510 réponses à ce sujet

[FKA_Servo]

Trying to spin away from the weak argument.  What gay game developer would NOT want to put in gay stuff?  What straight game developer would NOT want to put in straight stuff.  You can't show something biased and apply it to everybody else.  If he was straight then your argument might have merit.  

 

As for the " you don't mind gay characters, but as soon as you know they're gay, you're being preached at" adding words I didn't say again.     How about  I explain it one last time, there is a difference between having a gay character and then having 'gay oppression/issues/preaching' in a game.    Do many games and tv shows you watch have black people in it?  Do you mind their are black people?  What if every show and game other than just having normal black people in it always had something about black oppression in it? Wouldn't it get old if you couldn't watch a show or game that had black people in it without something about black oppression always popping up in it?  

 

I'm fine having gay characters in a game, not with having gay oppression/issues/preaching in them.  

 

It's really easy to just quote you and let your posts speak for themselves.

 

He's a person contributing to a piece of collaborative art that presents the full spectrum of humanity. It doesn't matter if he's gay or straight. I would note that there are plenty of writers there who are straight who support (and are - gasp! - able to write) inclusive content as well. And if the game makes you so mad... play a different game. Easy.

[daveliam]

Fun fact: In New York City, women are legally allowed to go topless under the same conditions that men are (i.e. if a restaurant says "No shirt, no shoes, no service," it applies equally to everyone). I have absolutely no idea how this works out in practice.

I live here and I've never seen a topless woman in a public space. I'm sure it happens sometimes but I've not experienced it and I've been here over a decade.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

It's slightly less ridiculous when you realize where it stems from. Men get aroused by the sight of female breasts but don't give a damn about seeing one's like their own, so if they're in position to dictate women should cover up 'so they don't get tempted' that's exactly what happens. And here we are.

Nope, still ridiculous. Plus if they were so worried about arousal and were possessive of women at the time, why let men go around topless so women can possibly drool over other men? 

 

 

Fun fact: In New York City, women are legally allowed to go topless under the same conditions that men are (i.e. if a restaurant says "No shirt, no shoes, no service," it applies equally to everyone). I have absolutely no idea how this works out in practice.

Sounds more like it supports neither being topless rather than both being topless, since I can't think of anywhere public where people can go around topless in New York City. In which case, way to go New York City. 

 

Edit: Nevermind. No way to go NYC. 

 

 

You may feel that way as do others, but this is not the case culturally, the reason being that breasts, abd women to be honest, as a whole are sexualized in a way that men aren't. With the inclusion of more women's and gay male voices in the media space, I'm sure this will change, or at least force straigh t men to confront the way that women have been presented throughout history.
As they say: the reason straight men are so afraid of gay men is they are afraid gay men will treat them the way straight men treat women.

#notallstraightmen

Hopefully. 

[FKA_Servo]

Sounds more like it supports neither being topless rather than both being topless, since I can't think of anywhere public where people can go around topless in New York City. In which case, way to go New York City. 

 

 

I live in New York City. Try Times Square and Central Park.

 

Way to go NYC, indeed.

[Rawgrim]

The DA lore says that same sex "stuff" is accepted in Thedas, for the most part. So it is actually rather difficult to include a lot of "gay rights propaganda" and whatnot into the setting. If people are ok with it Thedas there isn't much of an issue to use as a springboard to get the points across.

[daveliam]

Sounds more like it supports neither being topless rather than both being topless, since I can't think of anywhere public where people can go around topless in New York City. In which case, way to go New York City.

Nah. I see shirtless guys all over the city in the summer and spring. In parks, on the streets, on basketball courts, on the beach, etc.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I live in New York City. Try Times Square and Central Park.

 

Way to go NYC, indeed.

Nah. I see shirtless guys all over the city in the summer and spring. In parks, on the streets, on basketball courts, on the beach, etc.

Oh, then I retract my way to go. 

[LarryDavid]

But you didn't get the short end. You got a shortened end because the stick is more equal. There is a difference.

 

That's not for you to decide.

 

Equality doesn't exist. If person A is three times more productive than person B and on top of that works three times longer, how much should you pay each?

- Person A should earn nine times more than person B -> equal amount per produced unit

- Person A should earn three times more than Person B works -> equal amount per worked hour

- Person A should earn the same as person B -> equal amount per job

 

You can't objectively treat person A and B equally. Depending on the situation you discard information you don't consider relevant and according to your own standards you can treat people equally. However, you can not use that as an argument in the same way that 'because it IS beautiful' isn't an argument.

 

In this regard you belong to a minority and not unsurprisingly your concept of equality (and fairness probably) does not take the sample size into account. This is of course perfectly fine. However, you should realize that, for the same reason, it is also perfectly fine for other people not to want minority content in games

[FKA_Servo]

 

 

Oh, then I retract my way to go. 

 

 

Now I'm confused as to which side of the argument you're falling on.

 

Either way, though, it's awesome. If you hate injustice, that is.

[berelinde]

I live here and I've never seen a topless woman in a public space. I'm sure it happens sometimes but I've not experienced it and I've been here over a decade.

Neither have I, but the law is on the books. File it under "Go fig." Plus, habit sets its own agenda. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn't go topless anywhere simply because I wouldn't want the attention that would attract. Doesn't matter if the law says you can if doing so makes you uncomfortable.

 

Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Now I'm confused as to which side of the argument you're falling on.

 

Either way, though, it's awesome. If you hate injustice, that is.

I think both shouldn't be allowed to go topless since I consider it nudity regardless of gender.

[fireproof_boots]

But that is completely double sided.  First I don't know if he is the lead author for the whole game.  Atleast until DAI he only did parts of games.  Now who was writing to C.S. Lewis to include LGBT and Feminist issues in her story?  Are all of these shows and games having LGBT stuff because suddenly all the writers want it put in or because they have to be in 'compliance' and 'prove' they are not bigots, etc?  

 

He actually was lead writer on DA:O and wrote the first two novels.  I literally don't know what you are talking about with respect to C.S. Lewis, he did not include LGBT themes in his books.  That's what I'm saying.  Dragon Age isn't getting LGBT topics in its story because of some agenda push towards 'political correctness', they're getting it because the people in charge of its story actually believe in the LGBT movement and care about it, so it comes through in their writing.

 

Just like C.S. Lewis was passionate about the Christian faith, its message, and its themes, so it came through in his writing.

 

The beliefs of an author comes through in their work, and that is why DA:I has LGBT themes.  

[tmp7704]

Nope, still ridiculous. Plus if they were so worried about arousal and were possessive of women at the time, why let men go around topless so women can possibly drool over other men?

They're concerned with *their own* arousal. What women could possibly think was up to their husband/father to control, and a secondary concern if any at all. It's not a coincidence in certain countries women were only allowed to vote less than 100 years ago. If that doesn't tell you what opinion men had about their intellectual prowess and importance of their opinions, I dunno what could.

[Poison_Berrie]

You are talking as if Gaider is straight and WANTS to include these things.  Did you miss the article I linked that Gaider is gay and WANT to put gay issues into the games?  As lead developer, if bioware said no, he'd call 1 800 LGBT ACTIVIST. But anyway, you spin it like a gay person would NOT want to put gay things into their game.  In his interview he's admitted to being an activist, so he is putting some lgbt activist agenda into the game.  

 

I'm fine having gay characters in a game, not with having gay oppression/issues/preaching in them.  

What, what!?

 

Is the problem that it's a gay guy doing it instead of a straight man? 

Or are you seriously saying that those few minutes of you talking about how a father forces his will and legacy onto his son, going so far as to forcefully change him with the chance of seriously harming him, are just too much.

[eyezonlyii]

That's not for you to decide.
 
Equality doesn't exist. If person A is three times more productive than person B and on top of that works three times longer, how much should you pay each?
- Person A should earn nine times more than person B -> equal amount per produced unit
- Person A should earn three times more than Person B works -> equal amount per worked hour
- Person A should earn the same as person B -> equal amount per job
 
You can't objectively treat person A and B equally. Depending on the situation you discard information you don't consider relevant and according to your own standards you can treat people equally. However, you can not use that as an argument in the same way that 'because it IS beautiful' isn't an argument.
 
In this regard you belong to a minority and not unsurprisingly your concept of equality (and fairness probably) does not take the sample size into account. This is of course perfectly fine. However, you should realize that, for the same reason, it is also perfectly fine for other people not to want minority content in games

Disregarding the fact that we're not talking about producing something, we're strictly talking about consuming something, then tour entire analogy rings false.
Also because you are in the majority, it's unsurprising that you have nonregard for sample size, because why would you? It has always been, thus it will always be. (I am that I am...) Where as the numbers ARE changing, so who are you to decide what I consume? As a straight guy, you have a near infinite amount of entertainment to choose from, those of us who aren't straight guys, don't. So no, I don't give a flying bug if your feelings are hurt because a game company decided they wanted to broaden their reach (which is a smart move) in order to appeal to more people. Because here's the rub that offended straight guys miss...including more people means more opportunity for your product to be shared by more people. They're obviously not hurting for money by inclusion, so until the day comes when it becomes profitable to exclude people again, they won't. The world is changing my money is just as good as yours and Bioware is producing content that I like.
Deal
With
It.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Hey, no need for the insane part.

 

Yeah it's insulting to us real insane people confused with moronic homophobes. 

[SkyKing]

The DA lore says that same sex "stuff" is accepted in Thedas, for the most part. So it is actually rather difficult to include a lot of "gay rights propaganda" and whatnot into the setting. If people are ok with it Thedas there isn't much of an issue to use as a springboard to get the points across.

Ahh so that's why Dorian is from Tevinter. Why didn't they just have an accepted gay person from Thedas I wonder? 

[Rawgrim]

Ahh so that's why Dorian is from Tevinter. Why didn't they just have an accepted gay person from Thedas I wonder? 

 

Tevinter is part of Thedas.

 

That scene, I think, works well in a political way. A gay man can't produce an heir. That is the bulk of it.

[daveliam]

Ahh so that's why Dorian is from Tevinter. Why didn't they just have an accepted gay person from Thedas I wonder? 

 

Because Gaider wanted to tell a story about how non-hetero sexuality could affect a person's life.  He chose to play on the old "my parents don't accept me for being gay" trope by combining it with the "I'm not happy with my arranged marriage" trope, thus creating a story that we haven't explored in the context of DA yet. 

 

You know, people's sexuality does actually influence their lives, thoughts, and personalities to a degree.  And it's okay to see that in the media.  If you want a gay character whose sexuality doesn't play a role in their story arc at all, you can look at every other gay love interest in a Bioware game (Juhani, Samantha, Steve, and Sera).

[eyezonlyii]

Ahh so that's why Dorian is from Tevinter. Why didn't they just have an accepted gay person from Thedas I wonder?

Tevinter is part of thedas. Like Canada is part if north America. But the issue wasn't his homosexuality per set, that was just a compound on the issue: tevinter's culture if breeding for the best mages.

[SkyKing]

What, what!?

 

Is the problem that it's a gay guy doing it instead of a straight man? 

Or are you seriously saying that those few minutes of you talking about how a father forces his will and legacy onto his son, going so far as to forcefully change him with the chance of seriously harming him, are just too much.

 

No.  Dorian is gay and it should have been left at that.  But then his personal quest was really a preach/teach/lesson with the intent of preaching to parents that they should accept if their child is gay or with teaching children that their parents or other parents should accept them if they are gay and not try to change them.  It wasn't even subtle or anything.  They might as well had Dorian tell the inquisitor, "have a seat on my lap, and I'll teach you about the oppression of gays and how parents need to be more accepting of us, then you can go off and spread the good word". 

[Frenrihr]

SJW

[tmp7704]

No.  Dorian is gay and it should have been left at that.  But then his personal quest was really a preach/teach/lesson with the intent of preaching to parents that they should accept if their child is gay or with teaching children that their parents or other parents should accept them if they are gay and not try to change them.  It wasn't even subtle or anything.  They might as well had Dorian tell the inquisitor, "have a seat on my lap, and I'll teach you about the oppression of gays and how parents need to be more accepting of us, then you can go off and spread the good word".

This particular story made sense in the context of noble family expecting their son to produce a heir to continue centuries old lineage, and said son refusing to do so because of his sexual orientation. So what's exactly the problem here, that Dorian and his father didn't just hug it out off screen so you wouldn't have to hear any mention of the gay because yegods, gay?

edit: I'm curious, would you be equally upset if Cassandra's personal quest was about her family trying to force her in a marriage she didn't want? Would it be "heterosexual agenda shoved down your throat" then, too?

[FKA_Servo]

No.  Dorian is gay and it should have been left at that.  But then his personal quest was really a preach/teach/lesson with the intent of preaching to parents that they should accept if their child is gay or with teaching children that their parents or other parents should accept them if they are gay and not try to change them.  It wasn't even subtle or anything.  They might as well had Dorian tell the inquisitor, "have a seat on my lap, and I'll teach you about the oppression of gays and how parents need to be more accepting of us, then you can go off and spread the good word". 

 

So on that note - would you say that you support the *complete* elimination of all romance content from the game?

 

You can have straight companions, and you can have gay companions. "Hi, I'm Dorian. I'm gay." "Hi. I'm Cassandra. I'm straight." And that's that, no romances? You know everyone's proclivities, because they have a name tag or something, now on to saving the world? SJW quota fulfilled!

 

Because if you want to retain the straight romances and ditch all the gay ones that you're never going to play anyway, you're kind of a giant hypocrite. And very silly, in either case.

[eyezonlyii]

So on that note - would you say that you support the *complete* elimination of all romance content from the game?
 
You can have straight companions, and you can have gay companions. "Hi, I'm Dorian. I'm gay." "Hi. I'm Cassandra. I'm straight." And that's that, no romances? You know everyone's proclivities, because they have a name tag or something, now on to saving the world? SJW quota fulfilled!
 
Because if you want to retain the straight romances and ditch all the gay ones that you're never going to play anyway, you're kind of a giant hypocrite. And very silly, in either case.

Uh no...because boobs. Remember?