1820 réponses à ce sujet

[Maverick827]

I don't consider generalized phrasing to be indicative of a person's beliefs, and I don't think it's fair to condemn people therein.

"Women with scars aren't attractive."
"I don't find women with scars to be attractive."

"Beards on guys aren't attractive."
"I don't find guys with beards attractive."

Is this the battleground you want to draw? You've never, ever, in your entire life, said anything generalized that could be taken out of context? I find that hard to believe.

Let's not dilute sexism and misogyny by dogpiling on anyone's sexual preferences.

[Laurelinde]

Once again you're talking past my point. You're arguing something that I'm not, and it's pretty clear that you're not taking in what I'm saying.

 

My view: let the OP post what he wants to post here, and let him make an argument to defend his position. 

 

My point: A lot of people are attacking the OP for his opinion, which is understandably unpopular, and refusing to accurately comprehend his points, using it as catalyst to make further statements that are relative to SJW rhetoric. My point is pointing out the hypocrisy in the purely academic analysis of logical arguments. 

They're (and possibly you're) using the same arguments against the OP that they themselves felt was used against them. It's just a charade of righteousness that is wrapped around a core of inanity and verbal (or textual?) slap fights. 

 

Overall, my view is to show how unproductive the entire critique is. Granted, this is an internet forum, so most people here by default have some amount of unproductive time to kill, but you'd think they'd find another unproductive topic or rationale to get productive on.

 

I'm not making a sociopolitical statement here, nor does my statement need to be used as one. I've already bought a book 'Angry White Men' which details the concepts more logically than any SJW on here for that.

 

We're going to have to agree to disagree.  I don't believe I am misreading your point at all in fact; I am addressing it directly.  I am saying, what you believe is the exact same argument, semantically, is not the same in context because the overall situation is different.  Basically, I simply don't agree with your conclusion.  

 

As you say, however, I also believe further discussion will remain similarly unproductive, so I shall bow out.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

[Pee Jae]

Another one? And it's 15 pages long already? *sigh*

 

[I present Chuck Bass]

Straight guys only got two options? Whoopdie friggen do. be grateful you got two !Aces' ( and the related spectrum ) got 0 LI , and you don't see us making a thread complaining about it every other day, or saying the characters are 'filthy ugly sexuals.
Krist, be happy you got two.

I think God won this one.

[God]

There is people who find obese women beatiful. You might be not one of them but that doesn't matter they don't exist.

 

It's sexist to claim that some feature that some woman have is universally bad and wrong, and demand that BW has to do always universally attractive and sexy LI's without strong jaws, moles, scars, short hair, button noses etc.

 

It's not sexist to have preferences and dislike some features.

 

Also don't bring evolution in to argument God, evolution theory is heresy against your creations after all ^^;

 

I'm not denying that at all. Of course some people are chubby chasers. Power to them.

 

As I said, so it's sexist. From what I gather, they're asking for more LI's that don't have them. Let them do it. You can easily sift through the junk requests and the informative critique. Some of us want the 'perfect' women so to speak. Let's have someone who's a Thedosian supermodel. Why not?

 

And on that idea, where are you drawing the line from 'preferences and dislikes' to the sexist examples you're listing. You're really not.

 

Creations? I'm still wondering where they got that idea that they're divine and perfect. I scraped their ancestors off my heel when I was in the salt bath. Then it started growing. 

[Fandango]

I'm not denying that at all. Of course some people are chubby chasers. Power to them.
 
As I said, so it's sexist. From what I gather, they're asking for more LI's that don't have them. Let them do it. You can easily sift through the junk requests and the informative critique. Some of us want the 'perfect' women so to speak. Let's have someone who's a Thedosian supermodel. Why not?
 
And on that idea, where are you drawing the line from 'preferences and dislikes' to the sexist examples you're listing. You're really not.

You know, when the focus of the conversation moves away from the equal distribution of romance options to the specific - preferred - nature of them, I think it's time to acknowledge that Inquisition is an RPG, not a sexual gratification simulator. And that goes for everyone.

[Maverick827]

Straight guys only got two options? Whoopdie friggen do. be grateful you got two !Aces' ( and the related spectrum ) got 0 LI , and you don't see us making a thread complaining about it every other day, or saying the characters are 'filthy ugly sexuals.
Krist, be happy you got two.

If in the next game BioWare added male and female asexual LI options, and any given asexual did not find either of them attractive and made a thread about it, would it be okay to make fun of that person?

[Story OVER Multiplayer]

This has so far been a very interesting thread to read. It has of course all been stated before in other threads / forums / talk shows, whatever.  However, I think that there is not enough credit given to Bioware for the attempt to give so many options.  One thing that I think seem to always be taboo for anybody to mention is the realities of life.  Such as the actual proportion of the LGBT people in the world as compared to the heterosexual  people of the world.  It is not even.  It is not close.  I firmly believe that people of the LGBT persuasion are certainly deserving of adequate representation in all media's.  

 

It is interesting that repeatedly in our current world we right an imbalance with over compensation.  Just a few short years ago, a game would have been shunned, if not banned, for any LGBT content at all.  Now it is not only expected to be included as a romance option, as it should be since it is a reflection of the real world.  But it is required to be represented as every group you encounter is going to be equally representative of all concievable main types of sexual orientation.  This is not a reflection of real life.  If Bioware did paint a more accurate picture of society, they would be branded as discriminatory.  That makes no sense at all.

 

Personally, I have found the Blackwall romance to be the most rewarding story wise due to the betrayal and conversation around it.  My only complaint is that the straight male romances are very vanilla.  I have yet to have the chance to romance Iron Bull, however, I have heard it is "good raunchy fun".  Sera is somewhat of a ball to romance and I have also read that Dorian is very good.  I will explore all of the options in future play-throughs.  In contrast, both Josephine and Cassandra are very cutsy and tame.  You have no options of somebody "fun" to hook up with.  I don't mean raunchy or adolescent, although that would be fun as well, I am actually talking about a character like Morrigan or Jack in ME.  Obviously not exactly like them, but somebody with some spunk, wit, and charm.  All of the wit seems to have been given to either the LGBT characters or to Vivienne, whom we are not allowed to romance.  Why did all of the fun writing go to those characters.  I did enjoy the romance serial story line with Cassandra. Laughed my ass off.  But the relationship was not allowed to really grow beyond that.  

 

As far as all of the "ugly" comments, for me any lack of attraction to any of the female characters revolves more around the fact that the way Bioware animated their stances to look like they are trying to either drop or hold in a deuce with weird posture, and Josephine's wierd puffy clothes that de-emphasize any curves that she does or doesnt have.

[I present Chuck Bass]

I think it's time to acknowledge that Inquisition is an RPG, not a sexual gratification simulator. And that goes for everyone.

Nope, this is were you get it wrong.

[Fandango]

Nope, this is were you get it wrong.

Go on.

[Story OVER Multiplayer]

Not to sound like a neanderthal, but what is "LI"?

[SnakeCode]

It's like Inception. Like there's a troll somewhere hacking into the minds of these folks to get them to post about the same topic repeatedly. Oh and in b4 the inevitable lock.

Perhaps there wouldn't be so many
if the mods didn't keep locking them. Just a thought.


That leads me to the main gripe I have with these threads. The mods aren't exactly even handed when handing out the bans, warnings and the closing of threads. There are people who know that all they have to do is troll a thread about straight male LI's and that thread will invariably get closed. There are posters who certainly exploit this to get threads with topics they don't like closed. Do the same thing in a thread about LGBT options and that person's posts will simply be removed and the thread will remain open.

Another thing is that people can basically flaunt forum rules in threads like these with no fear of being reprimanded. They can be outright hostile to an OP of threads like this. They can get away with name calling and just general meanness. Do that in any other thread? You got a ban hammer with your name on it.

Mods need to be more consistent. ATM they are certainly more trigger happy in certain types of threads than they otherwise would be.



 

[Fandango]

Not to sound like a neanderthal, but what is "LI"?

 

Love Interest (BSN shorthand for romanceable NPC) .

[Story OVER Multiplayer]

Thank you.  It is difficult to keep up with all of the acronyms.  It is amazing  to me how difficult we find it to type all those pesky extra letters.  All that button pushing.... So tiring. Whew, I need a nap!

[I present Chuck Bass]

Go on.

How you would classify the genre of the game is completely subjective. You see it as a rpg, I see it more as a sexual simulation\ racing simulator. It's more like a sex filled Mario kart inspiring to be an MMO if you ask me. all I did the whole game was look at Vivienne's cleavage and race NUGS on my halla.
Therefore "Fandango" you are wrong.

[God]

You know, when the focus of the conversation moves from the equal distribution of romance options to the specific - preferred - nature of them, I think it's time to acknowledge that Inquisition is an RPG, not a sexual gratification simulator. And that goes for everyone.

 

Smart move. That's why I love Inquisition so much. It's a damn good RPG.

 

You're right too. Too many people are worried about the whole romance mechanic nowadays.

 

In my defense though, I'm just trying to maintain a certain presence of verisimilitude to the arguments and logic here. 

[Monica21]

Once again you're talking past my point. You're arguing something that I'm not, and it's pretty clear that you're not taking in what I'm saying.

 

My view: let the OP post what he wants to post here, and let him make an argument to defend his position. 

 

My point: A lot of people are attacking the OP for his opinion, which is understandably unpopular, and refusing to accurately comprehend his points, using it as catalyst to make further statements that are relative to SJW rhetoric. My point is pointing out the hypocrisy in the purely academic analysis of logical arguments. 

They're (and possibly you're) using the same arguments against the OP that they themselves felt was used against them. It's just a charade of righteousness that is wrapped around a core of inanity and verbal (or textual?) slap fights. 

 

Overall, my view is to show how unproductive the entire critique is. Granted, this is an internet forum, so most people here by default have some amount of unproductive time to kill, but you'd think they'd find another unproductive topic or rationale to get productive on.

 

I'm not making a sociopolitical statement here, nor does my statement need to be used as one. I've already bought a book 'Angry White Men' which details the concepts more logically than any SJW on here for that.

 

Okay, in re-reading your POV, you're correct. The OP hasn't actually made any kind of argument however. It was, "hey, did you realize" and since there have been so many threads about this recently, everyone jumped on it. People are arguing against an argument that doesn't exist. I don't see at any point that the OP has claimed to disapprove of the options available, so I guess at this point we're arguing about arguing?

[fhs33721]

If in the next game BioWare added male and female asexual LI options, and any given asexual did not find either of them attractive and made a thread about it, would it be okay to make fun of that person?

Yes.

But thats just coming from me, and I make  fun of everyone and everything, including dwarves and bald people i (haha those dwarves look so cute when they walk around in skyhold as if they were real people . Silly dwarves go back into yur caves and continue to drink dirt, if thats the only thing you can do right. And Solas some god you are. Can't even grow some hair. The other elven gods probably all died because they were laughing so hard about him.).

*runs away to hide from dwarf  and Solas fans*

[Panda]

Perhaps there wouldn't be so many
if the mods didn't keep locking them. Just a thought.


That leads me to the main gripe I have with these threads. The mods aren't exactly even handed when handing out the bans, warnings and the closing of threads. There are people who know that all they have to do is troll a thread about straight male LI's and that thread will invariably get closed. There are posters who certainly exploit this to get threads with topics they don't like closed. Do the same thing in a thread about LGBT options and that person's posts will simply be removed and the thread will remain open.

Another thing is that people can basically flaunt forum rules in threads like these with no fear of being reprimanded. They can be outright hostile to an OP of threads like this. They can get away with name calling and just general meanness. Do that in any other thread? You got a ban hammer with your name on it.

Mods need to be more consistent. ATM they are certainly more trigger happy in certain types of threads than they otherwise would be.



 

 

Starting thread like this is really like opening up the Pandora's box. Although OP didn't seem to have any bad intent doing so, it's hard to keep maintain these thread without discussion going hostile and insulting. Most of romance threads end up like this, before release there were at least 3 version of long romance thread that always got closed on how hostile they become ^^; Also all these arguments are already seen, people are just getting tired of repetition of these same threads and complaints.

[Imryll]

Then the carnivore doesn't enjoy himself at the restaurant and it was silly of you to take him there, if there is a limited selection of restaurants for his tastes it's not because people are against the carnivore it's because Chefs may simply prefer to cook vegetarian and there is a larger amount of vegetarian customers.

 

The carnivore could let people be aware of his tastes and chefs may have similar tastes or just see it as viable on the market and other carnivores may be around in enough numbers to support those tastes.

 

Hopefully the carnivore isn't a d*ck who goes around trying to shame the vegetarians

Heh. This reminds me of my brother and I thoughtlessly taking a vegetarian friend to a barbecue place outside Austin, Texas back in the mid-80s. We all had a great time! She ordered a salad and baked potato and got the kitchen to sautee her some mushrooms and appeared to enjoy them while we all had a delightful visit.

 

A couple years ago my husband and I became vegetarians for health reasons--and have looked to her as a role model. Sure, it's nice to have lots of choice, but it's not so nice that it's worth refusing to enjoy an otherwise pleasant experience, because one of its features (the food at the County Line in my friend's case or the selection of romances available in a particular video game) are not exactly to your taste.

 

As for the romances in DAI, I think that Bioware is roughly on the right track. I don't think any group, whether heterosexual females, heterosexual males, or the LGBT community is entitled to special treatment, regardless of majority/minority status or what alternatives the market offers them. I also don't think that "fairness," however a particular group or individual prefers to define it, is a realistic goal without severely limiting the stories that can be told, and I like stories. "Everyone get's a choice" is fairish and roughly doable, although there will always be disagreement on whether those choices are equal, because of how the NPCs look, precisely how many lines of dialogue and/or cutscenes they get, and what twists their story includes. However, the notion that when opportunity arises to include something that will strengthen the game, the devs should refrain because it would give someone something extra is anathema to me. For one thing it's petty to begrudge others nice things. For another it opens the door to content that might not fly as one of the two choices for a group, e.g. Solas, who in my opinion really does only work for a female elf, but whose romance adds to the game as a whole. For a third, it's one of numerous game features that cater or fail to cater to specific constituencies: hairstyles, clothing, animations, etc.  Numbers and types of romances are only one measure of the support given to folks who like to play specific types of characters.

[Iakus]

Oh for... what'd I just step in?

 

Yes, romance options suck. They're limited to all... except for female bisexual elves, cause, you know, the above-top-secret-bisexual-elf-supremacy agenda Bioware is pushing into our oh-so-fragile minds.

 

Looking at it from a *realistic* standpoint, if every single character was made pansexual and a LI, it just wouldn't be realistic, would it?

 

Not only are there sexuality restrictions, but also race restrictions, which would make sense if such a fantasy world existed. There is no doubt in my mind that some people like say Cullen, would only like human or elf females and not dwarves and Qunari..

 

Not everyone is going to get their dream date or the love of their life just because they expect it. either. Bioware can do many things but they can't please everybody. Nobody can... it's impossible.

 

Yeah, they could have made every single character in the game romanceable and there'd still be complaints about the lack of options.

 

The original balance for DAI was 2/2/2

 

2 straight (Cassandra, Blackwall)

2bi (Iron Bull, Josephine)

2 gay (Dorian, Sera)

 

None race restricted.

 

In the extra year they got, the team added two bonus characters, female-only, and race restricted (Cullen and Solas)

 

We got an even distribution of original romances, and the only restricted ones are bonus content we would not have otherwise had.

 

in addition, the chocies for everyone is no less than what we've had in previous games.  The overall number of available romances are higher, but that's because not every romance is available to every player.  But to the straight male gamer who complains at the lack of choices:  It's still the same number you got from DAO and DA2.  So straight female (elf or human) characters get more?  So what?  It's extra stuff that wasn't going to be in the game originally.  It doesn't lessen what everyone else gets.

[Maverick827]

Starting thread like this is really like opening up the Pandora's box. Although OP didn't seem to have any bad intent doing so, it's hard to keep maintain these thread without discussion going hostile and insulting. Most of romance threads end up like this, before release there were at least 3 version of long romance thread that always got closed on how hostile they become ^^; Also all these arguments are already seen, people are just getting tired of repetition of these same threads and complaints.

That still doesn't explain the moderating discrepancies. Both types of threads attract trolls. Only one type of troll is banned. Only one type of thread is locked.

The 70+ page threads that are moderated and allowed to stay open are similarly presenting arguments that are repetitive. So that's not a valid excuse.

[Panda]

That still doesn't explain the moderating discrepancies. Both types of threads attract trolls. Only one type of troll is banned. Only one type of thread is locked.

The 70+ page threads that are moderated and allowed to stay open are similarly presenting arguments that are repetitive. So that's not a valid excuse.

 

I doubt none has got banned over this thread. Most of romance threads have been locked, I think gay KISA thread is only one that has remained, but in general romance threads get locked because they always turn hostile even without trolls.

 

Well let's say: repetitive arguments that people find offensive.

[Panda]

 

None race restricted.

 

Actually Iron Bull was race-restricted originally, but no info against who. I assume it was against dwarves and elves.

[errantknight]

All lunacy aside, you'd think you folks would have learned to be careful what you ask for. There's nothing that happened in DA2 and that's being complained about here that wasn't directly spawned by complaints about Origins. Bioware WILL try to answer your complaints and you may not like the result.

 

Keep this up and there will be One romance for straight females, One for straight males, One Bi, One lesbian and One gay. And that will be all--that's if they don't decide to go the awakening route and have no romances at all. Seriously, think before you whine.