630 réponses à ce sujet

[mjb203]

That's a fair point on all fronts. Where I used the era as a reference point was more to illustrate the kind of racism that falls within popular consciousness.

This is not the "medieval pogrom in Ukraine" style of racism, and there's none of the very serious religious clash that we occasionally saw IRL. It's also actually a lot more segregated in a lot of ways that was true way back when (because race didn't quite work the way we viewed it today).

Agreed. And really, after the origin stories, there's not a whole lot more racism that occurs, at least on that scale, which I think makes it easy (or easier) to forget some of the harsher examples. But that's what discussions are for!

[Dai Grepher]

Some people believe that the 60 bucks they paid for the game allows them treating the game producers like you treat a service, like your ISP for example.

 

...

 

People need to realize that games are not services, they are the expression of the artistic vision of the writers, art designers, etc, and we as the "audience" have the option to enjoy them or walk away, that is exactly what Weekes is suggesting. What you are asking them to do is like trying to change the 9th Symphony from Beethoven to sound more like the Blue Danube from Johann Strauss. I love the first, and barely tolerate the second, so I simply avoid listening to it, don't threaten iTunes so I won't download the Blue Danube unless it sounds like Beethoven.

 

I agree that BioWare is not a service, but it is a producer of a product. People complain, praise, or make suggestions about all kinds of products all the time, and good producers care about what their customers think of their product. Weeks doesn't seem to care.

 

Dragon Age may be an expression of Weeks' and Laidlaw's and a few other's artistic visions, but that vision will come to an abrupt end if enough customers "find other games to play" instead. This is why it's important for BioWare to listen to its customers.

 

I disagree. We are not asking for any kind of radical change to the series. In fact, we're asking that the status quo thus far be preserved in future titles, that being player choice and "mean" dialogue options. Asking that any given scenario allow the character to express any of a broad variety of opinions isn't an unreasonable request, is it? I would think the unreasonable request would be for options that liberal players personally dislike be banned from the games.

[mjb203]

I agree that BioWare is not a service, but it is a producer of a product. People complain, praise, or make suggestions about all kinds of products all the time, and good producers care about what their customers think of their product. Weeks doesn't seem to care.

Dragon Age may be an expression of Weeks' and Laidlaw's and a few other's artistic visions, but that vision will come to an abrupt end if enough customers "find other games to play" instead. This is why it's important for BioWare to listen to its customers.

I disagree. We are not asking for any kind of radical change to the series. In fact, we're asking that the status quo thus far be preserved in future titles, that being player choice and "mean" dialogue options. Asking that any given scenario allow the character to express any of a broad variety of opinions isn't an unreasonable request, is it? I would think the unreasonable request would be for options that liberal players personally dislike should be banned from the games.

Agreed. I don't think anyone is asking that their character be able to be a complete ass to characters they disagree with. Still going on with the Krem example (warning, some headcanon involved!), perhaps my qunquisitor's parents left the qun because they disagreed with the idea of an aqun-athlok, in addition to whatever canon reasons Bioware decides to inject. And maybe this view was passed on to my character. Now, my inquisitor could disagree, in whatever form BW would provide in such a scenario, and Krem could refute my character, or get pissed at my character, or heck, even deck my character (however BW would want him to react). I think that would make a more lasting impression on the character (perhaps they change their view after that) and the player.

Edit: for the record, I do have one femqun Mage that has this mindset, and another "femqun" warrior who I'm rp-ing as a vashoth aqun-athlok who is romancing Sera.

[AlanC9]

Before Inquisition i would have agreed with you.

But now, given the fact that i didnt buy the dlc the minute it got released and i am not very excited for new ones, says that im losing my interest in the series.

Hope it wont be the same with Mass Effect.

You only count if you're losing interest because of the issue we're debating. Is that actually the case, or do you have a problem with, say, gameplay, or the quest structures, or something like that?

[daveliam]

Dragon Age may be an expression of Weeks' and Laidlaw's and a few other's artistic visions, but that vision will come to an abrupt end if enough customers "find other games to play" instead. This is why it's important for BioWare to listen to its customers.

 

Perhaps this will be a problem in the future.  Perhaps it will not.  Right now, DA is a huge, award winning franchise that is not hurting for fans.  I've seen no evidence that the people who boycott their products for being "too PC" is significant enough to make any dent on their sales.  I'm fully convinced that the vast majority of players don't feel strongly either way about this and that the "anti-PC" players are numbered at least (if not more) than 1:1 with the "pro-PC" players that they would gain by going this route.  Although I'm more than happy to see any evidence that supports the contrary point.

 

Agreed. I don't think anyone is asking that their character be able to be a complete ass to characters they disagree with. Still going on with the Krem example (warning, some headcanon involved!), perhaps my qunquisitor's parents left the qun because they disagreed with the idea of an aqun-athlok, in addition to whatever canon reasons Bioware decides to inject. And maybe this view was passed on to my character. Now, my inquisitor could disagree, in whatever form BW would provide in such a scenario, and Krem could refute my character, or get pissed at my character, or heck, even deck my character (however BW would want him to react). I think that would make a more lasting impression on the character (perhaps they change their view after that) and the player.

 

There is no way that Bioware could account for your oddly specific head-canon. 

 

In my headcanon, my Qunquisitor is incredibly racist against blonde Orlesian women because his parents were once scammed by a grifter who matched that description and it left them destitute, forcing him to join a mercenary band to support them.  It ruins my immersion and limits my choices by not allowing me to express my outward disgust at Celene for being Orlesian and blonde.  After all, my character doesn't approve of this trait.  I'm trying to help Bioware by pointing this out so the rest of the anti-Blonde Orlesian league members don't boycott their future products.  I just don't understand why they have to pander to the Aryan crowd by forcing me to approve of this blonde orlesian combination.......

 

Do you see how silly this sounds?

[Dieb]

I agree that BioWare is not a service, but it is a producer of a product. People complain, praise, or make suggestions about all kinds of products all the time, and good producers care about what their customers think of their product. Weeks doesn't seem to care.

 

...about this particular issue, for god's sake.

 

They're producing artwork. If you don't like it, you can get your money back at most places, and never buy one again. That would cause about 50 less copies sold, and probably 50 more for CDPR, so everyone's happy one way or the other.

[AlanC9]

I disagree. We are not asking for any kind of radical change to the series. In fact, we're asking that the status quo thus far be preserved in future titles, that being player choice and "mean" dialogue options. Asking that any given scenario allow the character to express any of a broad variety of opinions isn't an unreasonable request, is it? I would think the unreasonable request would be for options that liberal players personally dislike be banned from the games.

Part of the problem here is that it's not really clear what you're scared of, or why you think the thing you're scared of is likely to happen; it's much more clear when one of the Gamergate types is ranting about how Bio's already gone too far in catering to the SJWs, or some such. Could you give a specific example of something you're worried Bio might do in the future? Exactly how would the unacceptable NPC interaction play out?

[mjb203]

There is no way that Bioware could account for your oddly specific head-canon.

In my headcanon, my Qunquisitor is incredibly racist against blonde Orlesian women because his parents were once scammed by a grifter who matched that description and it left them destitute, forcing him to join a mercenary band to support them. It ruins my immersion and limits my choices by not allowing me to express my outward disgust at Celene for being Orlesian and blonde. After all, my character doesn't approve of this trait. I'm trying to help Bioware by pointing this out so the rest of the anti-Blonde Orlesian league members don't boycott their future products. I just don't understand why they have to pander to the Aryan crowd by forcing me to approve of this blonde orlesian combination.......

Do you see how silly this sounds?

You're extrapolating this waaaaay too far, false-equivalence style. Again, the underlying point is to respectfully disagree with a character, much in the same way you can if you don't believe in the Chantry. Of course Bioware can't account for every headcanon! But to enrich the gaming experience, disagreements with characters should be allowed. This "free speech for me but not for thee" has got to stop. You missed the point entirely.

Edit for clarifying phrase

[AlanC9]

You're extrapolating this waaaaay too far, reducto-ad-obsurdum style. Again, the underlying point is to respectfully disagree with a character, much in the same way you can if you don't believe in the Chantry. Of course Bioware can't account for every headcanon! But to enrich the gaming experience, disagreements with characters should be allowed. This "free speech for me but not for thee" has got to stop. You missed the point entirely.

I thought the point was precisely that Bio can't account for everything, as you yourself say.

[daveliam]

You're extrapolating this waaaaay too far, reducto-ad-obsurdum style. Again, the underlying point is to respectfully disagree with a character, much in the same way you can if you don't believe in the Chantry. Of course Bioware can't account for every headcanon! But to enrich the gaming experience, disagreements with characters should be allowed. This "free speech for me but not for thee" has got to stop. You missed the point entirely.

 

No, I understand the point.  It's the idea that people want to express their dislike of "PC" topics, while couching it as "we just want to see more options".  There is nothing in this thread that's convinced me otherwise.  The assurance that it's not coming from 'hatred' (which I agree with since bigotry is often confused with hatred) isn't terribly convincing when it's said that the option to "disagree with the concept of transgenderism" is the point.

 

Of course my point was absurdist.  It was intended that way because I see the argument being placed as equally absurd.  And, just like it would be silly for the devs to account for my absurd head canon, I think it's equally absurd for them to account for the one being put forward.  That's my point.

 

Ultimately, I see the whole discussion as moot because it's been pointed out numerous times that the devs are devoted to the direction that they've taken.  And they are getting a tremendous amount of awards and positive feedback for that stance.  I don't see any reason for them to change when it flies in the face of the direction that they are pointing their product. 

[mjb203]

I thought the point was precisely that Bio can't account for everything, as you yourself say.

True, they can't, but they can expect some players, and therefore characters, to disagree in certain situations. If our player is going to be a leader of a psuedo-religious organization, then why allow for a disbelief in the Chantry (or the Elven pantheon, or the Stone, or whatever the Vashoth are)? Or why allow elves, dwarves, and qunari to be Andrastian? Because they'll have different ways of rp-ing a character. Or maybe you'd prefer it if they stuck with a fixed protagonist that only agreed with your mindset, all others be damned?

[mjb203]

No, I understand the point. It's the idea that people want to express their dislike of "PC" topics, while couching it as "we just want to see more options". There is nothing in this thread that's convinced me otherwise. The assurance that it's not coming from 'hatred' (which I agree with since bigotry is often confused with hatred) isn't terribly convincing when it's said that the option to "disagree with the concept of transgenderism" is the point.

Of course my point was absurdist. It was intended that way because I see the argument being placed as equally absurd. And, just like it would be silly for the devs to account for my absurd head canon, I think it's equally absurd for them to account for the one being put forward. That's my point.

Ultimately, I see the whole discussion as moot because it's been pointed out numerous times that the devs are devoted to the direction that they've taken. And they are getting a tremendous amount of awards and positive feedback for that stance. I don't see any reason for them to change when it flies in the face of the direction that they are pointing their product.

What's the point of adding this stuff in, though, if they're only going to use it to reinforce the beliefs that only half the population agree with? If they want to put in that stuff, great! But they should use it as an opportunity to open up a discussion (like the scenario I provided above). It would do them much better, and help the tran community out more, if they would explain things to a character who disagrees, instead of assuming their player-base all have the same social mindset.

[daveliam]

True, they can't, but they can expect some players, and therefore characters, to disagree in certain situations. If our player is going to be a leader of a psuedo-religious organization, then why allow for a disbelief in the Chantry (or the Elven pantheon, or the Stone, or whatever the Vashoth are)? Or why allow elves, dwarves, and qunari to be Andrastian? Because they'll have different ways of rp-ing a character. Or maybe you'd prefer it if they stuck with a fixed protagonist that only agreed with your mindset, all others be damned?

 

That's not the counterpoint, though.  The counter point isn't to get rid of all choice.  The counter point is that this particular line of choices is out of alignment with their stance as developers.  They've stated that they aren't interested in allowing you to 'disagree' with real-world groups.  So they are not going to allow you to 'disagree' with transgenderism.  However, in game groups are fair game, which is why you can disagree with Vivienne on mage rights and be openly racist against elves/humans as the other race.

 

Look, I'm all for 'more choice'.  I'm not for adding more choice if it doesn't fit with the devs stance to game making.  Or if it allows players to openly 'disagree' with LGBT individuals.  Or it if seems out of line with the lore established setting.  The only argument that's held any weight at all so far is the one about a Qunari PC being unable to express the same beliefs as Sten.  Which, if that were to happen, would seem to conflict lore.  But, given that we don't have a Qunari PC, I don't see the reason in taking a Chicken Little approach to the very possibility of it happening in the future at some point.

 

 

What's the point of adding this stuff in, though, if they're only going to use it to reinforce the beliefs that only half the population agree with? If they want to put in that stuff, great! But they should use it as an opportunity to open up a discussion (like the scenario I provided above). It would do them much better, and help the tran community out more, if they would explain things to a character who disagrees, instead of assuming their player-base all have the same social mindset.

 

Because the devs have a personal and professional stance on these issues.  That's their perogative and I'm not seeing any evidence that it's hurting their business outside of some negative message board posts (mostly from people who have given them money already, despite also being disappointed by them in the past).

 

I also think it's slightly disingenuous to pretend as if any of this is in the trans community's best interest.  Being able to 'disagree with Krem about transgenderism' is not likely to cause any new revelations on transgenderism from people who aren't already at least somewhat interested in hearing the counter point, right?  Wouldn't the opposite be more likely to cause someone to think twice of their beliefs, anyway?

[AlanC9]

True, they can't, but they can expect some players, and therefore characters, to disagree in certain situations. If our player is going to be a leader of a psuedo-religious organization, then why allow for a disbelief in the Chantry (or the Elven pantheon, or the Stone, or whatever the Vashoth are)? Or why allow elves, dwarves, and qunari to be Andrastian? Because they'll have different ways of rp-ing a character. Or maybe you'd prefer it if they stuck with a fixed protagonist that only agreed with your mindset, all others be damned?

You're saying that they can't do everything, but they need to do some things. OK. Now, prioritize those things.

The devs have said that the disagreements they will spend zots on will not be disagreements with RW groups. This strikes me as a reasonable allocation of resources. Edit for clarity: you can hit the same dramatic beats you want to with the fantasy groups without getting drawn into substantive RW debates.

I suppose one could make an argument that transphobics are being discriminated against by not being represented, though.

[AlexiaRevan]

 

 

I disagree. We are not asking for any kind of radical change to the series. In fact, we're asking that the status quo thus far be preserved in future titles, that being player choice and "mean" dialogue options. Asking that any given scenario allow the character to express any of a broad variety of opinions isn't an unreasonable request, is it? I would think the unreasonable request would be for options that liberal players personally dislike be banned from the games.

nice wording , but the fact you single out transgender for your 'choice' doesn't hide the intent behind it....

 

You couldve picked anything from the game to pick on for 'choice' but you didn't . Ass is ass....

[X Equestris]

Why does almost every thread where Krem gets mentioned turn into this?

[daveliam]

Why does almost every thread where Krem gets mentioned turn into this?

 

Societal growing pains, I suppose.  The general population is barely comfortable with gay and lesbian people merely existing.  Take it one step out for bisexuals, who are only accepted if they are sexy ladies.  And even further out for trans people who are genuinely misunderstood (at best) and villainized/persecuted/murdered (at worst).  Times, they are a'changin' though.  I suspect that, in 20 years, all of this stuff will be a moot point more or less.  We're just in the middle of time period where a lot of change is happening and neither extreme is please with the rate at which it's happening. 

[Dai Grepher]

nice wording , but the fact you single out transgender for your 'choice' doesn't hide the intent behind it....

 

You couldve picked anything from the game to pick on for 'choice' but you didn't . Ass is ass....

 

I didn't single anything out! That was the topic we've been discussing for the last dozen pages! I don't appreciate your insult.
 

[raging_monkey]

Why does almost every thread where Krem gets mentioned turn into this?

people have "mild" issues bout "modern ideals" in a "dark medieval fantasy " that forces them to be PC

[AlanC9]

I didn't single anything out! That was the topic we've been discussing for the last dozen pages! I don't appreciate your insult.

Sure, but the whole reason this thread's gone on for so many pages is because you're bothered by.... the possibility that in some future games a Bio protagonist might be too accepting of transgender people? Have I got that right?

You're the engine of this thread; haven't you noticed?

[AlexiaRevan]

I didn't single anything out! That was the topic we've been discussing for the last dozen pages! I don't appreciate your insult.
 

and I don't appreciate yours , hidden behind nice english and wording toward Transgender . 

[Dai Grepher]

Part of the problem here is that it's not really clear what you're scared of, or why you think the thing you're scared of is likely to happen; it's much more clear when one of the Gamergate types is ranting about how Bio's already gone too far in catering to the SJWs, or some such. Could you give a specific example of something you're worried Bio might do in the future? Exactly how would the unacceptable NPC interaction play out?

 

That's because I'm not scared of anything. The alarm I raise is one of seeing player choice get flushed along with the series itself. Weeks seems poised to inject more storylines that push liberal causes and NOT give players the option to choose dialogue responses that define their custom characters as disagreeing with those causes, and by the same extension, delegitimize the story, the characters, and the causes that even the liberal players prefer.

 

I already post an example. The transgender or homosexual character is presented, their story told, and then at the end the custom character can only agree with it, encourage it, or promote it. Nothing else. No option to object to it. No option to disagree. No option to not care about it and walk away.