such experiences
have checkered my view on a lot of the people in support of these
"demand/request threads" as being selfish. They desire a character who
will face no hardship nor trials in their life, will fall in love with
their player characters, and nobody will have any problems with it, or
else be killed/called horrible people. Maybe there are some who are not
like that, but given my experience has been more or less the same in a
lot of these threads, I find that prospect more and more unlikely.

Hmmm, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't expecting something more... flippant.

[slimgrin]

Plaintiff wrote...



I would not apologise if I offended the Westboro Baptists, because I want them all to die in a fire.

I would apologize if my work inadvertantly offended a disenfranchised minority, because I would never deliberately do that.

No hypocrisy here.

[daveliam]

CynicalShep wrote...

daveliam wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

And the bisexual reveal seemed like a copout (to me, at least). It just felt awkward, because my buddy and comrade suddenly starts making moves on me after 2 games. I understand how it works, I just think that awkward situations like this can be avoided (and I don't mean having him wear a "I'm a bi <3" ribbon).

So how then?  I'm genuinely interested in how you think they could have gone about avoiding the "awkward situation".  Keep in mind that ME 1 already happened, so they can't change that fact.  What else could they have done but put in a dialogue option where he expresses that he is at least open to romance from a male PC?

Ideally by establishing that earlier than the third installment of the trilogy. Alternatively, by adding a bisexual character in ME3. Or two. Or five. Imagine it would happen in real life. You have a comrade in arms, who is also your buddy. You are straight. You two chat about girls and all that jazz. Fastforward a few years and he tells you that he wouldn't mind getting in your pants. Do you not see how this is "awkward"?

No.  I don't see this as any more awkward than Tali or Garrus hitting on Shepard in ME 2.  Try this story on:

You had a comrade in arms that you were attracted to, but didn't act on it because 1.)  you were both enlisted soldiers and there are rules against fraternization; and 2.)  you weren't sure if he felt the same way because he mentioned a girl in his past.  Then, after being separated for several years, you reunite and he expresses his anger in a passionate way because he felt like he "lost a limb" when you left him.  In the meantime, you've had to agressively turn down about a half dozen females on your crew because they keep throwing themselves at you.  Again, some time goes by, and you are reunited with your comrade in arms, who now overtly expresses that he is interested in pursuing a relationship with you.

This version of the story isn't so awkward.  In fact, it's a pretty well crafted love story, in my opinion.  This is the story of each of my Shepards.

[DeinonSlayer]

Plaintiff wrote...

They're financially hurting Card by doing their best to ensure that nobody ever tries to adapt his work into film ever again.

How come it's okay for Card to publicly write about his anti-homosexual views (which he does do, even if not in his fiction), but people who hold opposing views aren't entitled to express theirs?

You are aware of the difference between free speech and censorship, right? There's a difference between voicing your opinion and launching a campaign to ensure the other isn't heard (which isn't even the case here - it's a movie about a war with giant bugs which, in its own way, laments lack of understanding between conflicting peoples). Arguments should stand on their own merits. In any case (according to the wiki article on the film, Controversy subsection) Card himself said the issue was resolved and his opposition won, then questioning how tolerant they would be in victory.

This indiscriminate boycott you advocate plays right into his expectations for you.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:38 .

[The Flying Grey Warden]

slimgrin wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



I would not apologise if I offended the Westboro Baptists, because I want them all to die in a fire.

I would apologize if my work inadvertantly offended a disenfranchised minority, because I would never deliberately do that.

No hypocrisy here.

Don't take this the wrong way plantiff, but you're kinda a really horrible human being when it comes to your moral compass.

[Ryzaki]

daveliam wrote...
No.  I don't see this as any more awkward than Tali or Garrus hitting on Shepard in ME 2.  Try this story on:

You had a comrade in arms that you were attracted to, but didn't act on it because 1.)  you were both enlisted soldiers and there are rules against fraternization; and 2.)  you weren't sure if he felt the same way because he mentioned a girl in his past.  Then, after being separated for several years, you reunite and he expresses his anger in a passionate way because he felt like he "lost a limb" when you left him.  In the meantime, you've had to agressively turn down about a half dozen females on your crew because they keep throwing themselves at you.  Again, some time goes by, and you are reunited with your comrade in arms, who now overtly expresses that he is interested in pursuing a relationship with you.

This version of the story isn't so awkward.  In fact, it's a pretty well crafted love story, in my opinion.  This is the story of each of my Shepards.

Not to mention it's ended with a "not interested." 

Same way I ended the Talimance.

I don't understand WHY some players act as though rejecting people you find undesirable is such a terrible concept and they never should have to do it despite female players having to do this constantly (both IRL and in game). They hit on you, you tell them no, conversation over.

I can get the annoyance with Anders cause his I'M SOOO MUCH BETTER FOR YOU THAN YOUR ACTUAL LI! afterwards except that's not what people complain about. They complain about having to reject him (oh noes) and taking a +10 rivalry hit. (NVM you get more rivalry for being a mage and recruiting Fenris).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:19 .

[Ryzaki]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



I would not apologise if I offended the Westboro Baptists, because I want them all to die in a fire.

I would apologize if my work inadvertantly offended a disenfranchised minority, because I would never deliberately do that.

No hypocrisy here.

Don't take this the wrong way plantiff, but you're kinda a really horrible human being when it comes to your moral compass.

I'm sorry but **** Westboro Baptists. They spit on people's ****ing funerals. Those people do need to die in a damn fire.

There's a certain lvl of class and dignity that should be afforded to all people and they clearly don't give a damn so why should anyone give a damn about them.

[Br3admax]

Ryzaki wrote...

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



I would not apologise if I offended the Westboro Baptists, because I want them all to die in a fire.

I would apologize if my work inadvertantly offended a disenfranchised minority, because I would never deliberately do that.

No hypocrisy here.

Don't take this the wrong way plantiff, but you're kinda a really horrible human being when it comes to your moral compass.

I'm sorry but **** Westboro Baptists. They spit on people's ****ing funerals. Those people do need to die in a damn fire.

There's a certain lvl of class and dignity that should be afforded to all people and they clearly don't give a damn so why should anyone give a damn about them.

Why is doing wrong to others who do wrong to you still an argument? People who hate me, yep. I always want them to die in a fire. But I'm the beacon of justice too. Yep. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:23 .

[Hellion Rex]

Br3ad wrote...

Why is doing wrong to others who do wrong to you still an argument? People who hate me, yep. I always want them to die in a fire. But I'm the beacon of justice too. Yep. 

Human nature, man.

[Ryzaki]

Br3ad wrote...
Why is doing wrong to others who do wrong to you still an argument? People who hate me, yep. I always want them to die in a fire. But I'm the beacon of justice too. Yep. 

Never said I was a beacon of justice. And no I don't believe I should respect someone who clearly shows no respect to others.

Some people aren't worth the air they breathe. And no misplaced sense of equality or fairness will have me treat them as anything other than the waste of air they are.

You go to a funeral where people are mourning and turn it into a goddamn circus hell yeah I think wrong should be done to them.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:27 .

[Plaintiff]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...
Shouldn't you judge the fictional work on it's own merits instead of being a vindictive **** and trying to sabotauge what could be a legitimately good story or rendition for something the movies creators had nothing to do with.

No.

I don't care if Card's books cure cancer.

Being a good person is far more important than being a good writer, and it always will be.

What's wrong with your mind where you think this passive agressive crap against innocent people is okay, or worse, morally right?

Passive?

Card is not an 'innocent' by any stretch of the term. He is a bigot, and he seeks to oppress others.

And to answer your quesition, it's because card's expression of his beliefs hurt no one and damage no ones employment.

Wrong. Card hurts me by trying to create a toxic environment for homosexuals. Even if he didn't, he hurts a lot of people I care about deeply.

Your "expression" of your beliefs by holding a blatant attempt at financial sabotague directly impact hundreds of peoples livelyhood and other peoples careers, over something they had no say or control over.

Boo-****ing-hoo. They made the choice to work on Ender's Game when they didn't have to.

I'm free to see, or not see, any movie I damn well please for any reason I can conceive, or even for no reason at all. I'm not going to go see The Hobbit films, either, because I hate Tolkien's work and the first one ****ing sucked anyway. But I don't see you shedding a tear for my 'blatant attempt' at financially sabotaging Peter Jackson.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:28 .

[Hellion Rex]

Ryzaki wrote...

I'm sorry but **** Westboro Baptists. They spit on people's ****ing funerals. Those people do need to die in a damn fire.

There's a certain lvl of class and dignity that should be afforded to all people and they clearly don't give a damn so why should anyone give a damn about them.

[Plaintiff]

slimgrin wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...



I would not apologise if I offended the Westboro Baptists, because I want them all to die in a fire.

I would apologize if my work inadvertantly offended a disenfranchised minority, because I would never deliberately do that.

No hypocrisy here.

When have I ever claimed to preach a message of unquestioning tolerance? I don't. Not everybody deserves equal tolerance, and some things should never be tolerated at all.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:27 .

[CynicalShep]

daveliam wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

daveliam wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

And the bisexual reveal seemed like a copout (to me, at least). It just felt awkward, because my buddy and comrade suddenly starts making moves on me after 2 games. I understand how it works, I just think that awkward situations like this can be avoided (and I don't mean having him wear a "I'm a bi <3" ribbon).

So how then?  I'm genuinely interested in how you think they could have gone about avoiding the "awkward situation".  Keep in mind that ME 1 already happened, so they can't change that fact.  What else could they have done but put in a dialogue option where he expresses that he is at least open to romance from a male PC?

Ideally by establishing that earlier than the third installment of the trilogy. Alternatively, by adding a bisexual character in ME3. Or two. Or five. Imagine it would happen in real life. You have a comrade in arms, who is also your buddy. You are straight. You two chat about girls and all that jazz. Fastforward a few years and he tells you that he wouldn't mind getting in your pants. Do you not see how this is "awkward"?

No.  I don't see this as any more awkward than Tali or Garrus hitting on Shepard in ME 2.  Try this story on:

You had a comrade in arms that you were attracted to, but didn't act on it because 1.)  you were both enlisted soldiers and there are rules against fraternization; and 2.)  you weren't sure if he felt the same way because he mentioned a girl in his past.  Then, after being separated for several years, you reunite and he expresses his anger in a passionate way because he felt like he "lost a limb" when you left him.  In the meantime, you've had to agressively turn down about a half dozen females on your crew because they keep throwing themselves at you.  Again, some time goes by, and you are reunited with your comrade in arms, who now overtly expresses that he is interested in pursuing a relationship with you.

This version of the story isn't so awkward.  In fact, it's a pretty well crafted love story, in my opinion.  This is the story of each of my Shepards.

But there is a big difference. I am straight. I have absolutely no romantic interest in another male. You had to aggressively turn down about half a dozen females because you're not interested in females. Aggressively. That already means you are irritated by their approach. I do not even get irritated if another male hits on me, it has happened in real life, too. Ironically, it happened because of stereotypes attributed to straight males. I turned down a girl and next thing I know - I get hit on by another guy. I mean no straight male could possibly resist the lure of another woman, right? But I digress, back to your story. I repeat, I am a straight male. I have this friend, my "bro", who has accompanied me through hell and back. I consider him a very good friend, we talk about women, guns and boot camps. A few years later it turns out that he isn't really there because he is your bro - he is there because he wants to be your lover. And he hasn't told you this earlier, either. Boom, there goes the friendship. Hell, now that I think about it I'd probably feel betrayed, nevermind awkward.

[Br3admax]

Ryzaki wrote...

Br3ad wrote...
Why is doing wrong to others who do wrong to you still an argument? People who hate me, yep. I always want them to die in a fire. But I'm the beacon of justice too. Yep. 

Never said I was a beacon of justice. And no I don't believe I should respect someone who clearly shows no respect to others.

Some people aren't worth the air they breathe.

1. I was pointing out the hypocricy in the statement. One of many, to be honest.
2. Not that I agree with them, but what makes your beliefs any better than theirs? You believe in equality, so you you can judge people as being worthy of death because they don't? Seems just as hypocritical to me. 

[Ryzaki]

Br3ad wrote...
1. I was pointing out the hypocricy in the statement. One of many, to be honest.
2. Not that I agree with them, but what makes your beliefs any better than theirs? You believe in equality, so you you can judge people as being worthy of death because they don't? Seems just as hypocritical to me. 

1. Where's the hypocrisy in my statement? I NEVER called myself a beacon of justice. Hell I've always admitted I'm an assole and hypocritical. No one here is any beacon of justice or fairness and if they call themselves that there's a 99% chance they're lying out of that hole in their face.

2. I don't go to people's funerals and disturb grieving families like a low class piece of human trash. That's the difference. I don't spit on people's raw and recent grief to spread my own message. Also yeah equality I wouldn't give a damn if Westboro's people were gay, black, white, green if they did the crap they did I'd still feel they should burn. That's equality. I judge them on their ****ty actions and for being ****ty people.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 06 décembre 2013 - 06:31 .

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Plantiff justifying a morally questionable boycott that affects many peoples lives over something someone unrelated said, plus his pretty much blatant hypocrisy in favoring his own cause over others, to the point of saying the other side should die in a fire, is what makes him horrible.

Not even that it's the westboro baptists, that argument doesn't fly with me. Let's use a neutral legal type argument here and analyze what he is doing more then who he is doing it to, and see whether we can still find it moral when applying what he is doing to people we like.

Like, for example, a prison guard were to take out his gun, aim it at a prisoner and tell them to get against the wall, and then shoot them point blank in the back execution style, no provocation or anything. Now, looking at that, can you say the act was justified? Whatever answer you give for it applying to say a mass shooter would also apply to a teenage kid just in because of a speeding ticket, would you say that is right?

That is how I look at things and judge the value of their morality.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

Plaintiff wrote...

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...
Shouldn't you judge the fictional work on it's own merits instead of being a vindictive **** and trying to sabotauge what could be a legitimately good story or rendition for something the movies creators had nothing to do with.

No.

I don't care if Card's books cure cancer.

Being a good person is far more important than being a good writer, and it always will be.

What's wrong with your mind where you think this passive agressive crap against innocent people is okay, or worse, morally right?

Passive?

Card is not an 'innocent' by any stretch of the term. He is a bigot, and he seeks to oppress others.

And to answer your quesition, it's because card's expression of his beliefs hurt no one and damage no ones employment.

Wrong. Card hurts me by trying to create a toxic environment for homosexuals. Even if he didn't, he hurts a lot of people I care about deeply.

Your "expression" of your beliefs by holding a blatant attempt at financial sabotague directly impact hundreds of peoples livelyhood and other peoples careers, over something they had no say or control over.

Boo-****ing-hoo. They made the choice to work on Ender's Game when they didn't have to.

I'm free to see, or not see, any movie I damn well please for any reason I can conceive, or even for no reason at all. I'm not going to go see The Hobbit films, either, because I hate Tolkien's work and the first one ****ing sucked anyway. But I don't see you shedding a tear for my 'blatant attempt' at financially sabotaging Peter Jackson.

You have the moral logic of an SS officer in national socialist germany. I hope you can at least acknowledge that.

[DeinonSlayer]

@CynicalShep, that's basically the story of Craig Boone and Manny Vargas from New Vegas.

[daveliam]

CynicalShep wrote...

You had to aggressively turn down about half a dozen females because you're not interested in females. Aggressively. That already means you are irritated by their approach.

No.  "Aggressively" because the game assumes that I must have made a mistake by turning them down.  You have actively try not to be in a relationship with the female characters in that game series.

CynicalShep wrote...
I repeat, I am a straight male. I have this friend, my "bro", who has accompanied me through hell and back. I consider him a very good friend, we talk about women, guns and boot camps. A few years later it turns out that he isn't really there because he is your bro - he is there because he wants to be your lover. And he hasn't told you this earlier, either. Boom, there goes the friendship. Hell, now that I think about it I'd probably feel betrayed, nevermind awkward.

Why though?  Do you feel "betrayed" if a straight female friend reveals her feelings to you after years of friendship?  Would your friendship with her be over because of this?  Even if all you had to say was "No thanks"?

[Ryzaki]

The Flying Grey Warden wrote...

Plantiff justifying a morally questionable boycott that affects many peoples lives over something someone unrelated said, plus his pretty much blatant hypocrisy in favoring his own cause over others, to the point of saying the other side should die in a fire, is what makes him horrible.

Not even that it's the westboro baptists, that argument doesn't fly with me. Let's use a neutral legal type argument here and analyze what he is doing more then who he is doing it to, and see whether we can still find it moral when applying what he is doing to people we like.

Like, for example, a prison guard were to take out his gun, aim it at a prisoner and tell them to get against the wall, and then shoot them point blank in the back execution style, no provocation or anything. Now, looking at that, can you say the act was justified? Whatever answer you give for it applying to say a mass shooter would also apply to a teenage kid just in because of a speeding ticket, would you say that is right?

That is how I look at things and judge the value of their morality.

Considering that's murder that's not a neutral arguement in any way shape or form. Last I checked boycotts were legal.

[The Flying Grey Warden]

And making people die in a fire is?