443 réponses à ce sujet

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Gonna say if a straight person is uncomfortable with bi LIs, they're kind of douchey.

This is a little over the line, isn't it? 

[ladyoflate]

   Summarization of it means who cares about the heterosexuals they got other games to play.

 

 

Nearly every one.

 

I also don't think mods should be supported. I also dislike the sentiment of a straight person being uncomfortable with playing a straight PC whose LI just happens to be bi. It affects your character not one whit, so why do you care?

 

A game isn't LGBT exclusive unless the PC is stated to not be straight and all the NPCs are also LGBT. Which is not remotely the issue at hand. While (again) I don't think mods should be supported in the Keep for reasons of accidental misleading of new players, I also don't think it'd be the end of the world if there was an official patch to make Morrigan and Alistair bi. Which is also definitely not happening.

 

that set of pipes belongs to th earth. Soundtrack to a decent chunk of my teenage years, let me tell you

 

_{(polysexual hissing)}

 

Have you heard that version of Don't Stop Me Now with everything but the vocals stripped/cut way down? Like hearing God.

[Allan Schumacher]

Also Allan, straight people undeniably had/have the priveledge of that choice. But everyone should. Why is it "bad" for me to avoid that choice, but acceptable to skip games due to a "hetero dudebro protagonist"?

The reality is more that everybody doesn't.  Further, I have hard time convincing myself that providing a choice for someone is a good thing if it allows them to perpetuate hurtful perspectives.

 

It's due to exposure.  Imagine if games were even more "hetero dudbro protagonist."  In fact, lets assume ALL games are "hetero dudebro protagonist."  Your only choice, in this case, is to not play the game.  Which is hardly a choice.  This is like saying that a black person had the choice to not buy a house if they wanted to avoid dealing with the housing speculators that wrote up biased contracts because banks wouldn't loan money to a black person.  It's a false equivalency again.  The choices aren't the same.

 

 

And yes, I think that putting people in uncomfortable situations that other people have no choice but to endure is not a bad thing because it helps improve perspective and empathy.  The idea of "walking a mile in another's shoes."  If you actively avoid the choice because you feel uncomfortable by it, then I can see some potential growth in examining it to examine why you feel uncomfortable by it.

 

 

 

 

I understand the obvious inequality, and have yet to play a game that forces me to go against my native sexuality, but my point is nobody should have to.

 

But plenty of people still do.  Both in the video games they play as well as the other aspects of their life that they have to experience.

 

Because I actually don't agree that "nobody should have to" within the context of any single game.  If I play an interesting game that is high quality, and the main character happens to be gay, is this a bad thing?  The unfortunate part is I think it'd hurt the game's success, even though putting the character through a heterosexual romance wouldn't cause most people to blink an eye.  Though it might make some LGBTQ people go "here we go again."  But I see a world where it's okay for there to be games that don't allow choice specifically, as long as it's within the framework of an industry where those types of choices are pervasive (which we aren't).

 

If we're not at a point where a set protagonist of a game can be gay and people simply aren't affected by it, then I think we still have room to improve.  The problem is I feel that all the cries of artistic integrity will suddenly disappear, because for some reason this can't be "artistic integrity," it is ostensibly "social commentary" (as though it isn't social commentary by making the person a heterosexual).  I do think it's a problem if a game would not be purchased simply because the playable character happens to be gay.  I know I've definitely seen people suggest that LGBTQ people shouldn't worry if the main character is heterosexual, because "games are for fun" or whatever sort of generalization.  If games are for fun, then I can only assume that those people simply wouldn't care if the main character was gay.  Do you think that this is the case?  I don't.

 

 

EDIT: BioWare's games tend to focus on the choices available to the player, so I would be surprised if we ever found ourselves with gay relationships (or straight ones) simply not existing.  Although I do think it'd be interesting to have MORE gay romance options, if only for social experimentation purposes.

 

But then, I'm not the one that makes these decisions (maybe for good reason).

 

That said, I also disagree with the notion that because someone is uncomfortable with something that it makes them a bad person.  In my experience (personal, and observational) a lot of discomfort comes from lack of familiarity and fear of the unknown.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 23 mai 2014 - 05:36 .

[Mockingword]

This is a little over the line, isn't it? 

Nope.

[wolfsite]

Nope.

 

Actually I would say it is, if someone is uncomfortable to something it doesn't mean they automatically hate it.  It could just means they have never been exposed to that choice/lifestyle or don't fully understand it and could merely just need a little time to adjust and accept it.  If you treat such a person negatively that could sour there view of things which could cause them to see that lifestyle in a more negative light which is what we don't want.

[Mockingword]

Actually I would say it is, if someone is uncomfortable to something it doesn't mean they automatically hate it.  It could just means they have never been exposed to that choice/lifestyle or don't fully understand it and could merely just need a little time to adjust and accept it.  If you treat such a person negatively that could sour there view of things which could cause them to see that lifestyle in a more negative light which is what we don't want.

Yeah, I'm not being paid to serve as an ambassador for the LGBT people. Those poor dears will just have to deal with being thrown in the deep end.

[Sequin]

I'm saying that if someone goes into the Keep and sees Alistair is gay and married the Warden (because the player can pick those options), they are justified in going into the DAO with that expectation that they can play DAO and have a gay relationship with Alistair. The game won't let them do that, however.

This conversation is way over my head, but... why not just use a pop-up screen that informs the player that "some choices" were not available in DA:O? You could even have two settings in the Keep... one where "new options" are available and the other where "only DA:O options" are available. As soon as you flip the settings, a screen informs you about not all choices being available. You can even colour code them.

I'm probably naive about this, but I don't see why this would be a reason not to include more options.

[Giggles_Manically]

This conversation is way over my head, but... why not just use a pop-up screen that informs the player that "some choices" were not available in DA:O? You could even have two settings in the Keep... one where "new options" are available and the other where "only DA:O options" are available. As soon as you flip the settings, a screen informs you about not all choices being available. You can even colour code them.

I'm probably naive about this, but I don't see why this would be a reason not to include more options.

Probably because:

-They dont want to create false advertising for a game they cant change to accommodate that anymore

-They have enough things to worry about importing correctly that adding non-existent choices in the first place is just too bothersome

-They dont want to retcon existing characters personalities 

-They dont want to start a slippery slope where if they start adding choices that never existed, where do they draw the line then?

-Finally they don't want to probably have to add more lines to the game's limited budget to choices that never were in a game anyway.

 

People keep saying its just like "add a few lines" "add some dialogue" etc. However if they wanted to, they would have to spend time and money on something that never really was there anyway. If you want to romance them, grab a mod and use that.

 

It is not up to the developers to accommodate choices that were only there from modding.

[HiroVoid]

Probably because:

-They dont want to retcon existing characters personalities 

-They dont want to start a slippery slope where if they start adding choices that never existed, where do they draw the line then?

 

People keep saying its just like "add a few lines" "add some dialogue" etc. However if they wanted to, they would have to spend time and money on something that never really was there anyway. If you want to romance them, grab a mod and use that.

 

It is not up to the developers to accommodate choices that were only there from modding.

There are multiple reasons for not including this, but I'd say the 'They don't want to' and 'They don't want to include choices that weren't in the game in the first place' are the main ones.

[Mockingword]

This crap right here........ Crap like this is why homophobes exists in the first place, because of people like you who don't even bother to help the people who misunderstand or feel uncomfortable but don't outright hate. You only see two sides, gblt and straight, that's it and that is wrong.  Also pming people and calling them bigots because they have a diffrent opinion and are not even bigots is far more douchy then someone saying they feel a little uncomfortable.

Lol, I don't waste time PMing bigots.

 

If people are genuinely interested in getting information, Google exists. LGBT individuals aren't responsible for anyone else's education.

 

And anyone who becomes a homophobe as a result of encountering me was already a homophobe looking for an excuse.

[Sequin]

Probably because:

-They dont want to create false advertising for a game they cant change to accommodate that anymore
-They have enough things to worry about importing correctly that adding non-existent choices in the first place is just too bothersome
-They dont want to retcon existing characters personalities
-They dont want to start a slippery slope where if they start adding choices that never existed, where do they draw the line then?
-Finally they don't want to probably have to add more lines to the game's limited budget to choices that never were in a game anyway.

- It's not false advertising if the game states the options weren't available in DA:O. In fact... that's as honest as it gets.
- To me, that is way too vague. If it really is so bothersome to do story customization, why even bother at all? The Keep is the perfect opportunity for this as it doesn't require a direct save. If it did, I would buy the "too bothersome" theory.
- They wouldn't have to "retcon personalities." Not even sure what that means. What about character personalities would change?
- How about we draw the line at a more inclusive DA experience? Hopefully that won't be too "slippery."
- Why spend money on allowing players to have a more personalized world to begin with, then? Can't that money be spent elsewhere? After another few years how many players who come into DA will have played DA:O at all? How many players are even aware of the choices they make in the Keep after that? Where do we draw the line? Isn't this a "slippery slope" to continue allowing players to customize any options?

[HiroVoid]

- How about we draw the line at a more inclusive DA experience? Hopefully that won't be too "slippery."

So the Dragon Age Keep should allow the players to have been allowed to romance anyone in Dragon Age: Inquisition even though it's already been confirmed that not all LI's will be Bi in Dragon Age Inquisition?  Though I am aware that there are plenty of people not happy with that announcement.

[Sequin]

So the Dragon Age Keep should allow the players to have been allowed to romance anyone in Dragon Age: Inquisition even though it's already been confirmed that not all LI's will be Bi in Dragon Age Inquisition? Though I am aware that there are plenty of people not happy with that announcement.

Not sure what you are asking me.

I don't personally care how other players choose to customize their own DA experience through the Keep because it doesn't affect me.

[Mr.House]

Lol, I don't waste time PMing bigots.

 

If people are genuinely interested in getting information, Google exists. LGBT individuals aren't responsible for anyone else's education.

 

And anyone who becomes a homophobe as a result of encountering me was already a homophobe looking for an excuse.

Guess what, just because you call people a bigot does not make them a bigot, you are in fact a bigot because of how intolerable you are. You are no different then a homophobe at all.

[Mr.House]

Not sure what you are asking me.

I don't personally care how other players choose to customize their own DA experience through the Keep because it doesn't affect me.

Then I want to be allowed to romance Shale then.

[HiroVoid]

Not sure what you are asking me.

I don't personally care how other players choose to customize their own DA experience through the Keep because it doesn't affect me.

But it does affect Bioware and how they handle things.  Bioware have already stated that they plan for set sexualities different from all bisexual from this point forward (or at least for Inquisition.).  In future flags, this means that certain users will not be able to have certain romances based on their sex.

[Sequin]

Then I want to be allowed to romance Shale then.

Oh right, because Shale was a romance option to begin with for "some" players. Yes, I do see how this is comparable to what I was saying.

[Sequin]

But it does affect Bioware and how they handle things. Bioware have already stated that they plan for set sexualities different from all bisexual from this point forward (or at least for Inquisition.). In future flags, this means that certain users will not be able to have certain romances based on their sex.

I understand. In five years, though, who knows if "options" will continue to matter?

[Mr.House]

Oh right, because Shale was a romance option to begin with for "some" players. Yes, I do see how this is comparable to what I was saying.

Why not, you're asking for stuff that was not available in the base game, so why can't I have what I want too?

[HiroVoid]

I understand. In five years, though, who knows if "options" will continue to matter?

Sorry.  Now I'm not sure what you're asking me.

[Sequin]

Why not, you're asking for stuff that was not available in the base game, so why can't I have what I want too?

I'm asking for equality. Not somethibg special.

If Shale was a romance option for "some" then this would be comparable. You are free to ask for what you want, but please don't equate it to what I was saying. You quoted me, so I assumed you were saying that request was on par with mine. If you hadn't quoted me, I wouldn't have responded.

[daveliam]

This crap right here........ Crap like this is why homophobes exists in the first place, because of people like you who don't even bother to help the people who misunderstand or feel uncomfortable but don't outright hate. You only see two sides, gblt and straight, that's it and that is wrong.  Also pming people and calling them bigots because they have a diffrent opinion and are not even bigots is far more douchy then someone saying they feel a little uncomfortable.

 

This is absolutely one of the most ridiculous things that I've ever read on the BSN.  So it's gay people's fault that homophobes exist in the first place because we don't walk around "educating" everyone about our sexuality?  Is that seriously what you are saying?  That's so inaccurate and offensive on so many levels that my brain can't actually wrap around it enough to make a more coherent argument right now.  Ridiculous.

[HiroVoid]

I'm asking for equality. Not somethibg special.

If Shale was a romance option for "some" then this would be comparable. You are free to ask for what you want, but please don't equate it to what I was saying. You quoted me, so I assumed you were saying that request was on par with mine. If you hadn't quoted me, I wouldn't have responded.

Know it doesn't have the social implications involved, but what about the case of a dwarven or mage warden not being able to marry Alistiar and be queen while a female human noble could.

 

A bit on that note as well, I still don't think we know the implications of King Alistiar would be if he married another male since there's already a worry about preserving bloodlines as well as not knowing the view on gay married couple in king or queenship.

[jlb524]

Then I want to be allowed to romance Shale then.

 

You did, stop whining.

[Mr.House]

I'm asking for equality. Not somethibg special.

If Shale was a romance option for "some" then this would be comparable. You are free to ask for what you want, but please don't equate it to what I was saying. You quoted me, so I assumed you were saying that request was on par with mine. If you hadn't quoted me, I wouldn't have responded.

Equality means nothing here. Morrigan and Alistair where not S/S in DAO, if you used a mod Bioware has no obligations to support that in later games, if they make things possible that where not in the base game, then Bioware better be prepared to answer other request, there's your slippery slope.