2138 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

No one is being excluded.  The people you are talking about are choosing to exclude themselves because they would prefer to continue to see groups of people not represented.  It's their right to do so, but I won't feel sorry for them.

I don't inherently disagree with what you are saying, but again... the idea that anyone is going to scare away the bigots, racists, sexists and whatever type of group anyone decides is not acceptable is unrealistic. Times change and people mature, but a video game company's goal cannot be to scare away others. It just can't.

 

Just because a game, movie, or TV show has a white hetero lead, doesn't mean it's not inclusive.  That's not at all what I mean by it.  I mean that, if you are actively exclusive (i.e., this product is not for racial minorities, LGBT individuals, women, etc.), then you will do worse financially than people who are inclusive.  Look at all of the boycotts that have been happening because of this.  That's what I'm talking about. 

Boycotts are laughable. Name one movie that has come out in the past year that had a boycott that was effective at all because it had a white straight male lead. Name one TV that resulted in tangibly lost sales because it didn't cover a wide variety of romance types. Show me a game that tanked because it didn't offer the ability to customize your character to match any known ethnicity.

Yes, if a game had blatantly homophobic or racist or sexist ideals portrayed as a good thing, it would be boycotted and would fail. But the absence of bigotry is not inclusiveness. And the lack of inclusiveness does not equate the level of protest and lost sales that bigotry brings. It just is what has usually always been... which never hurts sales.
 

 

Of course it has to bring in money.  See my earlier point.  I guarantee you that the number of people who are willing to boycott a product for being inclusive is far less than the number of people willing to boycott a product for being actively exclusive.  It's 2014.  Times have changed and money is flowing in the direction of inclusivity.

No, it's not. There may be MORE money, sure. More people would be willing to buy a game with a homosexual main character, or an ethnically diverse main lead, or a setting that challenges gender roles in society. But it doesn't mean that gamers are flocking in massive, huge droves for this content, either.

Bioware isn't tapping some huge, unknown gold mine by including sexually diverse characters. If they were, their recent games would have been the top selling RPGs of all time. They aren't doing badly, by any stretch of the imagination, but there isn't a sudden influx of gamers who have been neglected by the industry showing up by the millions to buy their games. And no one is boycotting other games that come that don't match Bioware's level of representative sexuality.

So why would they actively work to alienate others? Again - including this material is not the issue I'm fighting here. It is including it with such an intent as to purposefully root out people who may not agree with it and get them to stop playing not only your game, but video games in general. That is what InExile suggested and it is not something any video game company that is for profit and has millions invested can afford, or even want, to do.

[Pateu]

If Dragon Age give you a LI who is gay, that is ONE character out of the entire pantheon of video game romances that you, as a straight player cannot access. And it's a big deal for queer players because they almost never get access to a character like that.

 

If Dragon Age goes back to the formula of DAO, where two of the LI are only accessible to straight players and there's no corresponding gay/lesbian characters, then it's just adding to the old status quo of romances that queer players can't access. If you are asking for more straight LIs that queer people can't access, then it comes across as greedy/entitled. You don't NEED them. Gay/Lesbian players DO.

 

So you want to make up for years of inequality with more inequality.

 

That makes sense.

 

Duh.

[daveliam]

 

So you want to make up for years of inequality with more inequality.

 

That makes sense.

 

Duh.

 

 

I don't think you understood the original post.

 

The idea is that are two groups of people asking for more LI's:  one group has had access to the majority of them in the past; the other group has only had access to a small amount of them in the past.  If Bioware were to increase the amount of LI's for one of the groups, priority should be given to the one that has been getting, historically, much less of the content.  There is clearly a market for it, so they will make their money either way. 

 

The original post was not asking for straight people to get less LI's.  Just for the proportion of LI's to become more evenly distributed.  Again, not for straight people to lose out, but for straight people to get the same as they have always gotten and for LGBT players to get a more equitable amount.

[Pateu]

The idea is that are two groups of people asking for more LI's:  one group has had access to the majority of them in the past; the other group has only had access to a small amount of them in the past.

 

The OP is asking for GAY only relationships, because he finds it ''hot''.

 

He's suggesting that straight people do not enjoy the relationship with that person for the sole reason that he finds gay only LIs more ''hot'' when in truth, me playing a hetero and having a relationship with that character would not affect him in the slightest, as this is a single player game.

 

I am calling him out and anyone that supports him for their hypocrisy.

[JadePrince]

I don't think you understood the original post.

 

The idea is that are two groups of people asking for more LI's:  one group has had access to the majority of them in the past; the other group has only had access to a small amount of them in the past.  If Bioware were to increase the amount of LI's for one of the groups, priority should be given to the one that has been getting, historically, much less of the content.  There is clearly a market for it, so they will make their money either way. 

 

The original post was not asking for straight people to get less LI's.  Just for the proportion of LI's to become more evenly distributed.  Again, not for straight people to lose out, but for straight people to get the same as they have always gotten and for LGBT players to get a more equitable amount.

 

Heck, I wasn't even asking for gay players to get MORE, I was just saying that if there's going to be straight-exclusive romances, I hope that they wouldn't do the DAO thing and instead ALSO give gay players exclusive romances too.

 

Straight people are SO AFRAID of someone else getting something that they don't, JEEZ. :/ Welcome to the lives of every LGBT person. If we survived a lifetime of having NO choices, I'm SURE they could survive having an equal number of choices or even, heaven-forbid, a little less choice just once.

 

But again, I'm not campaigning for queer players to have MORE than straight players, just to have an equal number of choices.  

[Jorji Costava]

The OP is asking for GAY only relationships, because he finds it ''hot''.

 

He's suggesting that straight people do not enjoy the relationship with that person for the sole reason that he finds gay only LIs more ''hot'' when in truth, me playing a hetero and having a relationship with that character would not affect him in the slightest, as this is a single player game.

 

I am calling him out and anyone that supports him for their hypocrisy.

 

I hardly see how there's any hypocrisy going on here. On some level, isn't the reason that anyone requests content of any kind that they find that content desirable? No one says, "I think that the Shapeshifter specialization sucks and is a dumb concept, but there should be way more shapeshifter-related stuff in DA:I." If you make a request for certain content, then it seems reasonable to suppose that it's because you like that kind of content, whether it's in terms of finding it 'hot,' 'cool' or whatever. I just don't see how that constitutes hypocrisy.

 

EDIT: Changed some phrasing.

[In Exile]

Your last sentence proves the folly of your statement - money. These are video games, not social engineering projects. The goal is to make entertainment. If you happen to have some social commentary and even result in some good discussion, that is a bonus, not a driving force.

Saying "let's offend as many people as possible so that they will stay out of our sandbox" is not an ideal a company who invests hundreds of millions of dollars into a product meant for mass consumption can afford. If this was an indie studio or a non-profit company, sure. But a company that needs to sell millions of copies of a game cannot afford to alienate or ostracize large groups of potential customers, regardless of if you disagree with them or not.
 

 

First of all, you've completely misunderstood what I said. I didn't say, let's go out there and offend people. I said, let's go out there and include diverse groups, and if that offends people, they frankly deserve it. There are a number of avenues to increase shareholder value, and building your brand among consumer bases is most certainly one of them. 

 

Secondly, the fact that inclusiveness has the side effect of alienating bigots does not mean that the bottom line will be hurt. Take, for example, TD Canada Trust (or TD Bank in the US). There was a major and public drive (at least in Canada) toward LGBT inclusiveness. The CEO was a strong proponent of equality. The end result was not financial chaos for TD. 

 

Thirdly, catering to a group of bigots is an easy way to toxify your brand, especially as society moves in a more progressive direction. Sure, Bioware could cater to homophobes. But even in the United States, that's becoming a serious imagine problem for business as homophones are being lumped in with racists. No one is about to suggest making a movie to draw in the "KKK" crowd. 

 

After all... Bioware could obfuscate the gender choice in character creation, since society's expectations about gender norms are rapidly coming under question. You simply make a character, with any appearance you like, with the same content, the same non-gender pronouns and the same reactions (or lack thereof) to anything related to the outward visual of your character.

That would be the penultimate in fairness and equality. And it would also offend those uppity players who are so crass as to be gender myopic and actually want to play as a female or male. But how dare they! Get them out of our sandbox!

 

I don't know what this rant has to do with anything. No one is advocating for this view. It's great that you built a straw man out of another real issue - gender identity - but other than minimizing and dismissing the real concerns of people who struggle with gender issues as some sort of desire for universal gender neutrality, I can't see what this adds. 

[JadePrince]

 

So you want to make up for years of inequality with more inequality.

 

That makes sense.

 

Duh.

 

 

No, I want to make up for a lifetime of inequality by evening the playing field a little.

 

Putting gay romances in DAI is not 'inequality for straight people', for pete's sake. 

 

And if you honestly think so, then you've obviously never experienced what 'inequality' really means.

[jlb524]

The OP is asking for GAY only relationships, because he finds it ''hot''.

 

He's suggesting that straight people do not enjoy the relationship with that person for the sole reason that he finds gay only LIs more ''hot'' when in truth, me playing a hetero and having a relationship with that character would not affect him in the slightest, as this is a single player game.

 

I am calling him out and anyone that supports him for their hypocrisy.

 

So you would prefer that all the romance options are bisexual and open to both genders?

[In Exile]

I don't inherently disagree with what you are saying, but again... the idea that anyone is going to scare away the bigots, racists, sexists and whatever type of group anyone decides is not acceptable is unrealistic. Times change and people mature, but a video game company's goal cannot be to scare away others. It just can't.

So why would they actively work to alienate others? Again - including this material is not the issue I'm fighting here. It is including it win such an intent as to purposefully root out people who may not agree with it and get them to stop playing not only your game, but video games in general. That is what InExile suggested and it is not something any video game company that is for profit and has millions invested can afford, or even want, to do.

No one is saying "scare away the bigots".  There was some nutter in the romance thread a while ago - whose post has since been deleted - that talked about how Bioware needs "strong heterosexual romances" or whatever, with damsels and distress and vulnerable women. Bioware shouldn't shame this loon, or target him, or otherwise mock or address his existence. All that I said was that the extent to which it is financially viable, Bioware should completely not cater to him. 

 

Take, for example, the Morrigan romance. It doesn't do any of these things. Morrigan is not a damsel in distress. She always leaves the protagonist to pursue her agenda. You can only romance her on her terms, if you're willing to give up your life in Ferelden (or wherever) pursue her goals. That's certainly "excluding" this type of loon.

 

Or another example, people who ask for sexuality toggles so they can literally toggle away the gay. If not including a gay toggle alienates these people, then again, too bad. 

[AkiKishi]

The idea that anyone needs virtual relationships is just a bit odd whatever their orientation may be.

 

TombRaider(2013) was a prequel so we know there won't be a happy ever after, since we know how the story ends unless they are going for some grand rewrite. 

[JadePrince]

The idea that anyone needs virtual relationships is just a bit odd whatever their orientation may be.

 

TombRaider(2013) was a prequel so we know there won't be a happy ever after, since we know how the story ends unless they are going for some grand rewrite. 

 

It's not needing virtual relationships. It's needing representation. It's needing to see people and relationships like our own in media.

 

And if you think it's odd to need that, well, that's probably because you've never lacked for that kind of representation. It's easy to say "I don't need it", when you already have it, you know?

 

I dunno what else to tell you. 

[Fast Jimmy]

No one is saying "scare away the bigots".  There was some nutter in the romance thread a while ago - whose post has since been deleted - that talked about how Bioware needs "strong heterosexual romances" or whatever, with damsels and distress and vulnerable women. Bioware shouldn't shame this loon, or target him, or otherwise mock or address his existence. All that I said was that the extent to which it is financially viable, Bioware should completely not cater to him. 
 
Take, for example, the Morrigan romance. It doesn't do any of these things. Morrigan is not a damsel in distress. She always leaves the protagonist to pursue her agenda. You can only romance her on her terms, if you're willing to give up your life in Ferelden (or wherever) pursue her goals. That's certainly "excluding" this type of loon.
 
Or another example, people who ask for sexuality toggles so they can literally toggle away the gay. If not including a gay toggle alienates these people, then again, too bad.

Okay... here is the quote I originally responded to:

And this is part of why I think it's a good idea: because it outs IRL bigots. If it every game had a romance, and the end result was that such people avoid videogames as a whole, everyone would be better off for it.

The same if having different ethnicities in a medieval setting got rid of the IRL racists, or having women in position of power got rid of IRL sexists.

These are groups whose interest should not only not be taken into account, but actively undermined so far as possible without actually causing too much financial damage to the company to the extent that they're still part of the market.

in reading that, the concepts I'm pulling out is that if every game had romance and ethnic and sexual diversity, the video game industry would scare bigots off and be "better off for it."



I'm really having difficulty figuring out where I may have misunderstood and think its possible it may be an instance where something may have been mis-stated.

[oceanicsurvivor]

The idea that anyone needs virtual relationships is just a bit odd whatever their orientation may be.

 

TombRaider(2013) was a prequel so we know there won't be a happy ever after, since we know how the story ends unless they are going for some grand rewrite. 

 

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the main point  when you trivialize what representation like this means to many people. Also, why is it that mainly/almost only LGBT gamers (also women) that are told 'its not a dating sim get over it' and 'wow, you're strangely fixtated on this. Say, Bioware, how realistic of swords are we getting this time around? I really need to know, if the sword is twice the size of my character again it could be a dealbreaker. I'm going to make 5 threads about this IN ALL CAPS to be sure this is addressed'. Thats such a common argument in these threads, and it just reeks of people trying to shame LGBT gamers for expressing their preferences and daring to bring up same sex content.

 

And yes, we all know same sex female relationships must end tragically in media . Gee, I wonder why femHawke and Isabela running off into the sunset together mattered so much to me.

 

Also, the news about Lara Croft a few pages back totally made my week  

[Fast Jimmy]

And yes, we all know same sex female relationships must end tragically in media.

Well... I don't know. If you did a Google search for "F/F Happy Ending" I think you might find some pieces of media?

[Aimi]

Well... I don't know. If you did a Google search for "F/F Happy Ending" I think you might find some pieces of media?

Mostly fanfiction, after you filter out misinterpretations of "F/F" as "Final Fantasy".

[AkiKishi]

Girlfriends had a happy ending.

 

http://en.wikipedia....Friends_(manga)

 

Expecting a happy ever after with TombRaider would be like expecting Uncle Ben not to get shot. It's probably what is going to define the character.

[XxPrincess(x)ThreatxX]

The idea that anyone needs virtual relationships is just a bit odd whatever their orientation may be.
 
TombRaider(2013) was a prequel so we know there won't be a happy ever after, since we know how the story ends unless they are going for some grand rewrite.

The newest TR was a reboot not a prequel, Lara being in her early 20's in a modern setting should make that obvious, the original version of her is 40+ now

[Aimi]

Expecting a happy ever after with TombRaider would be like expecting Uncle Ben not to get shot. It's probably what is going to define the character.

Which is precisely why I don't expect it. But that still makes me sad. I can be sad, right?

[In Exile]

Okay... here is the quote I originally responded to:

in reading that, the concepts I'm pulling out is that if every game had romance and ethnic and sexual diversity, the video game industry would scare bigots off and be "better off for it."

I'm really having difficulty figuring out where I may have misunderstood and think its possible it may be an instance where something may have been mis-stated.

 

I'm going to address this in a different way, since I feel as if you've dodged every other thing I've said. Let's say I concede: you're totally right, I absolutely advocated for the financial ruin of every single company for the sake of inclusiveness in that post. Even if we say that, on your reading, I completely backtracked (pathetically let's say, again to make you feel better about a catching if that's what you need to hear). So now that we got that out of the way, and you won 1.5 internets, how about we have a substantive discussion? Address the points I raised in my posts. 

 

let's go out there and include diverse groups, and if that offends people, they frankly deserve it. There are a number of avenues to increase shareholder value, and building your brand among consumer bases is most certainly one of them. 

 

Secondly, the fact that inclusiveness has the side effect of alienating bigots does not mean that the bottom line will be hurt. Take, for example, TD Canada Trust (or TD Bank in the US). There was a major and public drive (at least in Canada) toward LGBT inclusiveness. The CEO was a strong proponent of equality. The end result was not financial chaos for TD. 

 

Thirdly, catering to a group of bigots is an easy way to toxify your brand, especially as society moves in a more progressive direction. Sure, Bioware could cater to homophobes. But even in the United States, that's becoming a serious imagine problem for business as homophones are being lumped in with racists. No one is about to suggest making a movie to draw in the "KKK" crowd.

 

 There was some nutter in the romance thread a while ago - whose post has since been deleted - that talked about how Bioware needs "strong heterosexual romances" or whatever, with damsels and distress and vulnerable women. Bioware shouldn't shame this loon, or target him, or otherwise mock or address his existence. All that I said was that the extent to which it is financially viable, Bioware should completely not cater to him. 

 

Take, for example, the Morrigan romance. It doesn't do any of these things. Morrigan is not a damsel in distress. She always leaves the protagonist to pursue her agenda. You can only romance her on her terms, if you're willing to give up your life in Ferelden (or wherever) pursue her goals. That's certainly "excluding" this type of loon.

 

Or another example, people who ask for sexuality toggles so they can literally toggle away the gay. If not including a gay toggle alienates these people, then again, too bad. 

 

[Allan Schumacher]

I disagree since I don't see that as Biowares business to push any agenda onto a paying customer.

 

Anything we do is an agenda of some sort, though.

[Deadmac]

Bioware isn't tapping some huge, unknown gold mine by including sexually diverse characters. If they were, their recent games would have been the top selling RPGs of all time. They aren't doing badly, by any stretch of the imagination, but there isn't a sudden influx of gamers who have been neglected by the industry showing up by the millions to buy their games. And no one is boycotting other games that come that don't match Bioware's level of representative sexuality.

So why would they actively work to alienate others? Again - including this material is not the issue I'm fighting here. It is including it win such an intent as to purposefully root out people who may not agree with it and get them to stop playing not only your game, but video games in general. That is what InExile suggested and it is not something any video game company that is for profit and has millions invested can afford, or even want, to do.

 

According to the Williams Institue of law, the average number of gays, lesbians, transgender, and bisexuals make up 3.8% of the American population. If "Dragon Age: Inqusition" was solely cattering to that demographic, they will lose an exponential amount of money. Straight men will play female characters, so they can play out a fantasy lesbian relationship. Many straight men (not all) could careless about this game being inclusive. Its all about hormones.

 

Also, after failing to gain an audience, the cable channel LogoTV discovered that - gay people do not base their entertainment around homosexuality.

 

...therefore, the overly vocal supporters of 'alternative storytelling' is in a very-very-very small minority.

 

BioWare needs to move the advertising beyond the romances. While the inclusion of the romances is welcome, (hetrosexual and homosexual), the current focus on them has the potential to sink this game.

 

Keep and support the alternative storytelling, but move the darn hype onto something else.

[Allan Schumacher]

The OP is asking for GAY only relationships, because he finds it ''hot''.

 

He's suggesting that straight people do not enjoy the relationship with that person for the sole reason that he finds gay only LIs more ''hot'' when in truth, me playing a hetero and having a relationship with that character would not affect him in the slightest, as this is a single player game.

 

I am calling him out and anyone that supports him for their hypocrisy.

 

The OP is saying they'd like to see more exclusively gay characters in the game.  Because for a lot of people, that type of representation is important to them.

 

It's asking for the equivalent to a character that can only be romanced by a heterosexual (which our games have had a lot of).

 

If I have a character that is a straight male, and another that is a gay male, and they are romanceable, I don't consider this to be an inequitable distribution when it comes to the choices being offered (there may be inequity within the quality, but that's beyond the scope of the OP).

[daveliam]

According to the Williams Institue of law, the average number of gays, lesbians, transgender, and bisexuals make up 3.8% of the population.

 

Self-reported data is highly questionable for many reasons.  The accurate way to use that data is to say that "openly identifying gays, lesbians, transgenders, and bisexuals make up at least 3.8% of the population".

 

Given that the data is self-reporting and that there is a social stigma related to being identified as LGBT, it is highly likely that the 3.8% that are represented in that survey data is a baseline and only represents a portion of the actual LGBT individuals in the population.  Most estimates that account for this puts the number around the 10% mark. 

[JadePrince]

According to the Williams Institue of law, the average number of gays, lesbians, transgender, and bisexuals make up 3.8% of the American population. If "Dragon Age: Inqusition" was solely cattering to that demographic, they will lose an exponential amount of money. Straight men will play female characters, so they can play out a fantasy lesbian relationship. Many straight men (not all) could careless about this game being inclusive. Its all about hormones.

 

Also, after failing to gain an audience, the cable channel LogoTV disccovered that - gay people do not suround their lives with gay entertainment.

 

Yeah, but I'd be willing to bet that LGBT people make up a bigger percentage of the gaming population than the general population. So you can't really use population statistics to talk about gaming.

 

Also, this is getting off topic, but imho Logo's programming sucked. The gay people I know don't want 'gay entertainment'. They want mainstream, high-budget entertainment like everyone else that just so happens to have LGBT characters in it. I don't want stories about being gay (which much of Logo's TV was). I want mainstream genre TV (fantasy/scifi/supernatural themes) that includes LGBT characters.