169 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

For crying out aloud, people..... TRY reading! 

 

Let me try it like this: 

 

The scene was not changed solely because the potential violation could be interpreted as problematic...

(...)

In this case, the writer felt the road to making the scene work was too far to travel for too little return. Creepy and intriguing in its potential outcomes, yes, but ultimately it distracted from what he was trying to do with the plot as a whole — and thus he scrapped it. (SOURCE, DG's tumblr, FULL comment on the matter) 

 

Quoted again. PLEASE READ THIS.

 

God.

[llandwynwyn]

   
 
 
Why are people talking about "rape".... the whole thing is an illusion that takes place in the Inquisitor's head. I am sure most people fantasize about having sex with a zillion others.
 
Or do people feel that their Inquisitor was raped by Envy... because they were tricked by envy? If so, these must be the same people who got so drunk that they slept with someone they thought to be Brad Pitt but woke up to Homer Simpson who then cry foul because .... they were deceive by themselves.

The absence of consent is rape.
If there is deception involved it is rape.

[Sylvianus]

Not sure what this quote is supposed to tell me. When I read the whole post of David Gaider, it's about how the female perspective helped, and they actually didn't want people to feel uncomfortable.

 

They also scrapped it because it could be seen as problematic. Nothing has really changed for me. 

[Ryzaki]

Not sure what this quote is supposed to tell me. When I read the whole post of David Gaider, it's about how the female perspective helped, and they actually didn't want people to feel uncomfortable.

 

They also scrapped it because it could be seen as problematic. Nothing has really changed for me. 

 

So you skimmed over this part?

 

 

I mentioned that in the peer review we discussed ways that the scene could still be done, in order to keep its original intention intact. Something being problematic does not mean it should not be done at all (yes, I’m aware there are people who would outright disagree; I’m talking from a writer’s perspective), but more that you should not do it without knowing what you’re getting into and why.

 

In this case, the writer felt the road to making the scene work was too far to travel for too little return. Creepy and intriguing in its potential outcomes, yes, but ultimately it distracted from what he was trying to do with the plot as a whole — and thus he scrapped it.

 

That’s something you have to do when you’re writing — consider if that one piece you feel is kind of cool is really worth twisting the rest of the plot around just to accommodate it. Sometimes it is. Sometimes it’s not.

[KaiserShep]

Not sure what this quote is supposed to tell me. When I read the whole post of David Gaider, it's about how the female perspective helped, and they actually didn't want people to feel uncomfortable.
 
They also scrapped it because it could be seen as problematic. Nothing has really changed for me.

What's the point of peer review if you don't heed to the advice of your peers? If you, as an artist/writer think that your message is going to be obscured by misinterpretation, it warrants reevaluating your work and deciding whether or not it's worth your precious time. I for one don't want to spend hours and hours just to have my point be missed.

[rigron]

Quoted again. PLEASE READ THIS.

 

God.

 

The scene and the entire quest worked perfectly initially. It was after women crew "uhh duh, we feel ofended about this" that the writter and the other members have to look for ways to change it and then those problems were presented and they decided to cut it out because, in order to make it work without the "uhh duh, we feel ofended about this" part it would have to go to great lenghts that affected other aspects of the game/plot and may not transmit what the writter was trying to so it didn´t really compensate them.

[Biotic Flash Kick]

this and lesbomancy are 5ever lost :sniff

[Dermain]

People sure do have a f**king issue with actually keeping to the topic and not completely falsifying the other side to make their point. I didn't say anything to even imply that, let alone say it explicitly.

 

Yes, you did. Here, let me point it out for you again. 

 

Unless they're somehow unaware that the game they are playing is a work of fiction, it shouldn't be triggering anything. 99.9999999999999% of real-life triggers don't occur from movies or games or songs or other consumer media. 

 

I'll also use it to counter this comment from you:

 

Well, you're apt at stating the obvious. +10 points to Gryffindor.

 

If a person is highly phobic of a certain event this has a chance of applying to pure works of fiction/video games/movies. Thanks for helping me point out the obvious with this post.

 

Unless they're somehow unaware that the game they are playing is a work of fiction, it shouldn't be triggering anything. 99.9999999999999% of real-life triggers don't occur from movies or games or songs or other consumer media. 

 

I'm also questioning your (ab)use of statistics in this matter. Seeing as you just agreed with me that people that have highly phobic reactions to certain things will avoid them.

[Sylvianus]

So you skimmed over this part?

 

Actually no. Okay, now I understand better why I didn't see this part. There are actually several posts where David Gaider talk about this on his tumblr, and it wasn't what I read. There are other posts over this issue on his tumblr. Should have read the source directly in the post above. 

 

I'm still meh, however, not really convinced, but it's still better than what it appeared to be at the beginning at least. 

[Zatche]

For crying out aloud, people..... TRY reading! 

 

Let me try it like this: 

 

The scene was not changed solely because the potential violation could be interpreted as problematic...

(...)

In this case, the writer felt the road to making the scene work was too far to travel for too little return. Creepy and intriguing in its potential outcomes, yes, but ultimately it distracted from what he was trying to do with the plot as a whole — and thus he scrapped it. (SOURCE, DG's tumblr, FULL comment on the matter) 

 

I'd like to add this little bit:

 

"...it was supposed to be about Envy and its creepy probing only, so he elected to take it out"

[RepHope]

I'd like to add this little bit:

"...it was supposed to be about Envy and its creepy probing only, so he elected to take it out"

So why couldn't they cut the Leliana "rape" and keep the rest? Thinking you've won while Envy pokes at who you are in the form of your companions, why was THAT cut, and replaced with the not subtle at all version?

[Tashash]

I am confused as to how this became a feminism/non-feminism topic?

 

All I can gather is that some people of the female persuasion during the peer review of CotJ said it made them feel uncomfortable and said that it “could easily be interpreted as a form of rape”.

 

Then, the writer changed it, because HE felt that it was conveying a message that he had never intended.

 

Then we are told this -

 

The circumstances could have been changed, perhaps, and while the peer group discussed it, the fact remained that it wasn't an element the writer wanted to introduce—it was supposed to be about Envy and its creepy probing only, so he elected to take it out

 

The writer decided to change the plotline, and we can debate all we want about whether the original was better or not all we like.

 

One thing remains, NONE of us have seen the original, NONE of us were involved in the peer review, NONE of us were a part of the discussion that lead to CotJ's changes and I'm pretty sure NONE of us are going to change it, no matter who or what we blame.

[Zatche]

So why couldn't they cut the Leliana "rape" and keep the rest? Thinking you've won while Envy pokes at who you are in the form of your companions, why was THAT cut, and replaced with the not subtle at all version?

 

I don't know. I agree that the concept is pretty intriguing. I was mostly addressing the rape part, as was Gaider. Since that was all he was addressing, this was all we got with regards to the "thinking you've won" concept:

 

"(and, ultimately, the entire set-up of that part of the plot changed anyhow)."

 

I would warn, however, against comparing what we actually have versus how awesome you can imagine the end result of a concept can be. Maybe the more they played with it, they realized they couldn't make it work very well. Maybe they had a hard time using this set up to explore all the themes they wanted to. Maybe they thought the player would be able see through the charade with the realization that you are unable to access all the gameplay features you can normally access at Haven.

 

But again, I also find the concept pretty cool, and if it could work well, I'd like to see it in a future installment.

[ashwind]

The absence of consent is rape.
If there is deception involved it is rape.

 

That pathetic logic if applied here means: A man can sue his wife/gf for "rape" after seeing her without her makeup the next morning because that clearly involves a GREAT DEAL of deception. 

[Drasanil]

Well, this certainly makes a good case for Bioware getting less squeamish people to do their peer reviews. No wonder DAI came off as being overly sanitized. 

 

What's the point of even having the 17+ mature rating if they can't handle a bit of creepy demon mind-buggery?  

[Nimlowyn]

That pathetic logic if applied here means: A man can sue his wife/gf for "rape" after seeing her without her makeup the next morning because that clearly involves a GREAT DEAL of deception. 

Great false equivalencies, Batman!

[guntar74]

Original concept seemed pretty interesting. I've seen similar situations done in sci fi shows, so I think it could have been good. And ya I think a fade scene that u actually can't tell is the fade would be great.

[SurelyForth]

Well, this certainly makes a good case for Bioware getting less squeamish people to do their peer reviews. No wonder DAI came off as being overly sanitized. 

 

What's the point of even having the 17+ mature rating if they can't handle a bit of creepy demon mind-buggery?  

 

The issue isn't that people can't handle creepy demon mind-buggery, because creepy demon mind-buggery is still present in the game. Heck, Cole is pretty much a walking creep demon mind-bugger, depending on your perspective. The issue is that a particular form of creepy demon mind-buggery raised a lot of unpleasant issues wrt to consent. 

 

Like, it's not an issue of pretending to have sex with Leliana, or the player thinking they had sex with a woman when, in fact, it was a demon. The issue is that the demon is taking the form of Leliana and offering a copy of her body up for sexual consumption, which could very much be perceived as a violation of Leliana's privacy (like taking nude pictures of someone without their consent, then jerking off to them). Given that Leliana is almost definitely a rape survivor, the implication is even more unsavory. It would also be an issue with Cullen, given his own experiences with demons and abuse- how would these two people feel knowing that their bodies had been used by a demon to facilitate possession? How would these people feel knowing that the Inquisitor might have intimate knowledge of them know without their explicit permission?

 

The proposed scenario raises a lot of ethical issue in and of itself, and it wasn't necessary. I'm not sure if the end result is the most powerful thing they could have come up with, but acting like the game is lesser because they don't want to cross certain ethical/comfort lines is ****ing ridiculous and, frankly, if you believe that it is, then you deserve to be disappointed.

[o Ventus]

Yes, you did. Here, let me point it out for you again.

 

Okay. Point to me the part that means this--

 

The person has to go "this is a work of fiction, I should be fine" and suddenly they're cured!

 

--

 

 

I'm also questioning your (ab)use of statistics in this matter. Seeing as you just agreed with me that people that have highly phobic reactions to certain things will avoid them.

 

What is there to question? The overt use of hyperbole that any rational human being should have picked up on? And I've always agreed that people who are phobic to something tend to avoid it (hence the biggest reason why triggers from things like video games or movies are so low, hence my use of hyperbole). Not a single person has stated otherwise to my knowledge. Why did you even mention this?

[Drasanil]

Like, it's not an issue of pretending to have sex with Leliana, or the player thinking they had sex with a woman when, in fact, it was a demon. The issue is that the demon is taking the form of Leliana and offering a copy of her body up for sexual consumption, which could very much be perceived as a violation of Leliana's privacy (like taking nude pictures of someone without their consent, then jerking off to them). Given that Leliana is almost definitely a rape survivor, the implication is even more unsavory. It would also be an issue with Cullen, given his own experiences with demons and abuse- how would these two people feel knowing that their bodies had been used by a demon to facilitate possession? How would these people feel knowing that the Inquisitor might have intimate knowledge of them know without their explicit permission?

 

First of all, you do realize pixel people in video games do not actually possess rights which can be violated correct? With that out of the way Leliana, or a hypothetical Cullen, would in no way actually be involved in any of it. They'd be a replica based on the Inquisitor's own perceptions of them and not even necessarily an accurate one [In fact, Bioware could have made them look/act subtly 'off' as part of the clues that something ain't right]. As for how they would handle it? Given they were both in the Chantry, both dealt with demons and fade buggery before, I'm pretty sure they'd be fully aware that lines are not a thing demons are concerned with crossing.

 

 

 

The proposed scenario raises a lot of ethical issue in and of itself, and it wasn't necessary. I'm not sure if the end result is the most powerful thing they could have come up with, but acting like the game is lesser because they don't want to cross certain ethical/comfort lines is ****ing ridiculous and, frankly, if you believe that it is, then you deserve to be disappointed.

 

Its a dream where a demon is trying to manipulate you, you can bet that what ever it gets up to would probably be unethical. By that standard we should strike broodmothers from the lore. Because I'm pretty sure Darkspawn don't ask for consent before kidnapping women and force-feeding them the taint-infested remains of other people [who they probably knew to boot]. 

[Nashina]

I think it could of had potential. I mean replace Leliana with someone you have been flirting with, and if i do have sex with the demon knowingly, like tempting the inquisitor then the inquisitor might keep it quiet about it, then when we reach the fade at adamant later on and the demon taunts you about it and everyone finds out, you could get major disapproval's from either everyone or the LI if you continued to flirt with them and start a relationship.

So could of been more interesting relationship wise. But oh well.

[AWTEW]

Iam so glad they cut it. if that was in the game, it would have been degrading for so many reasons.

[Ogillardetta]

The issue isn't that people can't handle creepy demon mind-buggery, because creepy demon mind-buggery is still present in the game. Heck, Cole is pretty much a walking creep demon mind-bugger, depending on your perspective. The issue is that a particular form of creepy demon mind-buggery raised a lot of unpleasant issues wrt to consent. 

 

Like, it's not an issue of pretending to have sex with Leliana, or the player thinking they had sex with a woman when, in fact, it was a demon. The issue is that the demon is taking the form of Leliana and offering a copy of her body up for sexual consumption, which could very much be perceived as a violation of Leliana's privacy (like taking nude pictures of someone without their consent, then jerking off to them). Given that Leliana is almost definitely a rape survivor, the implication is even more unsavory. It would also be an issue with Cullen, given his own experiences with demons and abuse- how would these two people feel knowing that their bodies had been used by a demon to facilitate possession? How would these people feel knowing that the Inquisitor might have intimate knowledge of them know without their explicit permission?

 

The proposed scenario raises a lot of ethical issue in and of itself, and it wasn't necessary. I'm not sure if the end result is the most powerful thing they could have come up with, but acting like the game is lesser because they don't want to cross certain ethical/comfort lines is ****ing ridiculous and, frankly, if you believe that it is, then you deserve to be disappointed.

So if I had an identlical evil twin that had sex with people I would have to be offended because my twin looks like me? Its not rape and I think it diminshes REAL rape when someone forces themself on someone else sexually. 

[Dermain]

 

Okay. Point to me the part that means this--

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

 

 

What is there to question? The overt use of hyperbole that any rational human being should have picked up on? And I've always agreed that people who are phobic to something tend to avoid it (hence the biggest reason why triggers from things like video games or movies are so low, hence my use of hyperbole). Not a single person has stated otherwise to my knowledge. Why did you even mention this?

 

 

So it's fine for you to use hyperbole, but when I do it EVERYTHING IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD!!

 

Interesting.