443 réponses à ce sujet

[Adaar the Unbound]

Me too, there is a lot of stuff I want to see so long as they don't do more retcons.

retcons?

[TurretSyndrome]

"Queer" has been removed from our swear list and is now available to be used. I think it was an oversight. Another poster is correct, depending on several factors, it can be seen as offensive but I would rather have it available for use and ban people who are using it to cause harm. 

 

Just like Blood Magic then.

[Allan Schumacher]

Even better were the chats with Leliana.  "How is it like to be an elf?  Listen, check your privilege, I'm obvs Dwarf - well I was until I was thrown to the darkspawn.  Still. :/"

 

It was certainly interesting; I had thought that a single flag would have determined the conversation (like, a Dwarf Noble flag, Human Noble flag, etc) but it looks like they had a separate one for race, origin and class which had different priorities depending on the area.

 

No, typically the entire conversation is self contained, with branches that occur based on logical checks (typically male/female/race/class).

 

So for, lets say, a player line that is "Do you know who I am!?" that checks player race, there will be that one line with 3 different responses.  The game engine will start at the first response, check the condition, if it's true, it plays that one (and the later ones will never be seen).  So yes, you can get very, very bizarre behaviour if you start mix and matching plot flags in a particular way when they are supposed to be exclusive.

 

Especially if, for whatever reason, at one point in the conversation it happens to check for a dwarf first, but later in the conversation it checks for an elf first.

[Allan Schumacher]

Except (in accordance to your metaphor) taking anyone's M&M's at any time is a dick move. I'm not arguing that non-hetero people are underrepresented, I don't have a problem with anyone modding to meet whatever pixelated needs that have. I'm just saying that there is no difference between wanting more of "x kind" of character, regardless of what X is. The only thing is, there's a larger amount of straight people, so why wouldn't there be pandering to them? It's not right by any means....but honestly, it's not bad. Lgbt is underrepresented because there are less of them(irl). It's shitty, but takin anyone's M&M's is bad.

 

Note that the word "underrepresented" in the context of "why are people okay with making characters gay, but not with making characters straight" doesn't mean "there's an equal number of gay romances as straight romances."

 

Lets say people of my race constitute 30% of the population I live in.  If people of my race make up 20% of the game content, you can argue that my race is underrepresented.  If people of my race make up 40% of the population in a game, then you could argue that my race is overrepresented now.  It's has to do with the sheer frequency of how often the content exists.  So no, LGBTQ is not "underrepresented because there are less of them."  It's "LGBTQ are underrepresented because content for them is less than the amount of LGBTQ people in real life."  Note that you cannot use a single game to illustrate "yay" or "nay" for this.  It's an analysis of the aggregate date of video games.

 

 

As for the M&M example, lets frame it another way.

 

There are two children and a machine that dispenses M&Ms.  You are watching this machine work.  The machine distributes the M&Ms inequitably, with the first kid getting 9 out of every 10, with the 2nd child getting 1 out of every 10.  Now say an adult comes by, sees the situation.  Imagine how you were to feel if you were to see this adult take some of the M&Ms from the first child, and give it to the second child.  Now, imagine how you were to feel if you saw the adult take M&Ms from the second child, and give it to the first child.

 

I know in my experience, I would be more supportive, and perhaps even endorsing, of someone taking some of the M&Ms for the first child and giving them to the second child, because I can see that the machine isn't handing them out fairly.  If I were to see someone take the few M&Ms the second child got, and instead give them to the first child, I would consider it a jerk move.

 

Now, you mention that taking M&Ms is a jerk move regardless, and fair enough.  In fact, I would not be surprised if the first child got upset because some of their M&Ms were taken from them, and given to the other child.  To that child, it's fair to say they've lost M&Ms.  But this is the problem.  Ideally I'd love the first child to be like me, and appreciate that things aren't fair, he's still getting a lot of M&Ms, and to acknowledge that the second child shouldn't be denied M&Ms.  That doesn't always happen though.  You get people that will be upset, and they lack the perspective and empathy of the other side.  Most of the kids like this aren't even bad kids.  It's that they don't fully understand what's going on.

 

It's a lot like punching up vs. punching down.  As a straight male gamer, I have been given a lot of content (I'm a white male gamer too, so extra lot of content) that I can identify with really well, across all gaming.  So yes, by having a gay relationship in a game that would have otherwise been straight, I lose out but someone else benefits.  I'm okay with this "sacrifice" though, because in general it's not like there isn't still a lot of content out there that is suited more directly to my tastes.

[Skieth99]

Albeit I certainly agree that more non-hetero, non-promiscuous characters would be a plus, I always just sort of assumed it was a lore thing with the given examples...Like the chantry was homophobic and that the types of people you meet outside of it (primarily in Kirkwall and outside of Ferelden in general) were generally more lax about both orientation and monogamy.  Still, it would be nice to see some people who just preferred to be monogamous outside of principles who were gay/bi.  My Dwarven Mage (Shut up, it's happening, I know it) wants some beef

[GVulture]

Note that the word "underrepresented" in the context of "why are people okay with making characters gay, but not with making characters straight" doesn't mean "there's an equal number of gay romances as straight romances."

 

Lets say people of my race constitute 30% of the population I live in.  If people of my race make up 20% of the game content, you can argue that my race is underrepresented.  If people of my race make up 40% of the population in a game, then you could argue that my race is overrepresented now.  It's has to do with the sheer frequency of how often the content exists.  So no, LGBTQ is not "underrepresented because there are less of them."  It's "LGBTQ are underrepresented because content for them is less than the amount of LGBTQ people in real life."  Note that you cannot use a single game to illustrate "yay" or "nay" for this.  It's an analysis of the aggregate date of video games.

 

 

As for the M&M example, lets frame it another way.

 

There are two children and a machine that dispenses M&Ms.  You are watching this machine work.  The machine distributes the M&Ms inequitably, with the first kid getting 9 out of every 10, with the 2nd child getting 1 out of every 10.  Now say an adult comes by, sees the situation.  Imagine how you were to feel if you were to see this adult take some of the M&Ms from the first child, and give it to the second child.  Now, imagine how you were to feel if you saw the adult take M&Ms from the second child, and give it to the first child.

 

I know in my experience, I would be more supportive, and perhaps even endorsing, of someone taking some of the M&Ms for the first child and giving them to the second child, because I can see that the machine isn't handing them out fairly.  If I were to see someone take the few M&Ms the second child got, and instead give them to the first child, I would consider it a jerk move.

 

Now, you mention that taking M&Ms is a jerk move regardless, and fair enough.  In fact, I would not be surprised if the first child got upset because some of their M&Ms were taken from them, and given to the other child.  To that child, it's fair to say they've lost M&Ms.  But this is the problem.  Ideally I'd love the first child to be like me, and appreciate that things aren't fair, he's still getting a lot of M&Ms, and to acknowledge that the second child shouldn't be denied M&Ms.  That doesn't always happen though.  You get people that will be upset, and they lack the perspective and empathy of the other side.  Most of the kids like this aren't even bad kids.  It's that they don't fully understand what's going on.

 

It's a lot like punching up vs. punching down.  As a straight male gamer, I have been given a lot of content (I'm a white male gamer too, so extra lot of content) that I can identify with really well, across all gaming.  So yes, by having a gay relationship in a game that would have otherwise been straight, I lose out but someone else benefits.  I'm okay with this "sacrifice" though, because in general it's not like there isn't still a lot of content out there that is suited more directly to my tastes.

Also, with this analogy, the first child really should be offering up some M&Ms without an adult stepping in. In this case, if an adult comes along and says, "Have some candy, Kid No.2." It would be nice if the Kid No.1 went, "They can have some of mine!" without pitching a fit.

 

Because any fit throwing or "those were mine!" from Kid No.1 is going to ellicit an eye roll and a muttered, "Spoiled brat" from any other onlookers. Don't be the spoiled brat, gamers. =p

[Skieth99]

Also, with this analogy, the first child really should be offering up some M&Ms without an adult stepping in. In this case, if an adult comes along and says, "Have some candy, Kid No.2." It would be nice if the Kid No.1 went, "They can have some of mine!" without pitching a fit.

 

Because any fit throwing or "those were mine!" from Kid No.1 is going to ellicit an eye roll and a muttered, "Spoiled brat" from any other onlookers. Don't be the spoiled brat, gamers. =p

Amen, going to the original instance, asking for fewer of a certain group of people be out of the game is the very definition of being against those people.  Now, we're talking demographics and not personality types.  You can hope for more smooth talkers or more laymen or that like...that's fine, because that's a matter of meshing personalities (one of the reasons I disliked Anders was how touchy he was to the slightest personal or ideological rebuke, even Fenris was better) but anything that is peripheral (gay does not define gay characters inherently) shouldn't matter to most people

[ElitePinecone]

Albeit I certainly agree that more non-hetero, non-promiscuous characters would be a plus, I always just sort of assumed it was a lore thing with the given examples...Like the chantry was homophobic and that the types of people you meet outside of it (primarily in Kirkwall and outside of Ferelden in general) were generally more lax about both orientation and monogamy.  Still, it would be nice to see some people who just preferred to be monogamous outside of principles who were gay/bi.  My Dwarven Mage (Shut up, it's happening, I know it) wants some beef

 

I think cultural attitudes to homosexuality have more to do with nationality than the Chantry's influence. World of Thedas even included a special codex entry about it, because people kept asking:

 

(Good old Brother Genitivi)

 

"The view on indulging lusts with a member of the same gender

varies from land to land. In Orlais, it is considered a quirk of

character and nothing more. In Ferelden, it is a matter of scandal if

done indiscreetly but otherwise nothing noteworthy. In Tevinter,

it is considered selfish and deviant behavior among nobles, but

actively encouraged with favored slaves. Nowhere is it forbidden,

and sex of any kind is only considered worthy of judgment when

taken to awful excess or performed in the public eye."

 

Doesn't Zevran even have a line in Origins about propositioning the Warden because he thought Fereldens were more open about that sort of thing?

[efd731]

Note that the word "underrepresented" in the context of "why are people okay with making characters gay, but not with making characters straight" doesn't mean "there's an equal number of gay romances as straight romances."

Lets say people of my race constitute 30% of the population I live in. If people of my race make up 20% of the game content, you can argue that my race is underrepresented. If people of my race make up 40% of the population in a game, then you could argue that my race is overrepresented now. It's has to do with the sheer frequency of how often the content exists. So no, LGBTQ is not "underrepresented because there are less of them." It's "LGBTQ are underrepresented because content for them is less than the amount of LGBTQ people in real life." Note that you cannot use a single game to illustrate "yay" or "nay" for this. It's an analysis of the aggregate date of video games.


As for the M&M example, lets frame it another way.

There are two children and a machine that dispenses M&Ms. You are watching this machine work. The machine distributes the M&Ms inequitably, with the first kid getting 9 out of every 10, with the 2nd child getting 1 out of every 10. Now say an adult comes by, sees the situation. Imagine how you were to feel if you were to see this adult take some of the M&Ms from the first child, and give it to the second child. Now, imagine how you were to feel if you saw the adult take M&Ms from the second child, and give it to the first child.

I know in my experience, I would be more supportive, and perhaps even endorsing, of someone taking some of the M&Ms for the first child and giving them to the second child, because I can see that the machine isn't handing them out fairly. If I were to see someone take the few M&Ms the second child got, and instead give them to the first child, I would consider it a jerk move.

Now, you mention that taking M&Ms is a jerk move regardless, and fair enough. In fact, I would not be surprised if the first child got upset because some of their M&Ms were taken from them, and given to the other child. To that child, it's fair to say they've lost M&Ms. But this is the problem. Ideally I'd love the first child to be like me, and appreciate that things aren't fair, he's still getting a lot of M&Ms, and to acknowledge that the second child shouldn't be denied M&Ms. That doesn't always happen though. You get people that will be upset, and they lack the perspective and empathy of the other side. Most of the kids like this aren't even bad kids. It's that they don't fully understand what's going on.

It's a lot like punching up vs. punching down. As a straight male gamer, I have been given a lot of content (I'm a white male gamer too, so extra lot of content) that I can identify with really well, across all gaming. So yes, by having a gay relationship in a game that would have otherwise been straight, I lose out but someone else benefits. I'm okay with this "sacrifice" though, because in general it's not like there isn't still a lot of content out there that is suited more directly to my tastes.

Ummmm, not sure if you saw one of my
Posts after that one(or if you care) but I said my stance was that the majority could stand to take a few hits and I have no problem with it. But my analogy would be there are 3 children getting 9/10 M&M's and 1 child gettin one. Whether that's entirely accurate I have no clue, but it's not an equal numbers thing. Not saying that those three kids deserve the M&M's they've got, just that it makes sense that they're getting more. There's a reason that they're the majority right? It's a numbers thing. Giving everyone their equal M&M's should b a priority...just don't see why the stereotypical white male gamer should be vilified for the actions of devs. Or why out of all the developers/studios(?) out there Bioware is getting flack. First game I ever played that had lgbt characters, first game I had the option to role play as one(quit halfway through because zevran sucks).

[efd731]

Also, I think playersexualism is the best way to deal, because that way, candy for everyone!! And the only reason I brought up no one liking losing candy is because I cannot imagine (due to having a rather dim view of human nature) that if bioware were to release a game with mostly lgbt characters/LI's that if they were ever to fall below that high watermark, it would be greeted by anything other than bemoaning how far they've fallen and their lapse into intolerance. Basically, we like what we like, regardless of numbers and consideration for others, hard to see anyone changing that.

[Mockingword]

I love, love love, that people think Bioware of all companies thinks poorly of gays. Bioware is bending over backwards being "inclusive," and it isn't enough for some.

As for the topic, you deliberately changing some aspect of a person should not be recorded.

Lol.

 

Simply including minority characters is "bending over backwards"?

[Darth Krytie]

Lol.

 

Simply including minority characters is "bending over backwards"?

Apparently, we should be so lucky to be acknowledged at all.

[efd731]

Lol.

Simply including minority characters is "bending over backwards"?

No, but putting time and effort into making them believable people as well as doin everything in their power to be inoffensive to the various groups they apparently represent comes close. They do a great job making them "people" instead of caricatures.

Edit: please note "comes close"

[Darth Krytie]

Perhaps I'm...heh, in the minority here, but AS a minority, as a minority that was enslaved and subjugated by whites for hundreds of years...I don't really see the big deal. Progressivism happens. It is inevitable, and we are literally seeing it before our eyes. This is not something to get worked up over.

 

I'm not getting worked up. I just don't think a minority-any minority-should be asked to feel grateful for one company out of many to deign to acknowledge they exist.

 

If you're not bothered by it, that's fine. I would never presume to tell you how to feel. But if you said it bothered you that there were too few characters that represented your race in video games, I would never tell you to be grateful that a handful of games created a character or two that weren't racist caricatures. Every minority deserves better than that. 

[Mockingword]

Including, and having possible romances. Additionally, the games prevent you from taking a controversial stance on this, in a couple of games that allow you to take a LOT of controversial stances.

Worth mentioning is Serendipity, the transsexual from the blooming rose, who winds up at an orlesian party with arguably one of the top three officials in Kirkwall. Additionally, IRL, Bioware has taken a very pro-progressive/liberal stance.

Otherwise known as "doing the right thing".

[efd731]

I'm not getting worked up. I just don't think a minority-any minority-should be asked to feel grateful for one company out of many to deign to acknowledge they exist.

If you're not bothered by it, that's fine. I would never presume to tell you how to feel. But if you said it bothered you that there were too few characters that represented your race in video games, I would never tell you to be grateful that a handful of games created a character or two that weren't racist caricatures. Every minority deserves better than that.

I'm of the opinion that even though white people make up the majority of protagonists....it's not like they're any less of a caricature. Minorities get the **** end of the stick for more often it's true, but just because we're the majority doesn't mean we're any better written. Just my 2 cents.

[Darth Krytie]

I never said be grateful. If anything I would say don't be either.

Fair enough.

[Darth Krytie]

I'm of the opinion that even though white people make up the majority of protagonists....it's not like they're any less of a caricature. Minorities get the **** end of the stick for more often it's true, but just because we're the majority doesn't mean we're any better written. Just my 2 cents.

It's all about ratios, my friend.

[Mockingword]

No, but putting time and effort into making them believable people as well as doin everything in their power to be inoffensive to the various groups they apparently represent comes close. They do a great job making them "people" instead of caricatures.

Edit: please note "comes close"

It doesn't take any more time or effort to make minorities into "believable people" than it does to make white, straight men "believable people".