1001 réponses à ce sujet

[Laughing_Man]

...

 

The clearest proof that they're not utilitarian is their use of magic. They lost last time because of how they've leashed their mages. The abuse that they heap onto them is insane. And yet they do it - despite the awe-inspiring power of magic in this setting - because of their a priori belief that it is evil. Just look at what happens with Sarebaas in DA2. A dedicated and useful person commits suicide because the Qun demanded it. The Arishok - the military leader of the Qun - lives in isolation in Kirkwall rather than call reinforcements (or retreat) because of his screw-up with the Tome of Koslun. He - out of petty spite and frustration - decides to raze Kirkwall to the ground in Act 2. The Qunari are not utilitarian in the way we would use that word. 

 

Magic is the exception rather than the rule. Hatred fear and jealousy are powerful motivators that no one is really exempt from.

Or, as some rabid anti-magic fanatics will tell you, their approach to magic is merely the practical one, aside from killing every magical baby of course...

 

And the Arishok did act as he did because of utilitarian reasons - the Tome was perhaps the single most important object to the morale and "faith" of the Qunari.

 

That said, he was still bound by rules that despite them being utilitarian in source, were twisted into becoming somewhat unpractically rigid with time.

I may be wrong of course (because who am I to contest the "word of god") but that's how I see it.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Isn't omnisexuality another word for pansexuality? If so, I thought that's what Bull was.

From what I read, there is a slight difference. 

Pansexuals don't see genders at all in their attraction. 

Omnisexuals are attracted to all gender variations. 

 

Regardless, I was just listing a few examples. If I messed up. I'm sorry. 

[Laughing_Man]

I'm also curious about how now that Bioware has fully embraced the Big Three in terms of sexualities(bisexual, heterosexual, and homosexual), what are their plans for the more minor sexualities, like asexuality, demisexuality, omnisexuality, etc? 

 

...

 

From what I read, there is a slight difference. 

Pansexuals don't see genders at all in their attraction. 

Omnisexuals are attracted to all gender variations. 

 

Regardless, I was just listing a few examples.

 

Are bioware games supposed to be the comprehensive encyclopedia for obscure sexual and gender idetities?

Can't we just live and let live without obsessing endlessly about issues that most gamers don't really care about and will most likely just accept and move on if encountered in real life?

 

The demographics that actually fight against equality and rights for everyone from every sexuality and gender, are usually quite different from the average gamer.

This feels like beating a dead horse, or breaking down an open door.

 

because fantasy, like all stories, should tackle uncomfortable questions

 

there isn't much middle ground involved in "does this story portray hard issues or does it stay away from anything too controversial?"

 

Yeah, but as soon as this entertainment stops being actually entertaining and becomes a rehash of recent political hot-topics, many would simply look for other forms of entertainment.

[Seraphim24]

 

Can't we just live and let live without obsessing endlessly about issues that most gamers don't really care about and will most likely just accept and move on if encountered in real life?

 

Not if you are A) not in the most category, and B ) especially not if treated badly when encountered in real life.

 

I'm pretty sure actually if anything it's even more horrendous for people falling into the fringes outside of LGBT.

[Panda]

From what I read, there is a slight difference. 

Pansexuals don't see genders at all in their attraction. 

Omnisexuals are attracted to all gender variations. 

 

Regardless, I was just listing a few examples. If I messed up. I'm sorry. 

 

It seems to like pan, omni and bisexual are not very strongly defined, since I have seen different definitions of all of them and they often seem to overlap too ^^;

 

I haven't seen omnisexual used much,  Deadpool is pretty much only character I have seen described as omnisexual (by writers) and fans seem to take it as he's pansexual. So I don't think omnisexual is something very known and used at least, but then again I might be wrong too

[Toasted Llama]

It seems to like pan, omni and bisexual are not very strongly defined, since I have seen different definitions of all of them and they often seem to overlap too ^^;

 

I haven't seen omnisexual used much,  Deadpool is pretty much only character I have seen described as omnisexual (by writers) and fans seem to take it as he's pansexual. So I don't think omnisexual is something very known and used at least, but then again I might be wrong too

The definition I use is what I think is the clearest one I've found so far:
If you believe that gender is a binary and not a spectrum, bisexuality is basically about as broad as it can get. You're attracted to both men and women, the only 2 genders in the binary.

If you believe that gender is a spectrum and not a binary, then pansexuality comes into existence which basically means anything on the spectrum goes. Similarly the definition of bisexuality shifts: bisexuality in case of a spectrum means that you are attracted to men and women, but not demigender, genderfluid or androgynous.

 

Most people believe that gender is a binary and even if they don't, they may not even know pansexuality exists, which is why the definition isn't as clearly defined as bisexuality and why they seem so similar. And out of personal experience, if people consider gender to be a binary, I just use bisexuality instead, because I feel it covers the same area. I rarely call myself pansexual, even though that's technically more accurate.

TBH I think omnisexuality is a bit... useless or redundant? I mean, pansexuality covers the "attraction to anyone" part. I feel as if omnisexuality is touching on things that are akin to transtrending; thinking up genders (or in this case, sexualities) just to be 'unique'. Demisexuality is also borderline redundant IMHO, because it seems to classify the preference for casual sex VS relationship sex as a sexuality. Asexuality I can understand and something I'd like to see in future Bioware games.

[Urzon]

I haven't seen omnisexual used much,  Deadpool is pretty much only character I have seen described as omnisexual (by writers) and fans seem to take it as he's pansexual. So I don't think omnisexual is something very known and used at least, but then again I might be wrong too

There is also Captain Jack Harkness from the Doctor Who/Torchwood universe as well. Though, to be fair, it's much easiest to apply omnisexuality to him since his character is in sci-fi. He has an entire universe of various alien species and genders to be attracted too.

[Sah291]

In my opinion, they should exclude the romance stuff from the game and concentrate on some good stories. In other games, e.g. Pillars of Eternity, the followers are far more believable and interesting without romances. One less romance could be one good side quest chain linked to a companion.

 

That's ridiculous. As much as I disagree on how Bioware depicts romance now, why in the hell would you expect an artistic medium to exclude such an integral part of adult life? It's like saying well sh*t, I get my jimmies rustled by politics so I don't want to see that stuff in books anymore.

 

I agree. I think the romances are popular for a reason, because they add to the story, giving another opportunity for character development for the PC... I think, instead of scrapping them, they should just start moving away from the old "flirt, sex scene before final battle" formula and try to integrate them more seamlessly into the story. DAI was a big step forward in that regard, IMO. They experimented with alternatives to sex scenes, and played with your perspective to weave the romance into the main story. I liked this about the DAI romances.

 

I'm happy for you, I truly am.

 

I have nothing against seamless integration of LGBT into a good story, but I don't think it's the job of a video game and an RPG at that, to preach about "social justice" or to become some kind of a disconnected bastion of tolerance, equality, diversity, rainbows and unicorns.

 

Actually, games and RPGs are a great way to talk about "social justice", political, social and cultural issues, because the worlds they create are often a reflection of our own world and more importantly: we, the players, can actively interact and influence this world in a way that may not be possible in the real world or might show or put us in a perspective we couldn't have experienced in real life.

 

The fact that many people feel so strongly about mage rights and all have their own unique opinion about the variety of cultures in Thedas, which is all inspired by real life events, only shows that games can spark important conversations and make people think. And games have the ability to tackle these conversations on a different (more detailed and deeper?) level, because players can make world-changing decisions and watch the world and it's characters respond to that decision. The discussions that rise from these "fictional" problems can teach people valuable lessons with similar, real life problems. Additionally the "fictional" problems do not weigh as heavy as our own reality, thus people may find it easier to talk about. They can go back and rectify mistakes they may have made after they realize they were wrong, in real life you can't.

 

 

This was a great post, I agree. Part of the strength of genres like science fiction and fantasy has always been the ability to tell stories about real world themes and make social commentary, without having to directly reference real world events or issues. Why is that important? Precisely because sometimes, certain topics are too controversial, taboo, uncomfortable to discuss, or even outright censored.... Sci-fi has a long tradition of this, and while we maybe don't see it as often in fantasy, it certainly has this same potential as a genre. I like that the DA writers recognize that, and treat it as they would any other piece of literature or art. 

 

The fear over video games becoming propaganda is a legitimate concern I have too, and it is unfortunately something I see a lot of in media these days. But I think the difference is, a well written story will encourage you think and come to conclusions on your own, while a propaganda piece will try to spoon feed you a certain viewpoint, shut down different perspectives, or try to narrow the range of acceptable conflict somehow. Not that they are perfect, or couldn't be better, but I haven't seen DA do this yet. 

[In Exile]

I think the "fear" of videogames becoming propaganda is silly, but only because it places games on a pedestal on which they don't belong at all. Any kind of media could - at the hands of the right (or wrong) person - become a tool of propaganda. More generally, media can't avoid social commentary because stories, invariably, are social commentary. So games will and are no different in this regard from books or movies.

[KaiserShep]

I'd be more concerned about video games becoming a form of mind control.

 

[Sah291]

I think the "fear" of videogames becoming propaganda is silly, but only because it places games on a pedestal on which they don't belong at all. Any kind of media could - at the hands of the right (or wrong) person - become a tool of propaganda. More generally, media can't avoid social commentary because stories, invariably, are social commentary. So games will and are no different in this regard from books or movies.

True enough, all media can be potentially used as propaganda, and games are no different... although I do think there's a difference between social commentary and propaganda. There's also an ongoing debate about whether video games should be treated more like sports, or more like film/art, so I can see where a lot of that fear comes from about games in particular. If you view gaming as a sport, that is supposed to be primarily for fun or escapism, the inclusion of social commentary can be unwelcome. Personally, I like narrative driven games so I don't see why both kinds of games can't exist.

[Panda]

The definition I use is what I think is the clearest one I've found so far:
If you believe that gender is a binary and not a spectrum, bisexuality is basically about as broad as it can get. You're attracted to both men and women, the only 2 genders in the binary.

If you believe that gender is a spectrum and not a binary, then pansexuality comes into existence which basically means anything on the spectrum goes. Similarly the definition of bisexuality shifts: bisexuality in case of a spectrum means that you are attracted to men and women, but not demigender, genderfluid or androgynous.

 

Most people believe that gender is a binary and even if they don't, they may not even know pansexuality exists, which is why the definition isn't as clearly defined as bisexuality and why they seem so similar. And out of personal experience, if people consider gender to be a binary, I just use bisexuality instead, because I feel it covers the same area. I rarely call myself pansexual, even though that's technically more accurate.

TBH I think omnisexuality is a bit... useless or redundant? I mean, pansexuality covers the "attraction to anyone" part. I feel as if omnisexuality is touching on things that are akin to transtrending; thinking up genders (or in this case, sexualities) just to be 'unique'. Demisexuality is also borderline redundant IMHO, because it seems to classify the preference for casual sex VS relationship sex as a sexuality. Asexuality I can understand and something I'd like to see in future Bioware games.

 

Yep those I have heard most often. I'm not sure if omnisexual or demisexual are that useful labels either in terms of sexuality, but I guess they fit to some who like to be more specific.

 

There is also Captain Jack Harkness from the Doctor Who/Torchwood universe as well. Though, to be fair, it's much easiest to apply omnisexuality to him since his character is in sci-fi. He has an entire universe of various alien species and genders to be attracted too.

 

Well my understanding is that omnisexual is more used as scifi-term than IRL-one. Like Deadpool has dated personification of death, was married to alien (that looked like hippo) and then to succubus in some point. So in that sense he's omnisexual ^^;

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Demisexuality is also borderline redundant IMHO, because it seems to classify the preference for casual sex VS relationship sex as a sexuality.

Except it isn't a preference for demisexuals. 

[In Exile]

True enough, all media can be potentially used as propaganda, and games are no different... although I do think there's a difference between social commentary and propaganda. There's also an ongoing debate about whether video games should be treated more like sports, or more like film/art, so I can see where a lot of that fear comes from about games in particular. If you view gaming as a sport, that is supposed to be primarily for fun or escapism, the inclusion of social commentary can be unwelcome. Personally, I like narrative driven games so I don't see why both kinds of games can't exist.

The idea that videogames - at least ones that aren't sports games - aren't like regular media is silly IMO. They're story telling devices. The actual content of a sport is generally content neutral (except at meta-level society debates) because it's just a random grab bag of athletic feats.

But when you're telling stories, you're in the same medium as books and TV.

[Geth Supremacy]

I think the "fear" of videogames becoming propaganda is silly, but only because it places games on a pedestal on which they don't belong at all. Any kind of media could - at the hands of the right (or wrong) person - become a tool of propaganda. More generally, media can't avoid social commentary because stories, invariably, are social commentary. So games will and are no different in this regard from books or movies.

 

In your opinion is DAI more a game or more a soapbox to speak from?

 

I'm not asking this to attack you or debate you or anything else. After reading this post I am just curious as to how you see DAI and how and where time and effort was distributed.

[QueenCrow]

I'm asking this because I'd sincerely like to know the answer, given the word "propaganda" tossed back and forth in recent comments on this thread.

 

If considering that a video game would be used for propaganda in terms of the thread topic, what end would you imagine the propaganda serves?  Propaganda toward the idea that sexual diversity exists in the world, so including it in a game provides the psychological integrity of being grounded in reality?  Or propaganda toward the idea that sexually diverse people can exist as a positive aspect of one's life?  Or something else?

 

Toward the commentary and sharing of opinion, I am glad that sexual diversity is represented in game.  My gratitude is not because I feel that Krem, Dorian, or Sera are representative of me.  It's because I've had two experiences in my life which are related to this subject.  The first - a transgendered woman was part of my life when I was young and she cared for me in a way that was highly positive.  The second was when we moved to a small town in which sexual and racial diversity was not tolerated in any way, shape, or form - something that, in retrospect, had a negative influence on my life. There, people tried to convince me that I should be embarrassed about someone who took better care of me than my own mother, that somehow fiery balls would be called from heaven and destroy us if we weren't all the same...something like negative propaganda directed at diversity.  Perhaps being of one of those towns, yet rejecting those premises for a personal view based upon experience, I am able to see how Iron Bull's reaction to diversity doesn't necessarily equate to fictional constructs of the Qun.

[Medhia_Nox]

@In Exile:  I'd argue that the Qunari view of magic is not "a priori".  To be so - like "Free Will/Identity/Importance of 'Self'" - the concept as a truth must almost be inherent, but it must also be incapable of being proved or disproved.  God is, for many, another "a priori" fact (and fits the concept since it cannot be either proven nor disproven). 

 

Regardless of how certain acts are regarded - magic and how it affects mages - can be an observable process.  For the Qunari they can say:  Possession is evil. Mages get possessed.  Mages are evil.   To them, it is a "proof" backed by very real observable events. 

[In Exile]

In your opinion is DAI more a game or more a soapbox to speak from?

 

I'm not asking this to attack you or debate you or anything else. After reading this post I am just curious as to how you see DAI and how and where time and effort was distributed.

 

I'm not sure I follow your question. I think DA:I is a game. The only reason I ever bring up any social view is that others do it - often to complain about the game advancing some kind of social agenda. 

 

@In Exile:  I'd argue that the Qunari view of magic is not "a priori".  To be so - like "Free Will/Identity/Importance of 'Self'" - the concept as a truth must almost be inherent, but it must also be incapable of being proved or disproved.  God is, for many, another "a priori" fact (and fits the concept since it cannot be either proven nor disproven). 

 

Regardless of how certain acts are regarded - magic and how it affects mages - can be an observable process.  For the Qunari they can say:  Possession is evil. Mages get possessed.  Mages are evil.   To them, it is a "proof" backed by very real observable events. 

I have to disagree - God being a good example here. It need only be a concept that cannot be proven if the definitional qualities are such that they can't be investigated. If we take a particular god being posited - e.g. Thor - we can actually set up a number of observable and empirical claims (whether in the present or historically, e.g. if Thor was real [x] would have happened).

 

To the Qunari, the "magic" is an identity. It isn't a tool; it's not separate from Sarebaas. Remember the DA2 discussion - "Sarebaas" is an identity and an accusation, and it is definitionally what a "mage" is within the Qun. Posession is what happens when a Sarebaas fails to heed the demand of the Qun. Magic is what a Sarebaas does, the reflection of what makes it have the identity it should. 

[Toasted Llama]

Except it isn't a preference for demisexuals. 

Sexual preference is almost synonymous to sexual orientation. Saying it's not a preference for demisexuals is like saying demisexuality doesn't exist. In case it wasn't obvious; I didn't mean there was any sort of choice involved when I mentioned "preference".

That being said, let me word my previous point differently: I don't think demisexuality is a sexual orientation/sexual preference, as a sexual orientation/sexual preference is about who/which gender(s) you're attracted to, not how. You're either attracted to one, both, any or none (which is why I do think asexuality is a sexual orientation/sexual preference). If anything, I see demisexuality more as an indication of someone's libido or the time/amount of bonding required for sexual attraction.

[Medhia_Nox]

@In Exile: So - do you believe that "Saarebas are evil" is something Qunari do not have to "learn"? A priori knowledge is not a learned knowledge.

 

I think the Qun's greatest "evil" is in literalism.

 

"Saarebas are evil" leaves no room for discussion. It is a literal fact (even if "evil" isn't perhaps the true view of saarebas - but rather, corruptive or some such. But - I would not be surprised if I found a Qunari mage who was not a saarebas.

 

The logic works the same for warrior/male as it would for mage/evil. If a qunari born a mage is deemed to serve some other role - then he would not be saarebas and therefore would not be evil. Saarebas would then be reserved for those amongst the qunari who have no other drive or aptitude but for being "magical".

 

Perhaps that is what a Qunari "Reaver" is? Since that - of course - makes no sense in our limited understanding of the Qun.

[Sah291]

I'm asking this because I'd sincerely like to know the answer, given the word "propaganda" tossed back and forth in recent comments on this thread.

If considering that a video game would be used for propaganda in terms of the thread topic, what end would you imagine the propaganda serves? Propaganda toward the idea that sexual diversity exists in the world, so including it in a game provides the psychological integrity of being grounded in reality? Or propaganda toward the idea that sexually diverse people can exist as a positive aspect of one's life? Or something else?

Well, by 'propaganda' I only really brought it up for comparisons sake, as I don't actually consider DAI to be propaganda at all. Propaganda is something that I would consider to have a very specific goal, so as to promote some specific state policy, war, agenda, etc. It may be heavily biased and contain deliberately misleading facts or information, or may attempt to discredit or ridicule dissent in some way, etc. I do see games as having the potential for that, as in any other type of mass media. On the flip side, they also have the potential to break though propaganda and open minds, as art and literature have.

As far as what the end goal would be, I think that is irrelevant, even if I might agree with the end goal, that doesn't necessarily justify the means. But again, I would not consider discussion of sexual diversity as propaganda. I would just consider it social commentary. The point at which it might cross into propaganda might be, for example, deliberately misrepresenting someone or something, or being intentionally dishonest, etc.

[Geth Supremacy]

I'm not sure I follow your question. I think DA:I is a game. The only reason I ever bring up any social view is that others do it - often to complain about the game advancing some kind of social agenda. 

 

Well you still answered it effectively although I think in some cases for people who make the latter argument its more about-- for the majority of people... who you want to have sex with is part of you.  It doesn't define you.  The sheer volume of that kind of content distracts from the game and not only pulls you out of it but makes you just hang your head and just say "again!?"

 

People will always take issue with certain things, but I don't think as many people cared about any of the other games and how social issues were treated.  If the focus feels like the game and everything else works to advance that then its great.  When it feels preachy and relentlessness you just feel like...."I just want to play a game here that's all."

 

At the end of the day its different strokes for different folks and yes as a customer (as in someone who has a love for the games and supports the company) you should give feedback, but its not all about YOU and if you don't like it then move on.  I agree with that.  Also after being a member of this forum and witnessing the romance threads first hand both in sheer volume and how passionate people were I believe there are definitely people here that their sexuality 100% defines them and its all they care about.  There are names on this site that to this day I have only ever saw post in romance or sexuality threads.  I have not saw them post since the romance threads died down. They seemingly have nothing to say if its not about sex. So I know this type of game is for some people.

 

It's less about right and wrong and more about personal taste.  At the end of the day if you want to play a video game and you are entertained by it and enjoy it then mission accomplished.  I do believe a lot of people are on both sides of the fence here and we are approaching a line where this is little to no middle ground. I also feel a video game is defined a certain way and then movies and media are another.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

You know when it comes to sexuality. I honestly think trying to explain the difference between various terms is almost pointless. The fact is, even the more well known sexualities will mean something different to different people. For instance, some women identify as lesbians even though they sometimes have sex with men. Yet for some women, sleeping with men by definition means you can't be a lesbian. And the reverse is true as well. Sometimes people fall in love with someone of the same gender but don't iedfity as gay or even bi because it only happened once or twice and they still feel they identify as straight. 

 

I've seen videos by pansexual people attempting to explain why pansexuality is different from bisexuality and frankly they've only made the issue more confusing to me. In fact, I saw one person explain the difference in a way than another person directly contradicted. 

 

I actually did see a good explanation of what the difference was here but I can't remember what it was. But basically my point is, there's going to be a lot of overlap with as many labels as there are. I doubt there is going to be a satisfactory explanation for everyone as to why each and every one is different from the other.

 

I just now typed demisexuality into google. The website about it explained a little about how different/similar it was to asexuality. And even demisexuality.org talks about how some demisexuals enjoy sex and others don't. So that label is also probably going to mean different things to different people, even among those who identify as it.

[In Exile]

@In Exile: So - do you believe that "Saarebas are evil" is something Qunari do not have to "learn"? A priori knowledge is not a learned knowledge.

I think the Qun's greatest "evil" is in literalism.

"Saarebas are evil" leaves no room for discussion. It is a literal fact (even if "evil" isn't perhaps the true view of saarebas - but rather, corruptive or some such. But - I would not be surprised if I found a Qunari mage who was not a saarebas.

The logic works the same for warrior/male as it would for mage/evil. If a qunari born a mage is deemed to serve some other role - then he would not be saarebas and therefore would not be evil. Saarebas would then be reserved for those amongst the qunari who have no other drive or aptitude but for being "magical".

Perhaps that is what a Qunari "Reaver" is? Since that - of course - makes no sense in our limited understanding of the Qun.

But that's the point of the Qun, I think. It's a weirdly obsessive rules lawyer view of the world. A "Sarebaas" is literally a dangerous thing but a person who commands magic - for whatever reason, with liberal application of the No True Scotsman fallacy - is something else. I actually like the way Hawke (as a mage) is an honoured Bassalit-An (or however if is spelled). By the time you reveal your magic with the Arishok in a duel it is too late to change the role that he had given to you. That you use "magic" is beside the point - the Qunari would close their eyes to it just like they do with their losing people to the Tal-Vasoth.

I understand the distinction you are technically getting at with my use of a priori. But I would draw a distinction here between what is empirically true and what the Qun definitionally says is true. What Kant uses as examples of a priori knowledge we know (or have good reason to believe) is acquired knowledge (and so a posteriori). But the Qun posits this to be a priori - and so the Qunari go on with this belief.

[Shechinah]

This is some of which I truely enjoy most about the forums; Lore discussions and interesting perspectives