630 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

Yes, I imagine that sooner or later a game will come out with a very deliberately ultra feminine, attractive, alluring woman, carefully written to be as enticing as possible. A romance arc will play out, and only once the (male) player is throughly invested, she'll announce herself as transgender.
Cue the gleeful squeals of people ecstatically claiming the inevitable rage is 'proof' of how people are as attracted to transgenders as normal women. All tremendously stupid nonsense, of course.
Honestly, I wouldn't put it past BioWare to try and pull that kind of moronic stunt.

Are those shots fixed?

Regardless, don't worry, nobody will 'trick' you in romancing a transgendered woman in the games.

[In Exile]

Then my apology for misreading. And - yes, you obviously can not disagree about gender. But my point stays - if you bring on subject about role and position of this gender, let my character discuss it, not just sit and listen. Or do not start discussion at all, like with Vivien's skin color. Let it be the simple fact given as it is. Lecturing about anything and allowing only one type reaction from PC is not a role-playing.

There's no lecture unless you express incredulity at the concept of a transgendered person, in which case the IB explains the concept forcefully (because he's Papa Bear for the charges - anything else would be crazy out of character).

[BabyPuncher]

Your inability to grasp set theory is not an argument against clear definitions. The definition of "woman" as "person who identifies as a woman" clearly demarcates women from non-women (the sets are clearly disjunctive) and provides an accessible litmus test for checking set membership. There's absolutely no sensible basis for a complaint from a definitional POV.

Ohh, set theory, huh? You mentioned math and used big words like 'demarcate' and 'disjunctive.' How very impressive sounding. And now apparently necessary to understand what a woman is, huh?

Well, I'm afraid I have a minor in math, so this kind of thing doesn't really bother me all that much.

When the literal only difference between elements of two sets are that they belong to difference sets, the sets themselves don't mean anything beside the tautology that they exist as two sets. Pretty much by definition.

[daveliam]

As for his orientation, would making him a LI in the sequel be too much to ask? I can picture Weekes just up and do it.

 

I'm really torn on this.  I wrote about it recently in a different thread.  As much as I'd hate to say that a trans character shouldn't be a romance because of his/her gender identity, I just don't think that the fanbase is ready for that.  I mean, look at the 'controversy' that arose simply from Weekes saying that they will include trans characters in future games.  Their very presence is causing paranoid predictions of players being 'forced' to 'agree with transgenderism' and being tricked into being sexually involved with them.  I think a slower approach is necessary here.  I'd like to see Maevaris play a prominent role (hopefully as a companion) in an upcoming game first. 

 

I know it's an unusually conservative approach from me, but I just can't shake it (even though it makes me feel kind of icky).

[Linkenski]

Bioware is really bending over backwards to avoid verbal internet punches nowadays. They're really pathetic IMO. For years they've been pleasing the crowd in any way they can and it's come to the point where their fiction has lost its authenticity since DA:I in my opinion.

 

I don't hate on transgendered people. They can have a game that solely has a transgender romance partner if they want... but what I'm pissed about, is that Bioware,right now, only seems interested in this because people are threatening them to do it. I don't think Bioware would've done this by their own accord two or three years ago. Some good could come of it if they handle the theme with grace, but all I can think of is it becoming really dishonest and half-hearted and probably ignorant too. I know Patrick is a good guy and he knows a lot of people from all kinds of minorities, but I really hope he wouldn't just do transgender romance for the sake of including transgender people.

 

I just want romance, gay, straight, lesbian, metro or transsexual to be done so it feels like its in service of a bigger story, and not just their awful pandering romances that are pushed to the side as soon as you've seen their naked butts and all their initial impact goes away because "Too many variables to work with" and the endgame story in no way has any relation to your protagonist and his love interest.*GASP*

 

Just give us a good plot with rewarding choices ffs. (and optional and unrelated-to-plot romances gtfo)

 

Solas' romance in DA:I was the only romance option that I felt was truly good and in service of the plot... but the more romances they include the less room there is for main-story cinematics and ****, and there were, what, 8 romances in DA:I? EIGHT!? C'mon, Bioware, get back in the game. You were doing great 8 years ago (...wow, it really has been 8-9 years since I felt they rocked ass)

[In Exile]

Ohh, set theory, huh? You mentioned math and used big words like 'demarcate' and 'disjunctive.' How very impressive sounding.

Well, I'm afraid I have a minor in math, so this kind of thing doesn't really bother me all that much.

When the literal only difference between elements of two sets are that they belong to difference sets, the sets themselves don't mean anything beside the tautology that they exist as two sets. Pretty much by definition.

A definition is a tautology. The only information baked into a definition is there by fiat. One never obtains meaningful information from a definition beyond clarity of usage. It is not mean to be explanatory - it just explains a relationship between terms.

More to the point, a definition IS valuable solely for the fact that it demarcates between two concepts.

Even beyond that point, your implicit assumption is that we've also simultaneously emptied the concept "woman" of any associated or related meaning besides "identification". But thsts nonsense because the definition includes (by incorporated) all of those things that are part and parcel of "identification", which includes the social context.

So, no, you haven't put forward an cogent position. Though you do apparently feel the need to take a shot at my vocabulary. Tell you what: give me plain language equivalents for "disjunctive" and "demarcation" and I will use them in conversation from now on.

[Dai Grepher]

You do realize that...

 

This is not the time or place for a debate on gender identity, and it's entirely irrelevant to the thread, as the setting is the Dragon Age universe, where such "studies" and "research" do not exist.
 

[Dai Grepher]

Because people couldn't tell Krem (a minor character you can avoid) he should not be who he is. Humanity please evolve so we can journey into space and be tolerant of weird space aliens.

 

Please don't comment on discussions you did not read beforehand. This has nothing to do with Krem or Dragon Age: Inquisition.

[Dai Grepher]

There may be more than 20% of the population with such foolish and hateful views, but that doesn't mean it is right to pander to such idiocy.

Quality work attracts quality fans, so I can only hope that BioWare continue making great games that respect all sorts of people.

And if that means some people stop playing the games, that's fine. Hopefully they stop whining on the forums as well.

 

It's not pandering to give EVERYONE player choice through varying dialogue options.

 

And who care about what's "right"? Why does it have to be "right" in order for it to be in the game? Should fans say the same thing about homosexuality and transgenderism? Should fans say BioWare should stop "pandering" to those people because they aren't "right"? The sword cuts both ways you know, and you're not exactly being fair.

 

One group of people is okay with alternative sexualities and identities being portrayed, and wants various options across the spectrum in how to interact with these elements. The other group of people wants options they disagree with banned from all future games. Now which group seems to promote more tolerance and freedom here?

 

Quality work allows players to respond with the dialogue choices that best fit their characters.

 

Respect all sorts of people. Like people who disagree with alternate sexualities and gender identities?

[bondari reloads.]

I'm really torn on this. I wrote about it recently in a different thread. As much as I'd hate to say that a trans character shouldn't be a romance because of his/her gender identity, I just don't think that the fanbase is ready for that. I mean, look at the 'controversy' that arose simply from Weekes saying that they will include trans characters in future games. Their very presence is causing paranoid predictions of players being 'forced' to 'agree with transgenderism' and being tricked into being sexually involved with them. I think a slower approach is necessary here. I'd like to see Maevaris play a prominent role (hopefully as a companion) in an upcoming game first.

I know it's an unusually conservative approach from me, but I just can't shake it (even though it makes me feel kind of icky).

Agreed. Nevermind his personality and backstory as well as his involvement in the plot as IB's lieutenant, this won't matter at all once it's out there that this was a political rather than a design choice, and ultimately do more harm than good. To even consider those misinterpretations makes me kinda uneasy, since they should not matter in the first place - ideally. But it would make me mad to see that kind of thing backfire on a job well done. Maevaris, though - I can totally see that happen. Hope it does, too.

That is why I said Weekes could just throw all reservations to the wind and pull it off. Gaider's infamous opposition to dwarven love would pale in comparison.

[Dai Grepher]

This is the 'chicken little' approach that I've been talking about.  Because hypothetically there might be a game in the future that doesn't allow you to 'disagree with transgenderism' and it might cause people to boycott the game which if there's enough of them could lead to the demise of the franchise.  There are so many qualifiers in this, it's not really a realistic concern.  Especially because you have presented zero evidence that anyone outside of you will take this stance and certainly not a significant portion of the fanbase.

 

 

Re-read what I said.  I didn't say that everyone who chooses that option is thinking this.  I'm saying that anyone who is inclined to think this way already would likely choose these options and happily move on feeling justified.  Those are two completely different things.  I'm not at all convinced that anyone who isn't already open to the possibility of 'supporting' trans people will have their minds changed because of the option to 'disagree with transgenderism' in the game.  Isn't that your argument?  That allowing 'disagreement' on transgenderism will open up dialogue and benefit the trans community?

 

 

There is a significant difference between a group that could be interepreted as an analog to a real-world group and one that is actually a real-world group, though.  Especially when those real-world groups are still actively facing some pretty hefty oppression in most of the world.

 

I didn't write boycott. Just stop buying the games. A boycott is when you openly protest something and encourage others to stop buying it. And I'm not using the possibility of fan flight as a reason for anything. I'm pointing out that encouraging fans to stop buying the games is a stupid move on Weekes' part, especially since there is NO REASON to alienate those players. Giving them dissenting dialogue options hurts no one and retains those fans. This is not a difficult concept.

 

I don't need evidence to make the point I'm making, which is that it is a foolish business decision to discourage fans from buying your product.

 

Okay then, they choose the option and feel justified. So what? As if that feeling of justification wasn't already cemented in their minds to begin with. As if not having those options will somehow lift this belief from their minds. SO WHAT?! So all the other fans have to suffer a dialogue that funnels everyone into the same response simply because some people who you disagree with might actually role-play in a role-playing game and believe themselves to be even more right than they already believed? Talk about Chicken Little.
 

... What?! I don't care if people have their minds changed to support transgenderism or not. That isn't the purpose of a video game! That isn't the goal of an RPG! The purpose and the goal is to have fun and create your own character! I have written that on the flip side of this, people who support transgenderism would benefit from dissenting options existing because then they would have the freedom to CHOOSE to support transgenderism with their character, rather than have BioWare basically take control of their character (along with everyone else's) and make that choice for them.

 

Doesn't matter. Gaider and Weekes have stated that storylines should not be cut or withheld simply because they might offend people. And in this case Weekes wouldn't even be offending anyone with his storyline, he would merely be allowing individual players to choose options that dissent. If those players are offended by such dialogue options, then they shouldn't pick them. They should pick the options that support what they like. And if the mere existence of those options offends them, or the idea that others can pick them offends them, then too bad. It shouldn't offend them. They should deal with it, or ignore it. But banning those options because they might hurt someone's feelings? That's just patronizing. It's basically saying that those groups are too emotionally fragile to even see a dissenting opinion in a dialogue wheel.

 

And there's no difference in cases of options to kill or steal and players who have felt the harmful effects of those actions. These elements should not be removed from Dragon Age simply because some players were victimized in those ways in the past.

[Dai Grepher]

I suspect some might not like how expression of this alternate view would actually turn out in-game. More than likely, the PC would simply be refuted, and there'd be no real response there, because it's not as if the alternate viewpoint on the nature of Krem really has much to stand on in terms of a solid argument.

 

In any case, if it's any consolation, you can always, well….have the Chargers die and it would be your final insult to what Krem represents. XD

 

Even if refuted somehow, at least the player character would get to voice his or her opinion. There's always a response. "I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree."

 

What?! Oh no, letting the Charges die is transphobic. That option should be removed from the game in the next patch.
 

[Dai Grepher]

Actually there is certainly the option to not care and move on. "What about the rest of your team?"

Again, we are not talking about anything in Inquisition for this particular point. This point is about FUTURE titles. I wrote that the alarm would be that the future title would not have an option like the one you stated, where the custom character can simply not care and move on.

[Dai Grepher]

I'm really torn on this.  I wrote about it recently in a different thread.  As much as I'd hate to say that a trans character shouldn't be a romance because of his/her gender identity, I just don't think that the fanbase is ready for that.  I mean, look at the 'controversy' that arose simply from Weekes saying that they will include trans characters in future games.  Their very presence is causing paranoid predictions of players being 'forced' to 'agree with transgenderism' and being tricked into being sexually involved with them.  I think a slower approach is necessary here.  I'd like to see Maevaris play a prominent role (hopefully as a companion) in an upcoming game first. 

 

I know it's an unusually conservative approach from me, but I just can't shake it (even though it makes me feel kind of icky).

 

No, it isn't their presence in the game that is causing discussion of not having choice. It's the statement of not having choice that is causing discussion of not having choice.
 

[AlanC9]

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.

You're not scared? You seem to be spending an awful lot of energy on this hypothetical event that you're not scared of. Edit: seven posts on this page, and counting.

I still don't see how this hypothetical actually happens, or even what's in it. Not because it wouldn't fit Bio's vision or something, but it seems just kinda silly. What would the PC actually be doing to promote transgenderism? I can't even visualize it without coming up with dialogue as horrible as that line you proposed earlier.

And really, you can drop the "custom characters" smokescreen.

[BansheeOwnage]

Yes, I imagine that sooner or later a game will come out with a very deliberately ultra feminine, attractive, alluring woman, carefully written to be as enticing as possible. A romance arc will play out, and only once the (male) player is throughly invested, she'll announce herself as transgender.

Cue the gleeful squeals of people ecstatically claiming the inevitable rage is 'proof' of how people are as attracted to transgenders as normal women. All tremendously stupid nonsense, of course.

Honestly, I wouldn't put it past BioWare to try and pull that kind of moronic stunt.

That is indeed a moronic stunt, which is why I don't see Bioware doing that. There is no way you're going to get far into a romance (probably not into one at all) without her telling you she's transgender. In DA at least.

[DuskWanderer]

You're not scared? You seem to be spending an awful lot of energy on this hypothetical event that you're not scared of. Edit: seven posts on this page, and counting.

I still don't see how this hypothetical actually happens, or even what's in it. Not because it wouldn't fit Bio's vision or something, but it seems just kinda silly. What would the PC actually be doing to promote transgenderism? I can't even visualize it without coming up with dialogue as horrible as that line you proposed earlier.

And really, you can drop the "custom characters" smokescreen.

 

There's no reason why BioWARE can't give us horribly written dialogue. "The Last Resort of Good Men" was nothing but terrible dialogue.

[BansheeOwnage]

So long as you're not trying to pretend one thing is another. The desire to be transgender may very well be determined biologically. That says utterly nothing about the validity of it.

No one "desires" to be transgender. They are, or they aren't.

 

 

I suck at irony. I really do. I'll do better next time.

As for his orientation, would making him a LI in the sequel be too much to ask? I can picture Weekes just up and do it.

Ah, I apologize. About Krem as a romance, see Daveliam's response.

[Joseph Warrick]

Your inability to grasp set theory is not an argument against clear definitions. The definition of "woman" as "person who identifies as a woman" clearly demarcates women from non-women (the sets are clearly disjunctive) and provides an accessible litmus test for checking set membership. There's absolutely no sensible basis for a complaint from a definitional POV.

 

That definition is funny.

 

A tiger is an animal that is a tiger.

 

The color red is the color of the red things.

[BansheeOwnage]

Again, we are not talking about anything in Inquisition for this particular point. This point is about FUTURE titles. I wrote that the alarm would be that the future title would not have an option like the one you stated, where the custom character can simply not care and move on.

Alright, well in that case I think you worry too much Bioware might learn slowly, but if/when they handle Maevaris I'm sure it will be more polished than with Krem. They even said they could have done better.

 

That definition is funny.

 

A tiger is an animal that is a tiger.

 

The color red is the color of the red things.

That's how definitions work. You can't understand them without understanding other definitions. If I ever become a parent, I'm sure I'll have tons of fun teaching my child language too.

[KaiserShep]

Ohh, set theory, huh? You mentioned math and used big words like 'demarcate' and 'disjunctive.' How very impressive sounding. And now apparently necessary to understand what a woman is, huh?

Well, I'm afraid I have a minor in math, so this kind of thing doesn't really bother me all that much.

When the literal only difference between elements of two sets are that they belong to difference sets, the sets themselves don't mean anything beside the tautology that they exist as two sets. Pretty much by definition.

 

There are no big words. Not to those with heroic hearts. 

[DuskWanderer]

I'm really torn on this.  I wrote about it recently in a different thread.  As much as I'd hate to say that a trans character shouldn't be a romance because of his/her gender identity, I just don't think that the fanbase is ready for that.  I mean, look at the 'controversy' that arose simply from Weekes saying that they will include trans characters in future games.  Their very presence is causing paranoid predictions of players being 'forced' to 'agree with transgenderism' and being tricked into being sexually involved with them.  I think a slower approach is necessary here.  I'd like to see Maevaris play a prominent role (hopefully as a companion) in an upcoming game first. 

 

I know it's an unusually conservative approach from me, but I just can't shake it (even though it makes me feel kind of icky).

 

We're already forced to agree with it, Weekes has made it abundantly clear he will refuse to allow to be "hateful" (whatever that means, lots of people use the word hate without understanding what it means), and you should be ashamed that you think the word "conservative" is icky. 

[Joseph Warrick]

 

That's how definitions work. You can't understand them without understanding other definitions.

 

Knowing other, different words is expected. However, I would like to be able to understand the definition of a word without having prior knowledge of the definition of that same word. I'm not fond of infinite loops.

[daveliam]

We're already forced to agree with it, Weekes has made it abundantly clear he will refuse to allow to be "hateful" (whatever that means, lots of people use the word hate without understanding what it means), and you should be ashamed that you think the word "conservative" is icky. 

 

No you aren't.  That is factually incorrect.  More evidence of pearl clutching and hyperbole.

 

And the word doesn't make me feel uncomfortable; the idea that I think that the developers shouldn't go forward with a certain character type for a romance because the playerbase can't handle it is what makes me feel uncomfortable.  But think whatever you want, pal........

[KaiserShep]

Again, we are not talking about anything in Inquisition for this particular point. This point is about FUTURE titles. I wrote that the alarm would be that the future title would not have an option like the one you stated, where the custom character can simply not care and move on.

I usually save my alarm for when things actually happen, not when entertaining the possibility of something happening based on some predictive arguments.