3344 réponses à ce sujet

[Nocte ad Mortem]

I think it's pretty ridiculous that people harass devs on their personal Twitter accounts about video game features. I also think Bioware threatening to take their ball and go home over it isn't the most mature thing. So, it's a bit "meh" all around for me, on this point. 

[suliabryon]

I just want to add my voice and say how much I appreciate all of the hard work Bioware does behind the scenes, trying to provide us with meaningful romance options that allow everyone to feel they have options available, all while knowing they will never make everyone happy.

 

Additionally, I want to thank Allan for his comments on this thread. Privilege is a word that gets thrown around a lot these days, and people are often defensive when it is used, and there is a huge gap in understanding what is actually meant by it. So often, being told you are speaking from a place of privilege, makes people think they are being told they are somehow racist or gender prejudiced, based solely on something beyond their control, ie, their own race or gender. This is NOT what privilege refers to at all, and having privilege does not mean you are a bad person. I read a fantastic article just today that likened privilege to being an automobile driver, and those without privilege as bike riders on the same road. (I did not write this article, I read it, and it put so much into perspective for me.) The automobile drivers are privileged, in that our culture is set up with laws and supports and expectations built around everyone driving cars. Driving a car, you don't typically have to worry about gravel spit in your face from someone's tires as they go by, or people stopping to yell at you about where you are riding your bike, or how close traffic is moving very quickly by your bike lane, or what might happen if you hit a pothole you couldn't swerve to avoid because of said traffic. That is the privilege of driving a car. The bike rider experiences all of these things and more on a daily basis. This does not make the person behind the wheel of a car a bad or prejudiced person. They are just not experiencing the world from the same point of view as the bike rider. That's all privilege really is. (If you want to read the whole thing, which I highly recommend, it is here: http://alittlemoresa...hite-privilege/ )

 

Speaking as a straight, white, female gamer, I am delighted at the number and variety of options in this game. I definitely feel empathy for the straight male gamers and their two options - I do. Because I have been there many times, with much more limited options than what the straight men (or at least the straight male PC characters) have. On the other hand, those of you that are so angry and feel like Bioware is somehow punishing you, please read the above article I linked and try to keep an open mind about privelege and what it really means. Maybe the next game will offer you more options than us straight female gamers have, as some previous titles have. Take a breath, and take a second to think about what it has felt like for those who have, typically, been less represented in gaming.

[Dabrikishaw]

Knowing all the options now, the only major changes I have to make with 2 of my planned 8 characters are making an elf and human female for Solas and Cullen.  I was going to have my female elf romance Cullen before, so I didn't want any overlap in race and gender picks for my Inquisitors. 

[d-boy15]

How about this? I didn't not share any of them anti LBGT views and nor you LBGT movement.

I just want to have fun with video game and it's contents.

 

Should I suffer along with the other to serve your movement?

[Nocte ad Mortem]

How about this? I didn't not share any of them anti LBGT views and nor you LBGT movement.

I just want to have fun with video game and it's contents.

 

Should I suffer along with the other to serve your movement?

LGBT people aren't getting more options than you. Straight women are. So, I'm not sure where your complaint is even coming from.

[Super Shamois]

To address those questions in order:

There is still a ton of inequality in games, and the world at large, so yes, "lessons" do still need to be taught. It may not be comfortable, but it is needed. I've been called out for having problematic beliefs before. It sucks and I feel terrible and angry when it happens, but I've always come out of it a better person with a better understanding of others.
 

There is also a lot of vitriol against people who speak out against women and LGBT people get screwed, as well as vitriol against the groups themselves, so there is still a problem.
 

I'm not totally sure of your angle on the last question, so I'll answer both of my possible interpretations. Preaching may not be the word I'd using, but talking about inequality helps equality because it's the only way to make sure people are aware of it. When people are aware, they can work towards equality. To the other thing I think you might be saying, one game by one company does not make inequality. The fact that this game has an unequal ratio in romance options doesn't make gaming unequal. Inequality can only exist when it is systemic; that is, when there is an overall trend disfavoring particular groups. Because gaming culture still favors the straight, white, male gamer, within societal context this CANNOT be inequality. It would only be contributing to inequality if the game industry as a whole disenfranchised straight, white, male gamers. Which will certainly not happen.

So it's not contradictory. What an equal landscape would actually look like is that you'd have a ton of different games, and some of them would have more content for one group, some more for another, and still others more for another, and only some games would have something equally for everyone. People are diverse, it's pretty much impossible to give something that pleases everyone equally when characters are involved.

It's not wrong to feel insulted and angry. That's a pretty natural feeling when you feel like you're being treated as less than others. But what's important to understand is that for women, people of color, and gender non-conformers, this is a feeling that they deal with ALL THE TIME. It's just shocking for us to experience it because we're not used to it, we can't be used to it. But what needs to happen is that those feelings should be channeled into understanding for the problems of those who are still facing systemic inequality. Because we're not. We have not been screwed. We still get more media content than everyone else combined, and one game does not change that, and one game does not mean we are facing disadvantage. And that's important to realize.

 

I have to agree, this was a great post.

 

I posed a somewhat similar sentiment on another forum, and there's still one poster there who does nothing but parrot how Bioware has crapped all over its fans (straight males, but of course!) and how horrible it is that the developers would let those silly, pandering writers do this to them.

 

And it's especially telling that all those screaming that they are being inconvenienced with this massive disadvantage when they aren't even at a disadvantage; they have as many options as nearly everyone else.

[devSin]

It makes me said that David Gaider has said they've considered scrapping romances altogether because of the way people react.

David says this nearly every time romances get mentioned and he needs to respond.

He's also repeatedly stated the reasons why romances are important and why it's more likely they will continue creating them than to have them cut entirely even if it's occasionally frustrating for them to deal with the subject.

You need to take his statement in the larger context of all his past discussions on this topic to really appreciate what he was saying (his remark indicates only that it can sometimes be difficult to address the disproportionate noise that can occasionally surround the optional romance content that BioWare creates for its games). He was not seriously advocating or suggesting that BioWare would not continue creating romances because the reaction around Mike's post was too negative or intense.

[Luelle]

Should I suffer along with the other to serve your movement?

 

I don't think you understand the definition of "suffering".

[Zjarcal]

It makes me said that David Gaider has said they've considered scrapping romances altogether because of the way people react.  I was sorely disappointed that I couldn't romance Alistair or Sebastian as a gay man, but never enough to develop any animus towards the Bioware team.  It's great that the devs can create characters that evoke such passion, but people playing a Mature-rated game should be able to process disappointment more constructively than reacting in such a way that talented people just want to quit creating things.

 
Don't take that comment from David so seriously. It's "tempting" for them in the same way it's tempting for me to throw my computer out the window when I read a stupid post, it's just something you say to vent the frustration, not something you'd actually do.
 
Now if I could throw my computer out the window and it landed on the head of some of the morons giving them crap over something as silly as this, well now that actually is really temtping.

I don't think you understand the definition of "suffering".

 
I suffered today for not eating chocolate, the horror!

[kirvingtwo]

Count me as another straight male who thinks she is beautiful.

 

Count me as a straight female that thinks Cassandra is wonderful, sexy and tough and is very disappointed that she won't be available for my female inquisitor to romance.

[InfinitePaths]

[Super Shamois]

I don't think you understand the definition of "suffering".

 

 

Of course he does. Don't you understand? Both not having an advantage and not getting exactly what he wants is the height of what it is to suffer.

[d-boy15]

LGBT people aren't getting more options than you. Straight women are. So, I'm not sure where your complaint is even coming from.

 

From some of the previous post about "hope for LGBT getting more content than straight for a change" 

[daveliam]

How about this? I didn't not share any of them anti LBGT views and nor you LBGT movement.

I just want to have fun with video game and it's contents.

 

Should I suffer along with the other to serve your movement?

 

What?!?  Why are you blaming the LGBT community?  The last time I looked, I have the same number of options that you have.

[d-boy15]

 

I don't think you understand the definition of "suffering".

 

 

Or may be English is not my native language.

 

 

What?!?  Why are you blaming the LGBT community?  The last time I looked, I have the same number of options that you have.

 

Not blaming, just found some of the previous post like "straight gamer should get less content than LGBT for a lesson".

 

Seem like I forget to quote it and I sure I'm not bother to go back and find it, if you don't share any of their views then I'm sorry

if my comment is bothering you.

 

 

[Hellion Rex]

How about this? I didn't not share any of them anti LBGT views and nor you LBGT movement.

I just want to have fun with video game and it's contents.

 

Should I suffer along with the other to serve your movement?

My God. This post

 

*facepalm*

[Gileadan]

I just want to add my voice and say how much I appreciate all of the hard work Bioware does behind the scenes, trying to provide us with meaningful romance options that allow everyone to feel they have options available, all while knowing they will never make everyone happy.

 

Additionally, I want to thank Allan for his comments on this thread. Privelege is a word that gets thrown around a lot these days, and people are often defensive when it is used, and there is a huge gap in understanding what is actually meant by it. So often, being told you are speaking from a place of privilege, makes people think they are being told they are somehow racist or gender prejudiced, based solely on something beyond their control, ie, their own race or gender. This is NOT what privelege refers to at all, and having privelege does not mean you are a bad person. I read a fantastic article just today that likened privelege to being an automobile driver, and those without privilege as bike riders on the same road. (I did not write this article, I read it, and it put so much into perspective for me.) The automobile drivers are priveleged, in that our culture is set up with laws and supports and expectations built around everyone driving cars. Driving a car, you don't typically have to worry about gravel spit in your face from someone's tires as they go by, or people stopping to yell at you about where you are riding your bike, or how close traffic is moving very quickly by your bike lane, or what might happen if you hit a pothole you couldn't swerve to avoid because of said traffic. That is the privilege of driving a car. The bike rider experiences all of these things and more on a daily basis. This does not make the person behind the wheel of a car a bad or prejudiced person. They are just not experiencing the world from the same point of view as the bike rider. That's all privilege really is. (If you want to read the whole thing, which I highly recommend, it is here: http://alittlemoresa...hite-privilege/ )

 

Speaking as a straight, white, female gamer, I am delighted at the number and variety of options in this game. I definitely feel empathy for the straight male gamers and their two options - I do. Because I have been there many times, with much more limited options than what the straight men (or at least the straight male PC characters) have. On the other hand, those of you that are so angry and feel like Bioware is somehow punishing you, please read the above article I linked and try to keep an open mind about privelege and what it really means. Maybe the next game will offer you more options than us straight female gamers have, as some previous titles have. Take a breath, and take a second to think about what it has felt like for those who have, typically, been less represented in gaming.

You know, this explanation of "privilege" completely baffles me. Outside of the internet, I've never heard anyone use it in any context even remotely similar to what you wrote here.

 

Practically all my life, privilege meant this instead:

 

A right or special exception, granted to a single person or a small number of people by a higher authority.

 

From Latin: privilegium,  consisting of 

privus - single, special

lex, legis - the law

 

Originally, the word did not even make a difference between a right and a duty. If Claudius Minimax was ordered to clean the collosseum's latrines each Saturday night, that was in fact a privilege.

 

How the heck did it get from there - the "privus" part makes it kinda clear that it cannot refer to a large number of people, let alone a majority - to what you wrote? Arbitrary redefinition? Internet phenomenon?

 

I'm not trying to troll, I'm genuinely curious.

[daveliam]

<snip>

 

Please keep posting here.  We need more level headed and rational posters. 

 

How the heck did it get from there - the "privus" part makes it kinda clear that it cannot refer to a large number of people, let alone a majority - to what you wrote? Arbitrary redefinition? Internet phenomenon?

 

I'm not trying to troll, I'm genuinely curious.

 

My understanding is that it's a term from academics, specifically social science research.  The first scholar that I heard using it was Peggy McIntosh, who I think spoke of white privilege in the late 1980's.  Since then, it's pretty common in post-modernist research circles.

[LaughingWolf]

I feel like people look to hard for a reason for some race-gates. It could simply be sexual incompatibility in the sense that, Cullen for example isn't turned on by dwarves or Qunari. It's not racist, he just doesn't find them attractive and therefore a relationship wouldn't work.

[Angloassassin]

I feel like people look to hard for a reason for some race-gates. It could simply be sexual incompatibility in the sense that, Cullen for example isn't turned on by dwarves or Qunari. It's not racist, he just doesn't find them attractive and therefore a relationship wouldn't work.

 

Given the Events of Act 2 in Kirkwall, it's safe to say he'd have little trust for a Qunari to get close. And I think it's stated somewhere why he dislikes/hates dwarves.

 

*Totally* resonable reasons to be race gated. And that's not sarcasm either!

[Gileadan]

My understanding is that it's a term from academics, specifically social science research.  The first scholar that I heard using it was Peggy McIntosh, who I think spoke of white privilege in the late 1980's.  Since then, it's pretty common in post-modernist research circles.

Ah. Thank you.

[daveliam]

Ah. Thank you.

 

No problem.  Glad that those critical race and post-modernist theory classes can have a practical use now and again.

[suliabryon]

 

 

My understanding is that it's a term from academics, specifically social science research.  The first scholar that I heard using it was Peggy McIntosh, who I think spoke of white privilege in the late 1980's.  Since then, it's pretty common in post-modernist research circles.

 

I think this is part of the issue. I know it was for me. There is the traditional definition that most of us are familiar with, and it is not exactly the same as the way it is being used from these social science research circles. It crossed from the realm of academia into general use, without anyone stopping to explain the difference or new context to the general population. So one person says "you don't understand, you are priveleged due to your race/gender/economic status/sexual orientation" and the person being told this too often thinks they are being told they are somehow prejudiced or arrogant or bad, based solely on their own gender/race/et al. The knee jerk response is "hey, I'm not racist" or whatever, and then neither side is really listening to the other point of view anymore. Emotions cloud the conversation.

[Super Shamois]

I think this is part of the issue. I know it was for me. There is the traditional definition that most of us are familiar with, and it is not exactly the same as the way it is being used from these social science research circles. It crossed from the realm of academia into general use, without anyone stopping to explain the difference or new context to the general population. So one person says "you don't understand, you are priveleged due to your race/gender/economic status/sexual orientation" and the person being told this too often thinks they are being told they are somehow prejudiced or arrogant or bad, based solely on their own gender/race/et al. The knee jerk response is "hey, I'm not racist" or whatever, and then neither side is really listening to the other point of view anymore. Emotions cloud the conversation.

 

That the term is so oft-used, especially over the internet where emotional responses are even more common (and harder to gauge on top of it) doesn't help its clarity, sadly.

[daveliam]

I think this is part of the issue. I know it was for me. There is the traditional definition that most of us are familiar with, and it is not exactly the same as the way it is being used from these social science research circles. It crossed from the realm of academia into general use, without anyone stopping to explain the difference or new context to the general population. So one person says "you don't understand, you are priveleged due to your race/gender/economic status/sexual orientation" and the person being told this too often thinks they are being told they are somehow prejudiced or arrogant or bad, based solely on their own gender/race/et al. The knee jerk response is "hey, I'm not racist" or whatever, and then neither side is really listening to the other point of view anymore. Emotions cloud the conversation.

 

You don't say?  A disconnect between academic research and everyday life?  No!  I refuse to accept it! 

 

That being said, you have made me sad that I still have 1 1/2 years to go before I finish this damned degree.  Then, it's DR daveliam to everyone on this forum!