It can be. Had people been remotely willing to engage minds could have been changed. In Buddhism they teach you all events are an opportunity for learning.
No.
The 'do we really need gay content' thing boils down to how unrealistic it is to have this many different sexualities in that small group. Moreover, if Bio are to create 'gay content' and include it in their games, they should be extra-meticulous and careful to make this a quality content (which I argue is poor, sadly); otherwise, they do a disservice to all people of sexuality other than straight.
It boils down to people saying - like you - that there should be less content. The absurdity of saying a random group should somehow be a proportional to the actual distribution of sexualities IRL is just impossible to put into words. Not only is it ignorant of actual statistics, but it presumes that that something as invisible as sexuality is perceptible yo you (e.g. that you know most groups "like that" include mainly straight people).
And people conveniently forget that there's a clear discrepancy between the number of NPC's actually out in the world and the number that we can actually interact with substantially. Of course, it's super realistic that throughout the PC's entire life, there will only be maybe 2 or 3 people that he or she can actually talk to enough to develop a romantic relationship with, and that's it. Can't go out and chat up that pretty NPC running the tavern, or the cute dwarven scout beyond some playful flirting, or just run off and hit everything that moves cuz why the frak not, and actually get meaningful content in the process. Reflecting what one feels is closest to reality in terms of any kind of dubious statistics on sexual orientation or whatever is pretty meaningless when the list of close allies the main character is permitted to stay close to is generally limited to a single digit number.
It can be. Had people been remotely willing to engage minds could have been changed. In Buddhism they teach you all events are an opportunity for learning.
I'm not Martin Luther King or Gandhi, and it's not my job to engage with every homophobe or misogynist that wanders into a video game forum and starts spouting nonsense.
People shouting 'BINGO!', posting cookie recipes and derailing the thread into a conversation about how Loghain is a DILF actually should be educational for them. If what they choose to learn is 'those feminists are so meeeeeeeeean' then they need to think a bit harder.
I will unlike you on facebook
If you're going to try to make something sound serious... Yeah... Don't say things like this.
Anyway you're way, WAY too emotionally invested in this stuff man.
A "We're looking into it" or a "No Comment" response is not good enough. You can keep us in the loop. You just decide not to.
Agree or disagree with anything else this poster wrote, but this part is certainly an excellent point to make.
This may be provided reasoning, but it's still effectively a request to have such content removed -- whether "because it's not realistic" or "you should do it right or not at all", or because of yet different justification. So, "Yes."No.
The 'do we really need gay content' thing boils down to how unrealistic it is to have this many different sexualities in that small group. Moreover, if Bio are to create 'gay content' and include it in their games, they should be extra-meticulous and careful to make this a quality content (which I argue is poor, sadly); otherwise, they do a disservice to all people of sexuality other than straight.
This may be provided reasoning, but it's still effectively a request to have such content removed -- whether "because it's not realistic" or "you should do it right or not at all", or because of yet different justification. So, "Yes."
Well, poor quality content should be removed/not included. It applies to any sort of content. No bias. Poor is poor, it has no place in any product of high standard.
The problem arises when a poster selectively requests to have the gay content removed with this reasoning. It can then come across more like a concern trolling or plain excuse, and it does look like there's bias involved. So no surprise it riles people up.Well, poor quality content should be removed/not included. It applies to any sort of content. No bias. Poor is poor, it has no place in any product of high standard.
Well, poor quality content should be removed/not included. It applies to any sort of content. No bias. Poor is poor, it has no place in any product of high standard.
OP's got a point. Not that anybody will listen, mind, but they have a point.
Too many posters are way too concerned with getting themselves over, with LOL SO RANDOM XD reactions and pictures, posting in threads they have no interest in just to ridicule people who actually do, posting that they don't care about an issue in a thread entirely devoted to an issue (why?) and so on. They're trying so hard to be relevant, special snowflake types that they come off looking obnoxious as hell in the end.
Hell, OP even used a disclaimer saying that it was only their opinion. Which is nice, because should you inevitably use "we" or "our" instead of "my" or "mine" in any single thread, you'll have a dozen chuckleheads jumping in about how "You don't represent me!".
I'm giving him a "like" for the TL;DR.
What does that mean?
Just throwing this out there...is it even remotely possible that some perceived discrepancies in moderation can be down to how often or whether said threads (or posts therein) get reported? I know squat, really, about how Bioware moderates, e.g. proactively or reactively, because I'm not staff. But it seems entirely plausible to me that whether or how quickly a thread gets locked can be influenced by reporting practices of the commentariat.
Do the mods have biases? Sure, everyone does. I have 'em, you have 'em, and we all have to try to bear them in mind in whatever we're doing. I don't think that deciding outright that all the mods are nasty agenda-pushers trying to drive away portions of the fanbase is necessarily the wise or reasoned option, though, when the truth is we don't know and there are other variables involved.
I've sent my request for the forums to delete my account and as of this post I am officially done.
Just throwing this out there...is it even remotely possible that some perceived discrepancies in moderation can be down to how often or whether said threads (or posts therein) get reported? I know squat, really, about how Bioware moderates, e.g. proactively or reactively, because I'm not staff. But it seems entirely plausible to me that whether or how quickly a thread gets locked can be influenced by reporting practices of the commentariat.
Do the mods have biases? Sure, everyone does. I have 'em, you have 'em, and we all have to try to bear them in mind in whatever we're doing. I don't think that deciding outright that all the mods are nasty agenda-pushers trying to drive away portions of the fanbase is necessarily the wise or reasoned option, though, when the truth is we don't know and there are other variables involved.
I'm sure that this has a lot to do with it. If I see an "anti-gay" post, I report it. If people are reporting "anti-gay" posts more than "anti-straight" posts, then that might be why we see some threads being deleted more often than others. And I'm sure that there is some bias as well. Posts that blatantly break forum rules will get deleted either way, I'm sure. But the ones that live in the grey area that isn't technically against the rules but people might find offensive? Those ones probably are the mods call and that's where biases fall in.
InExile
Sorry, missed your previous post.
It boils down to people saying - like you - that there should be less content. The absurdity of saying a random group should somehow be a proportional to the actual distribution of sexualities IRL is just impossible to put into words. Not only is it ignorant of actual statistics, but it presumes that that something as invisible as sexuality is perceptible yo you (e.g. that you know most groups "like that" include mainly straight people).
That's the point, friend.
Something as subtle and invisible as sexuality should be portrayed as such; not a blatant shove-down-your-throat behavior of in-game bisexuals, transsexuals etc which scream about their sexuality after a few sentences. As I said, I appreciate Bioware putting an effort to implement them, but they failed in delivering. As such, this, for me, is a disservice to people of various sexualites.
That it just happens to be content that's draw the ire of those of the prejudiced variety is just a total coincidence, right?
It also happens that these hypothetical posts - were they done in good faith - would be about better content, not removing it.
No one says, for example, I find the female LIs unattractive; the obvious solution is to remove all female LIs from the game.
It just happens to be the content. Stop over-intepretating.
And yes,the 'I find the female LIs unattractive' argument can be dismissed, as there is nothing constructive there. However, 'I find the depiction of an x LI unrealistic and childish, because of A, B, C, D' then it's an entirely different matter, that points to the lack of quality of depiction.
You people should chill the hell out. Anytime anyone speaks about sexualities, people here get so extremely offended and ready to jump to the throats of anyone who speaks about it, sniffing ill-will in every word. It's unhealthy.
It's toxic.
Peace.
Something as subtle and invisible as sexuality should be portrayed as such; not a blatant shove-down-your-throat behavior of in-game bisexuals, transsexuals etc which scream about their sexuality after a few sentences. As I said, I appreciate Bioware putting an effort to implement them, but they failed in delivering. As such, this, for me, is a disservice to people of various sexualites.
You people should chill the hell out. Anytime anyone speaks about sexualities, people here get so extremely offended and ready to jump to the throats of anyone who speaks about it, sniffing ill-will in every word. It's unhealthy.
It's toxic.
This is a ****** terrible paragraph.
Spoken like a GamerGate guy.
It's pretty YMMV, but I happen to agree with them.
One particular conversation with Krem made me cringe, both for how bad your Inquisitor was written, and how shoehorned it felt. And I like Krem. I just feel that Bioware's a little too heavy on "tell" on the "show, don't tell" side of things. You don't always need a giant neon sign above everyone. It's kinda like it crosses the border from "the character that's (insert here)" to the "the (insert here) character".
I realise that [C]RPG players have been conditioned into treating conversations as interrogation sessions, where the objective is to extract as much information as possible in the shortest amount of time. Nevertheless, this must end if we are to move to a more organic approach.
In other words: just because an option appears doesn't mean you have to click it. Strange, but true.
It doesn't mean my character has to be written like an unmitigated jackass, either. There's something to be said for the "the paraphrases kinda suck" crowd.
It doesn't mean my character has to be written like an unmitigated jackass, either.
There's something to be said for the "the paraphrases kinda suck" crowd.
It's pretty YMMV, but I happen to agree with them.
One particular conversation with Krem made me cringe, both for how bad your Inquisitor was written, and how shoehorned it felt. And I like Krem. I just feel that Bioware's a little too heavy on "tell" on the "show, don't tell" side of things. You don't always need a giant neon sign above everyone. It's kinda like it crosses the border from "the character that's (insert here)" to the "the (insert here) character".
I can understand the argument you make to an extent, but they really are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't situation here. There are still people on the forums who argue that Merrill and Fenris are not actually bisexual (even though they are available to romance both males and females in DA2) because they didn't explicitly state their sexuality. They then go on to base a whole variety of arguments against LGBT characters, romances, character development, writing, etc. on the 'fact' that they are 'playersexual', even when the head writer of the series corrects them. It's the best example of how an ambiguously portrayed sexuality doesn't always benefit a character's reception.
And to speak to Krem, there are people on the forums who still insist on using feminine pronouns for him even though it's explicitly stated that he's a he in-game. I can only imagine how people would refer to him if his gender identity was left ambiguous. There would probably be threads arguing if he's a transman, a lesbian, a butch straight woman, a teenage boy, etc.
Dorian and Sera are other great examples. There are people who find Dorian's storyline to be "shoved down their throat" and others who love it and appreciate seeing stories like that in the series. There are people who find Sera's storyline to minimize lesbian characters because her sexuality isn't important to her character development and there are others who love that there's a gay character whose sexuality isn't prominent.
Bioware just needs to make decisions and stick by them because they'll never please everyone and there is no one "right" solution. I think that they did that in DA: I. I'm sure that there are others who would disagree though.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
