549 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Of course it does. The very fact that such threads reach such length so quickly, and that people are so up in arms about the entire subject, is a proof that sexual preferences are actually quite relevant for a person.

No, mostly they prove that people are bigots.

In fact, I noticed that most of the time, the people attempting to downplay how sexual preferences are important to what is a person, are precisely the persons who are the most fanatical in that there SHOULD BE characters available for their own preferences.

Yes, and I notice that the people who insist that sexuality is somehow integral to character are precisely the people that want to deprive others of same-sex content.

Why, it's almost as if people are using the argument as a flimsy cover up for their own homophobia!

Actually, aren't you the guy who only started to play Origins because of s/s romances ?
Oh the hypocrisy ^^

It's not hypocritical at all. Explain how it is.

They aren't "bisexual", they are "playersexual".

Actually, their sexuality is not known, because it's never discussed.

The first is a set preference that is acceptable. I don't remember anyone complaining about Zevran being bi, because it was PART of his character. Liara "bi" ? It's okay and normal, her entire species have no concept of sex preference. Isabella ? She obviously goes for whatever tha tmove. All of these examples are okay because they are part of the character. Though of course, it can't be used for everyone as it quickly breaks the suspension of disbelief.

The notion that sexuality must "make sense" with the character is not only bigoted but utterly nonsensical. In real life, people will be gay or bi regardless of whether or not you think it should be part of their "character", because sexuality is random and it does not derive from personality nor does it impact personality in any significant way.

Besides which, nowhere is it ever stated that these characters are "bisexual". As outsiders, we're not actually in a position to define their sexuality. Only the characters themselves are in a position to do that.

The second is not a preference, it's a lazy way to gut characters from one of their core preference and just water down things around to pander to idiots who just want to get their way even if it weakens the characters.

Sexuality is not a "core preference", you are the one who is placing undue significance on it.

A character does not retroactively become "weaker" just because you learn that they have a gay counterpart in a parallel universe.

Oh, and just to reiterate again : notice that what I hate is how this option destroy the characters by making them puppets without preference and only defined in regard to the player. I don't have any problem at all with s/s or bi romances in themselves.

Except the characters of DA2 have very firm personalities that include various likes and dislikes. Sexuality jsut isn't one of them. Your assertion that they become "puppets" just because their sexuality is malleable is utterly nonsensical.

My complaints are about the ROLEPLAYING and CHARACTERS aspects, not about bigotry. Just sayin'.

Oh, and obviously you can't be a bigot if you say you aren't! My entire argument is unravelling! I am undone!

I'M MELTING! MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELTIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 décembre 2013 - 11:47 .

[Thomas Andresen]

daveliam wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

What you're describing--all bisexuals--does not allow gay romances or straight romances. It only allows gay-bi, straight-bi, or bi-bi.

So you don't consider two men in a relationship together to be a gay relationship if one of them is bisexual?  "Gay Romance" means m/m, not only two gay men.  That would be like saying that a man and woman who are in a relationship aren't in a "straight relationship" because one of them has had same sex relationships in the past.

Do you then not consider the straight male PC and Leliana relationship to be "straight"?

This seems like an argument of semantics that defeats the purpose of what many of the LBGT people on the board are saying.  They want to be able to choose a LI who is of the same gender as them from more than one option in the game, just like the straight gamers get to.  Yes, in an ideal world, there would be multiple options for everyone and each character would have a clearly defined sexuality.  However that's the not the world that we live in so the options are to have:  more choices for some of the players and no choice for others OR to have characters that have an ambiguous sexuality that allows for all players to romance them, at the expense of a clearly defined sexual orientation.

You just said the thoughts I had going through my head reading this whole thread.

[Blackrising]

Oh dear. How come whenever I go away for a few hours, I come back to this?



But please, carry on.

On topic: I do not understand why making all LIs bisexual is a problem for those who want set sexualities. Their sexualities are set. They go for both men and women. They might not be smack dab in the middle of the Kinsey scale, but they are capable of falling for either gender under the right circumstances.
That doesn't mean that representation suffers. Outside of that teeny tiny group of FOUR people, we have every goddamn sexuality under the sun represented. Thedas has straight people and gay people and bisexual people and people who do not define themselves and people we simply don't know anything about. So why is it such a big problem to accept that these four people go for both men and women and that there does not need to be any kind of justification for them not being strictly straight or gay?

[The Elder King]

@Plaintiff: I actually think a lot of people who debate that sexuality is integral to a character aren't against s/s romances, or homosexuals having the same number of choices of heterosexuals. Some aren't against all LI being available to everyone if they're bisexuals, not playersexuals.

[Akka le Vil]

Plaintiff wrote...

Oh, and obviously you can't be a bigot if you say you aren't! My entire argument is unravelling! I am undone!

I'M MELTING! MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELTIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!

Seems pretty obvious you don't have the slightest interest in  the point made by the person in front of you, and you just attempt to brand as "bigot" anyone who disagree with your opinion, even when it's totally unrelated.

Funny how you're the guy who claims to be on a crusade against idiocy - seems like you wish to illustrate the saying that one's worst ennemy is himself

[The Elder King]

@Backrising: I don't remember all the post, but I remember that some people posted that they're fine with all LI being bisexuals, and that they're against them being playersexuals.

[Hellion Rex]

As long as there is equal representation, I honestly don't give two sh*ts what people call them.

[The Elder King]

eluvianix wrote...

As long as there is equal representation, I honestly don't give two sh*ts what people call them.

Agreed.

[Plaintiff]

hhh89 wrote...

@Plaintiff: I actually think a lot of people who debate that sexuality is integral to a character aren't against s/s romances, or homosexuals having the same number of choices of heterosexuals. Some aren't against all LI being available to everyone if they're bisexuals, not playersexuals.

That's not really better.

The characters are not and should not be required to explicitly define their sexuality to the player.

[Akka le Vil]

Blackrising wrote...

On topic: I do not understand why making all LIs bisexual is a problem for those who want set sexualities.

Because it's just not believable and reeks of "convenience", and many of us actually find, oh so strangely, that believability is paramount in a roleplaying game.

[Blackrising]

hhh89 wrote...

@Backrising: I don't remember all the post, but I remember that some people posted that they're fine with all LI being bisexuals, and that they're against them being playersexuals.

You're right, sorry. I should have said 'some people who want set sexualities'.

[Plaintiff]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

On topic: I do not understand why making all LIs bisexual is a problem for those who want set sexualities.

Because it's just not believable and reeks of "convenience", and many of us actually find, oh so strangely, that believability is paramount in a roleplaying game.

So if we kept the "playersexuality" and removed magic and dragons, would DA2 be at an acceptable level of "believability" for you?

Or does "playersexuality" immediatly strip a product of its "believability" even if the setting is entirely mundane?

[The Elder King]

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Plaintiff: I actually think a lot of people who debate that sexuality is integral to a character aren't against s/s romances, or homosexuals having the same number of choices of heterosexuals. Some aren't against all LI being available to everyone if they're bisexuals, not playersexuals.

That's not really better.

The characters are not and should not be required to explicitly define their sexuality to the player.

Why?
I'm fine with whatever approach Bioware chose if it has the same number of choices for everyone.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:26 .

[Blackrising]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

On topic: I do not understand why making all LIs bisexual is a problem for those who want set sexualities.

Because it's just not believable and reeks of "convenience", and many of us actually find, oh so strangely, that believability is paramount in a roleplaying game.

How is it not believable that there are four bisexuals running around in your party? And not 50-50 bisexuals, but individuals who may fall on very different places on the Kinsey scale? Maybe our social environments are different, but I find that a pretty accurate depiction of real life sexuality.

Modifié par Blackrising, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:17 .

[Scroll]

Akka le Vil wrote...

...
The second is not a preference, it's a lazy way to gut characters from one of their core preference and just water down things around to pander to idiots who just want to get their way even if it weakens the characters.
...

It's about fairness. 
And why are you so rude? Idiots? 

[Akka le Vil]

Blackrising wrote...

How is it not believable that there are four bisexuals running around in your party? And not 50-50 bisexuals, but individuals who may fall on very different places on the Kinsey scale? Maybe our social environments are different, but I find that a pretty accurate depiction of real life sexuality.

Too convenient and too improbable, as it was hinted in my previous post ?

[The Elder King]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

How is it not believable that there are four bisexuals running around in your party? And not 50-50 bisexuals, but individuals who may fall on very different places on the Kinsey scale? Maybe our social environments are different, but I find that a pretty accurate depiction of real life sexuality.

Too convenient and too improbable, as it was hinted in my previous post ?

Improbable where? Thedas isn't the carbon copy of our world plus magic and dragons. The fact that it might be Improbable in our world doesn't mean it might be improbable in Thedas.

[Plaintiff]

hhh89 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Plaintiff: I actually think a lot of people who debate that sexuality is integral to a character aren't against s/s romances, or homosexuals having the same number of choices of heterosexuals. Some aren't against all LI being available to everyone if they're bisexuals, not playersexuals.

That's not really better.

The characters are not and should not be required to explicitly define their sexuality to the player.

Why?

 
Because:

a) It's not actually important and only a bigot (or an idiot) would make a fuss about it.

People in real life are not obliged to define their sexuality, and many choose not to.

c) There's nothing to demonstrate that the people of Thedas even have the same perception of sexuality that we do. Who says they even label people in that way?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:31 .

[Hellion Rex]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

How is it not believable that there are four bisexuals running around in your party? And not 50-50 bisexuals, but individuals who may fall on very different places on the Kinsey scale? Maybe our social environments are different, but I find that a pretty accurate depiction of real life sexuality.

Too convenient and too improbable, as it was hinted in my previous post ?

For the love of God, it's a freaking fantasy game. There's blood magic, dragons, werewolves, and darkspawn, but having four bisexuals in your party is where you draw the line for realism?

[Blackrising]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

How is it not believable that there are four bisexuals running around in your party? And not 50-50 bisexuals, but individuals who may fall on very different places on the Kinsey scale? Maybe our social environments are different, but I find that a pretty accurate depiction of real life sexuality.

Too convenient and too improbable, as it was hinted in my previous post ?

And I asked what you based this perception of improbability on, since, as I have said, personal experience tells me it is not improbable at all.
And if we're talking about convenience, the whole situation of having four attractive people in your age range who are both not in previous relationships AND willing to put saving the world on hold for a relationship is 'too convenient'.

[Akka le Vil]

hhh89 wrote...

Improbable where? Thedas isn't the carbon copy of our world plus magic and dragons. The fact that it might be Improbable in our world doesn't mean it might be improbable in Thedas.

That's seems to be far too much of an attempt at outstretched rationalization for me to be convinced. Kinda the textbook case of "too convenient to be believable".

Blackrising wrote...

And I asked what you based this perception of improbability on, since, as I have said, personal experience tells me it is not improbable at all.

Yeah, right. See above.

And if we're talking about convenience, the whole situation of having four attractive people in your age range who are both not in previous relationships AND willing to put saving the world on hold for a relationship is 'too convenient'.

Hey, actually I would prefer to have more companions having their own life - including love life - of their own. That's one thing I particularly liked about Aveline in fact.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:35 .

[Plaintiff]

hhh89 wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

How is it not believable that there are four bisexuals running around in your party? And not 50-50 bisexuals, but individuals who may fall on very different places on the Kinsey scale? Maybe our social environments are different, but I find that a pretty accurate depiction of real life sexuality.

Too convenient and too improbable, as it was hinted in my previous post ?

Improbable where? Thedas isn't the carbon copy of our world plus magic and dragons. The fact that it might be Improbable in our world doesn't mean it might be improbable in Thedas.

It's not improbable in our world, though. People with similar preferences, be they sexual or otherwise, will often form friendship groups. My social circle consists almost entirely of men who identify as gay.

[The Elder King]

@Plaintiff: well, I agree with points 2 and 3. On point 1, while I agree that it's not important, I don't think that a people has to be a bigot/idiot to care about set sexualities.
Though as I said in the edit, I really don't care about the approach Bioware follow, as long as there are multiple and equal choices for everyone.

[Blackrising]

Akka le Vil wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Improbable where? Thedas isn't the carbon copy of our world plus magic and dragons. The fact that it might be Improbable in our world doesn't mean it might be improbable in Thedas.

That's seems to be far too much of an attempt at outstretched rationalization for me to be convinced. Kinda the textbook case of "too convenient to be believable".

And the fact that every PC just so happens to find potions, herbs, runes and valuable armour scattered around Thedas (most of the time just before encountering a powerful monster) is NOT too convenient for you?

Akka le Vil wrote...

Blackrising wrote...

And I asked what you based this perception of improbability on, since, as I have said, personal experience tells me it is not improbable at all.

Yeah, right. See above.

Something being convenient doesn't automatically make it improbable.

[The Elder King]

Plaintiff wrote...

It's not improbable in our world, though. People with similar preferences, be they sexual or otherwise, will often form friendship groups. My social circle consists almost entirely of men who identify as gay.

I said it might. And in both games the party isn't really formed by people with the same interests.
Though I didn't mean to say that groups formed by gay, lesbian of bisexuals people aren't possible or improbable. I was mostly referring to how the D parties were formed, of people with different and often opposite interests.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 décembre 2013 - 12:43 .