Ce sujet est fermé
Please Bioware. Hidden friendship ending. Everyone holds hands while Inquisitor makes a friendship speech, and their combined friendship seals the breach, obliterates the demon and darkspawn, and finds the Warden and Hawke. Make it happen.
If you can show me how to turn this into tears... 
Well, only until people make it a slur. There is nothing inherently wrong with the word "it" until people use their own imagination to give it a connotation.
This is true and it's why someone like me still gets referred to as white, while disadvantaged groups have their identifiers changed because they often evolve into slurs.
The solution to this is to make them no longer disadvantaged.
And it's not the position of the empowered group to determine what is or is not acceptable in a case like this.
I got caught with this once myself, and my initial reaction was ultra-defensive too, because I knew I didn't intend to be offensive. It was when I used a three letter short form for Japanese, in the context of sharing a large After Action Report of a WW2 video game I was playing. I used it a lot (to run counter with US, and I didn't want to write out Japanese a lot just like I didn't want to write out American a lot), and someone said "hey man that's offensive."
My initial response was to go "Hey man.... I didn't know it was. And because of that, you shouldn't take it offensively because that wasn't the intent." I tried to twist it around like I was the one being picked on (without really realizing it). When the reality was, all I needed to do was say "Oops, I didn't realize" and stop doing it. Because if someone says "Hey man, I find the term you're using unpleasant" I have a decision to make: "Do I want to continue using this word knowing it makes someone feel unpleasant?" If so, why?
Because if your motivation is "because I want to keep using that word because I think it's the best word for it" you're saying "it's more important to me to be able to use that word to describe you than how that word makes you feel." In some cases it's maybe appropriate (i.e. referring to someone that committed a murder as a murderer), but in the case of sexuality or race, I am less insistent on using words because I feel the reasoning behind doing so is rather selfish and unnecessary.
Unless I perceive a consensus among trans people that they are cool with the term "it," I see no reason to use it if people tell me that they find the term uncomfortable. Nor do I feel that I can tell them that they shouldn't feel uncomfortable by it because that's just my privilege... I don't have the experience and negative connotations associated with it. It's why I stopped using the term "gay" when I meant something is absurd.
I don't mean to be counter to the popular grain, but if it wasn't your intent to be offensive, and someone decided to be offended at the word, then they kinda did decide to pick on you. I don't know what their reaction was after you made your case, but if it was to continue to act indignitive or possibly to become more antagonistic, then I would say they were in the wrong, regardless of what word you used.
Their reaction was "then why do you feel compelled to continue using the word?"
I didn't really have a good answer. Years later, I feel I felt defensive because I knew being a racist was a bad thing, and if I admitted to using a racist slur then my personal self image now has to reconcile the question: "If I acknowledge that I used a racist slur... does that make me a racist?" Which is a terrifying thing to face because I knew being a racist was wrong and I didn't believe I was a racist. The brain (which I do not believe we have full control over) is exceptionally good at rationalizing things to eliminate cognitive dissonance, and it's a major amount of cognitive dissonance to try to reconcile the idea that I performed an action that I would typically classify as only being done by racist people - a status I didn't want to believe I could be.
And while I do agree with your reasoning, about whether something is worth using simply because of preference or not and that them letting you know something was offensive did offer you a choice, I can't really see someone being offended as a good enough excuse for someone to get their way all the time because, well, being offended is pretty much a meaningless statement of emotion. Given your example, I can see why the situation might be a bit hard, it was a derogative name used during WWII, which was the period you were discussing in, and its history is quite bad. But by that same token, the person who is offended also has a choice, on of how they react to someone being offended and the expectations involved. Now, I am hoping this person who brought up being offended did the right thing and was understanding to your misunderstanding, not trying to make you feel bad and allowed bygones to be bygones. What I really hope they didn't do was demand you not just stop but also apologies, and then lorded your misunderstanding over you like it was some kind of scarlet letter.
I suppose they have the choice to not feel offended. The thing is, if this is true, then I have the choice to not be bothered if their reaction is anything more than allowing bygones to be bygones. If they can choose to not be bothered by that, I can choose to not be bothered by them demanding apologies, and I can choose to not be bothered by them "lording my misunderstanding over me like it was some kind of scarlet letter."
Because to me, it seems the bulk of your point is immediately solved by practicing what you suggest the other person should do. The thing is, it always seems to be the "other person" that has to do something. At the time I was defensive. But now, I can look at it and say to myself "I was in the wrong. All the other person did was tell me that it was a racist slur and they would appreciate that I stopped doing it." Even if they said "Hey *******, that's a racist slur" it doesn't really change the fact that I used a racist slur.
If you and I (and I mean literally, you and me) are talking and I say something that bothers you, then it's up to me to evaluate whether or not it's worth me continuing to use that phrase. If I respect you as a person, I better have a good reason to keep using the word. If my original usage of the word was "I didn't know any better" then if I insist on keeping using it despite you telling me that it's offensive, then it may in fact be that I don't respect you all that much after all.
Context and understanding is important though. If you tell me that you find the use of the word "the" offensive, you'll need to elaborate on your reasoning as to why. It's not like someone is just saying "I find the word 'it' offensive." They've substantiated why (They find it dehumanizing). It's a position I can understand. No one is saying that they find the word offensive without substantiating why, in this case.
And to try and illustrate my point, I will now quote a famous person whose outlook on this matter matches my own.
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so ****** what." - Stephen Fry
I feel Stephen Fry's quote is misused a lot. His quote is specifically with regards to a law that would prevent negative commentary to "stir up religious hatred." It's important to note that Fry's views don't really align with organized religion. They use it as a general position "no one can claim to feel offended" and to rationalize continuing to act like a jerk.
It first comes up in an article by The Guardian. It should be noted that Fry takes offense to things like homophobia, antisemitism, and racism. Like most people, he probably is disinclined to validate "I am offended by that" for people that espouse morals and values that are not in alignment with his own.
I don't know what his response to insisting on referring to a trans person as "it" would be (someone could ask on twitter I suppose), but I actually wouldn't be surprised if he felt that someone insisting on using the term was a dolt.
Yes. Mayhem for all! Bisexual AND no race-gating. Thanks Bioware animators!
I'm pretty sure Mayhem™ requires Sera and Iron Bull. I'm sorry! 
I remember it being stated that Bioware's interested in being equitable to groups that actually exist in real life.
I know David said he appreciates choice based on gender and representation (so do I) and that in game race decisions are less of a consideration. Is this what you're referring to?
I asked Allan in the Solas thread last night if there were more race gate romances before, but he didn't respond
.
I know The Iron Bull was. I thought some others might have been but I can't be certain and I may have just been mistaken. I was curious about Cameron's response because his numbers didn't align, but I have it all sorted out now.
Hey Allan, all romances and the race gated ones are gonna be revealed before the game comes out, right?
No clue, but I wouldn't be surprised. I suspect the remaining ones will probably be revealed, and it's possible the reveal which ones are race gated as well.
So right now if a straight female is not into bovines, the only LI option can't join your party and has no banter?
Pretty clear who got the short straw this round.
Let's hope the gated romance is not Varric.
Important to see what the remaining romances are before determining who gets the short straw, if anyone, I think.
Thanks
.
I'm really glad of what you guys did with IB
Me too.
Seconded! Also, please tell John that his twitter profile is very celebratory and fun. We really do appreciate the hard work him and his team have done for us.
I'm quite certain that me telling John this would be wholly redundant
Since we now have mayhem for all, what were the races IB was originally going to be gated against? Dwarves/Elves?
I prefer to not talk about decisions that could have existed but do not as people have a tendency to read more into them than I feel comfortable. Same goes for things like cut content.
I like David's tactic of only talking about these things a couple years after the game comes out. Talking about it before release or just after tends to taint people's perceptions of the finished product.
Yup. I'll have less issues talking more about it down the road. Kind of like talking about the "Dragon Age Inquisition" that was first concepted before we settled into what became DA2.
Solas not being romanceable by the player doesn't mean that he can't be bisexual.
Wait, what?
The post I was referring to was originally one that suggested that Solas not being available would smash the idea that all elves are bisexual, when it actually has no bearing on that.
I'm not saying Solas is or is not romanceable.
But you are confirming that no elves are straight, correct? Thank u
In the interests of ensuring people don't get the wrong idea, I just want to be clear that I'm not saying that either.
Way I see it is we have become too PC, "the right to freedom of speech" is often touted, however over the years it has become diluted to a meaningless term, where you have to second guess every little detail of what your going to say for fear that someone,somewhere will be offended, so should everyone in the entire world just stop speaking all together because inevitably somebody,somewhere will be offended after all that would solved the issue straight away right?.At the moment it there is a double standard where if a Caucasian man describes a man of African Ethnicity as "black" then the whole world is up in arms, turn the tables however and have the African man describe the the Caucasian man as a "snowman" and nobody bats an eyelid.
Since you quoted me, is it reasonable to assume that you read my earlier posts on this.
It's trivially easy to recognize why there's a double standard, because as a white person I'm not typically attacked for being white. Names for black people (or other minorities) often evolve into slurs by nature of them being part of an oppressed group. You see it with a lot of other terms, such as idiot, retard, and even to some extent something like gay. When these words were created they had a very specific definition of what they were applied to. Problem is that people (often us white dudes) started applying it in disparaging ways. As a white person, I'm so rarely attacked for being "white" especially in my part of the world (North America). I have never been called a "snowman." People have never systemically used that word to classify me nor denigrate me as a human.
This is off topic though. If you wish to discuss this send me a PM, but if being political correct falls roughly into alignment of "treat people with respect" then fine. If you, for example, insist on referring to a trans person as "it" while insisting that it's a gender neutral term, I'm just going to conclude that this heterosexual guy doesn't like being referred to as "it" either. If I were to ever see "Have you heard of Allan? It is a moderator on a forum and from time to time, it speaks with the fans" I'm sure as crap going to go "Dude, what the crap?" And if that person insists on some measure of "freedom of speech," then that person is basically saying "HEY HEY, I'm legally entitled to say this without fear of government oppression" as though that's some sort of compelling reason to say it. Bravo... I'll still think that person is an ass. And I'll consider the posting inflammatory and probably start moderating it because one's freedom of speech doesn't prevent BioWare from saying that that type of vocabulary is disrespectful and unwelcome on the boards it runs.
Now lets move on. Further responses to this post belong in PM.
Race-gating for technical reasons, like IB would have been, is understandable, but race-gating for story reasons just seems so.... unnecessary to me.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, when looking at manpower. "We could probably do X more scenes." "Okay, the way this character is written we can make that work." "Okay cool, we can make that character a romance."
The realism argument doesn't really apply because we're working with such a small group of individuals (12). Heck, even all of them being bisexual would only be improbable, not impossible, in our world (with probability being biased based on the criteria by which you select the characters).
There's 8 romances. We know 4 of them are NOT bisexual. Which would mean that, at most, 4/12 (1/3) of the people happen to be bisexual. This doesn't strike me as unrealistic, especially in a fictional setting.
I should probably clarify that having 8 romanceable characters out of 12 doesn't mean that the other characters don't also have sexual orientations. Which I think makes it more "realistic/plausible."
Not that this means that they will be (or will not be), just that the realism argument has a shaky foundation when working with such a small group of people.
I can see why BioWare doesn't feel giving equal options to people who want to play dwarves or qunari or elves (or humans, for that matter) is as important as giving options to women and gay/lesbian players. And obviously there is not the same real world equality issue here.
But. Well.
I have never been able to play a human female protagonist who is remotely the same shape as me in any video game. I've never even seen one, and I don't really expect to given what video game protagonists and women in the media generally look like. While I may be a foot too tall to be a Dragon Age dwarf, part of the appeal of playing them is getting to build a hero who's short and curvy and solid just like me.
So when people talk about race-gating, I can't help hearing 'sorry, dwarves aren't attractive enough to go on this ride. Who'd want to romance a woman who looks like that?' And that makes me feel sad.
(repost old quote)
Hopefully you're in a happier place now
A few posts led to me creating this: http://forum.bioware...romance-tropes/
Please educate me! (in that thread, not this one).
Merely out of curiosity, is there going to be an attractive female option for straight male players? Or are we stuck with the ugly?
Given that I disagree that Josie or Cassandra are ugly, I don't feel concerned about attractive female options.
The only other possible character is Vivienne, at this point, so you probably already know the answer.
I'll elaborate, however, that every game will have players that ultimately don't find any of the love interests attractive. It may be that way for you this game, unfortunately for you.
How is the player supposed to know about that without meta-gaming? He never tells the female Hawke and he certainly never talks about an attraction to men during the game outside of that instance, or to a female. I know he's bi, but my problem is that the DA team choose to hide from a female Hawke. It never will sit right with me. As you'll see, there is no lore reason for it at all.
Would the circumstances be more amenable if Anders' bisexuality was presented differently, later? Your issue is with erasure, correct? So if other events ensured erasure didn't happen, how does the scene work? (it's okay if it still doesn't)
I don't like the idea that some groups getting less options is more acceptable than other groups.
If we were to have a particular learning towards an orientation, I'd have less reservations with a straight man having less options than a group that almost always gets less options.
Not out of any sort of "HAHAHAHA straight white men (of which I am one) it's your turn to suffer" but rather from the standpoint of "I'm more inclined to see the other people get a bit more focus than they typically do."
While yes, one person's reward can always be seen as another person's punishment, I think it lacks perspective to say that it's precisely equivalent.
Retour en haut
