1875 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

 

Who's giving Mass Effect 3 **** for "pandering" to men? Virtually nobody.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but that has been brought up so many times, it's not even funny.  

[Stelae]

How were Anders, Fenris, Isabela, and Merrrill the same?  Seriously, how did them all being bisexual make them the same outside of the fact that they were all bisexual?  I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning.

 

Well, you know how all gays are exactly the same?  Ellen De Generes, Stephen Fry, Liberace, Sappho, Rachel Maddow, Neil Patrick Harris, Zachary Quinto, Jodie Foster; who can tell them apart?  It's just exactly like that. 

[mopotter]

Everyone should have the equal right to pretend-romance whatever made-up character they want to in a video game.

They did this in Fable 2 and 3.  I wasn't a fan.  

[AresKeith]

You just don't freaking get it, do you.

 

Dragon Age 2 gets **** for "pandering" because it has four characters out of the entire game that can be romanced by anyone.

 

Mass Effect 3 meanwhile has seven female characters that are sexually available to men, four of which are completely exclusive to men. Plus an entire species of mono-gendered, blue-skinned aliens who "just happen" to possess the sexual characteristics of human females. Oh, and by the way, this species encourages its youth to go out and work as strippers, which in this universe is apparently not dangerous or degrading work at all.

 

Who's giving Mass Effect 3 **** for "pandering" to men? Virtually nobody.

 

But any time Dragon Age 2 gets mentioned, Straighty McMasculine descends from on high to accuse it of "pandering" to the LGBT demographic, and acts like he's doing gay folks a ****** favour by telling us not to play it.

 

Well he's not.

 

Before I get into this, the overly aggressive attitude is still unneeded as it wasn't the first time

 

And yes the Mass Effect games catering to one demographic has been brought up and crapped on sooo many times

[WildOrchid]

 

Who's giving Mass Effect 3 **** for "pandering" to men? Virtually nobody.

 

[Lady Nuggins]

For some of the characters it doesn't, what cheapens the experience, at least to me, is making everyone the same. Differences should be celebrated in my humble opinion, and to me that's best expressed by presenting a wider diversity.

 

90% of romance in popular media is heterosexual, but nobody says the experience is cheapened by that.  Because no two people are alike and, if written moderately decently, no two relationships are alike.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

You just don't freaking get it, do you.
 
Dragon Age 2 gets **** for "pandering" because it has four characters out of the entire game that can be romanced by anyone.
 
Mass Effect 3 meanwhile has seven female characters that are sexually available to men, four of which are completely exclusive to men. Plus an entire species of mono-gendered, blue-skinned aliens who "just happen" to possess the sexual characteristics of human females. Oh, and by the way, this species encourages its youth to go out and work as strippers, which in this universe is apparently not dangerous or degrading work at all.
 
Who's giving Mass Effect 3 **** for "pandering" to men? Virtually nobody.

You forgot to mention that the ME3 lesbian "romance" is pretty much bad w@nkbait for teen boys with half arsed content compared to everyother romance option, a cutscene is even removed for the silly soft porn shower scene.

[Mockingword]

 

I'm sorry, but that has been brought up so many times, it's not even funny.  

Yeah, by the same small group of people who have the brains to recognise the putrid hypocrisy of the entire "pandering" argument. Never by the people who accuse DA2 of being "pandering" to the LGBT audience. Because the real motivation of the people who do that is that they can't stand that, for once, not everything is specifically tailored to their interest for exclusion.

 

And then these same people think they're so ****** enlightened for being fans of Samantha Traynor and Steve Cortez, and they talk about how "impressed" they were that they got rejected by these characters for being the wrong sex. Because, for them, being rejected by a video game is a ****** novelty.

 

Meanwhile, gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gamers have had video games telling them that they aren't welcome for every day of their entire ****** lives. And now a game finally gets made that welcomes them and gives them the exact same opportunities as the straight audience (that's actually being generous, because Sebastian is only available to women). And what happens? All the breeders come down on it for "pandering". As if catering to the LGBT market is a shortcut to easy money, rather than a controversial decision that can cost you customers. As if companies aren't already boycotted by right-wing douchebags all the time just for not overtly condemning homosexuals.

[syllogi]

What I'd really like to know is, how are Fenris and Merrill, the only two romanceable characters with no predefined sexual orientation, made generic and bland and interchangeable by not hearing them talk about past sexual experiences?  I keep hearing about how these characters are ruined, and I don't get it. 

 

In my first game, I didn't romance Fenris, never used any flirts around him, but found him intriguing enough that I wanted to try his romance on a future playthrough.  If he had been a m/m love interest only, I would have been disappointed, (because I only play female characters), but that wouldn't have changed my first impression of his character.  What about him changes when you know that he's available to be romanced by a male or female character?

[GreyLycanTrope]

How were Anders, Fenris, Isabela, and Merrrill the same?  Seriously, how did them all being bisexual make them the same outside of the fact that they were all bisexual?  I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning.

 

Yeah that's what gets me. If I were hanging out with four bi friends I don't think I'd get confused about who's who. 

 

Because from a romance option perspective they are. Isabella being the exception, obviously, as she's been demonstrating her preference since DA:O. She however is the only character that can actually be given an orientation the rest are what you decide to turn them into by romancing them with a certain gender.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

Hey Mockingword guy, you have some good points but you should really calm down with the aggressiveness.

[spirosz]

Never by the people who accuse DA2 of being "pandering" to the LGBT audience. Because the real motivation of the people who do that is that they can't stand that, for once not everything is specifically tailored to their interest for exclusion.

 

 

Again, not true, but go on. 

 

Meanwhile, gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gamers have had video games telling them that they aren't welcome for every day of their entire ****** lives. And now a game finally gets made that welcomes them, and all the breeders come down on it for "pandering". As if catering to the LGBT market is a shortcut to easy money, rather than a controversial decision that can cost you customers. As if companies aren't already boycotted by right-wing douchebags all the time just for not overtly condemning homosexuals.

 

In my perspective, Bioware's romances in general, be it straight, bi, gay, etc, are pandering because they are optional content that have no real impact on the story.  Sure, they can have a somewhat limited effect towards the PC, but as an important impact to the story overall?  Nothing, they are just fanservice, which I don't mind, but certain romances are there, just for the sake of being there.

[sandalisthemaker]

Now might be a good time to whip out some Miley....

[WildOrchid]

Yeah, by the same small group of people who have the brains to recognise the putrid hypocrisy of the entire "pandering" argument. Never by the people who accuse DA2 of being "pandering" to the LGBT audience. Because the real motivation of the people who do that is that they can't stand that, for once, not everything is specifically tailored to their interest for exclusion.

 

And then these same people think they're so ****** enlightened for being fans of Samantha Traynor and Steve Cortez, and they talk about how "impressed" they were that they got rejected by these characters for being the wrong sex. Because, for them, being rejected by a video game is a ****** novelty.

 

Meanwhile, gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gamers have had video games telling them that they aren't welcome for every day of their entire ****** lives. And now a game finally gets made that welcomes them and gives them the exact same opportunities as the straight audience (that's actually being generous, because Sebastian is only available to women). And what happens? All the breeders come down on it for "pandering". As if catering to the LGBT market is a shortcut to easy money, rather than a controversial decision that can cost you customers. As if companies aren't already boycotted by right-wing douchebags all the time just for not overtly condemning homosexuals.

 

I get your frustration, i really do. But these heated posts are often the reason for locked threads. :/

[daveliam]

Yeah, by the same small group of people who have the brains to recognise the putrid hypocrisy of the entire "pandering" argument. Never by the people who accuse DA2 of being "pandering" to the LGBT audience. Because the real motivation of the people who do that is that they can't stand that, for once not everything is specifically tailored to their interest for exclusion.

 

And then these same people think they're so ****** enlightened for being fans of Samantha Traynor and Steve Cortez, and they talk about how "impressed" they were that they got rejected by these characters for being the wrong sex. Because, for them, being rejected by a video game is a ****** novelty.

 

Meanwhile, gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gamers have had video games telling them that they aren't welcome for every day of their entire ****** lives. And now a game finally gets made that welcomes them, and all the breeders come down on it for "pandering". As if catering to the LGBT market is a shortcut to easy money, rather than a controversial decision that can cost you customers. As if companies aren't already boycotted by right-wing douchebags all the time just for not overtly condemning homosexuals.

 

So I have two thoughts about this post:

 

1.)  The tone is really not appropriate for a thread that up until the past few hours has been really mellow and respectful, allowing it survive much longer than other threads like it.  If we can keep the polite and respectful tones, we can continue the conversation, but it people start to incite each other, it will definitely get closed down and then the conversation ends.

 

2.)  I agree with a lot of the ideas in this post, however, the one that I never really thought was the fact that Traynor is often used as the go-to argument about just "dealing with" a character rejecting you.  It's always from straight male players (obviously) saying that they wanted to romance her and she rejected them and they were fine with it.  I never connected two facts:  1.)  They had other options to turn to, so it wasn't such a big deal; and 2.) They had never been rejected by a romanceable female character before because she's literally the only one (outside of the Juhani pseudo-romance).  I do wonder if the novelty of being rejected this one time made it more palatable.  It's definitely way different than gay and lesbian players who get rejected by way more LI's than those who accept them.  Very interesting idea.

[oceanicsurvivor]

Because from a romance option perspective they are.

 

Only in the sense that...they're...relationships...with other people?

 

 

 

 

And the point Mockingword brings up about Traynor and the 'novelty of rejection', which I think is a great way to put it, is a very good catch/insight!

[spirosz]

Now might be a good time to whip out some Miley....

 

Please, we need it. 

[Mockingword]

In my perspective, Bioware's romances in general, be it straight, bi, gay, etc, are pandering because they are optional content that have no real impact on the story.  Sure, they can have a somewhat limited effect towards the PC, but as an important impact to the story overall?  Nothing, they are just fanservice, which I don't mind, but certain romances are there, just for the sake of being there.

All media content is 'pandering'. Everything is designed with the explicit purpose of making people like it and want to spend money on it.

[spirosz]

All media content is 'pandering'. Everything is designed with the explicit purpose of making people like it and want to spend money on it.

 

And? 

[AresKeith]

Never by the people who accuse DA2 of being "pandering" to the LGBT audience. Because the real motivation of the people who do that is that they can't stand that, for once not everything is specifically tailored to their interest for exclusion.

 

And you know this how?

 

 

And then these same people think they're so ****** enlightened for being fans of Samantha Traynor and Steve Cortez, and they talk about how "impressed" they were that they got rejected by these characters for being the wrong sex. Because, for them, being rejected by a video game is a ****** novelty.

 

An unneeded personal attack against someone

 

Meanwhile, gay, lesbian, bisexual and trans gamers have had video games telling them that they aren't welcome for every day of their entire ****** lives. And now a game finally gets made that welcomes them and gives them the exact same opportunities as the straight audience (that's actually being generous, because Sebastian is only available to women). And what happens? All the breeders come down on it for "pandering". As if catering to the LGBT market is a shortcut to easy money, rather than a controversial decision that can cost you customers. As if companies aren't already boycotted by right-wing douchebags all the time just for not overtly condemning homosexuals.

 

And nobody is truly saying that, they're trying to got across that they would prefer set sexualities of an equal set which isn't that different from catering

[GhostNappa]

[daveliam]

Because from a romance option perspective they are. Isabella being the exception, obviously, as she's been demonstrating her preference since DA:O. She however is the only character that can actually be given an orientation the rest are what you decide to turn them into by romancing them with a certain gender.

 

Incorrect though.  The romance storylines between these four LI's are completely different.  In Isabela, you get the character who is sexually open, but emotionally reserved.  In Merrill, you get the naive ingenue who is wrestling with tempation.  With Anders, you get an overly passionate man who struggles with controlling his emotions.  And with Fenris you get the damaged and guarded man who is afraid of leaving himself vulnerable.  They are completely different story types.

 

And you are completely wrong about Isabela being the only one who you can give an orientation to.  See the numerous posts about why Anders is bisexual (with evidence supporting the argument).  I posted one just a few hours ago, so you should be able to find it fairly quickly.