If their alienation from a video games series is the result of their own (acknowledged or not) homophobia, racism, and/or misogyny, then I would hope that EA and Bioware would indeed let those gamers go for good.
I mean, where does it end? If a small group of players demanded the ability to be rude/assholes at the idea of three women being at the head of the Inquisition, should Bioware have catered to them, so as not to lose those few players?
Oh, and I'm expecting at this point that the Warden/Hawke left in the fade ultimately escapes and lives while the "surviving" Warden/Hawke gets murdered at Weisshaupt or something.
Oh, and I'm expecting at this point that the Warden/Hawke left in the fade ultimately escapes and lives while the "surviving" Warden/Hawke gets murdered at Weisshaupt or something.
Oh, and I'm expecting at this point that the Warden/Hawke left in the fade ultimately escapes and lives while the "surviving" Warden/Hawke gets murdered at Weisshaupt or something.
Your mind works in mysterious ways and I love it.
Lol... I hope not.That would be magnificent trolling. I really hope this happens.
They wouldn't avoid the games - Bioware games are just too good and too rare a thing. They'll just be offended and less inclined to _pay_ for the game. For example, every second DA blog review(including comments) in Russia mentions "too much homosexuality, wish it wasn't there", including several of the best and most prominent Russian sci-fi writers. And Russia is a huge, huge, huge market, so, yeah, spitting on those customers might bite the company in the long run. Funny thing is, there's no problem with Krem, because that's viewed more like the tradition of girls wearing male clothing from the Shakespearian times or Soviet movies like Treasure Island and Truffaldino. But anyway, I'd say that about or over a half of Russian audience would be offended by "go find another game", yeah.
The only things that should really cater to Russia these days are vodka and dash cams. I don't think it's a good idea at all to cater to them in terms of fictional content, given their poor track record.
"I'm going to inject -stuff- into the plot, and if you don't like it, tough!"
-A good writer of something, any medium, ever.
Also you're obviously pointing out it's indeed transgederism in general for you, and not the limited RP-options. You do realize that changes the entire point?
If DA gets too transgendery for you, then "tough". I don't like GoT because it's often too unsettling for me to watch after work to relax, but I don't go on and demand that they include less "rapism and murderism".
No, I'm pointing out how Weeks' most recent statement on the issue is a departure from the standard he himself set during Inquisition's development. Couple that with the decision to not allow the player's character to disagree with it, and thus we arrive at the point: Limiting player choice does a disservice to the game, the characters, and the players. I have already written that I am in favor of transgender characters being featured in the games. So obviously that isn't an issue for me. My request is one of player choice. Not just for the sake of disagreeing with the gender concept, but also for people who want to promote that concept. If you have no choice but to promote the concept, then your support of it rings hollow because every character is forced to promote it.
That's your prerogative, but this is mine. And GRRM writes GoT for his own amusement. That's far different from Dragon Age, which is a commercial product of multiple people, not a hobby of one man.
That's your prerogative, but this is mine. And GRRM writes GoT for his own amusement. That's far different from Dragon Age, which is a commercial product of multiple people, not a hobby of one man.
I don't really see the difference. Both are works of fiction and both creators profit from it.
If you want that, than they would also have to have options to be openly racist and sexist. We have enough of that in real life, seriously.
More importantly, those concepts don't really exist in Thedas anyway.
We can be racist though. My Origin Elf hates humans and bashed them all the time. My human noble treats elves like dirt. My Dwarf Warden mocked surfacer culture at every turn.
What rational objections would those be? Or rather, how do we distinguish the rational objections from the irrational ones?
The ones I already raised about player choice and roleplaying. For example, what if the next game has us pick a character from Par Vollen? And what if I pick a Qunari? Not just of the race, but of the belief as well? What if I want a Qunari like Sten, who had a very clear, black and white picture of gender, sex, and gender roles? What if I want a Qunari who comes upon a transgender and wants to follow the Qun philosophy to the most literal degree and have that person re-educated? Is Weeks saying this won't be an option because he thinks my motive would arise from some phobia? Bull crap. It has nothing to do with what I personally agree or disagree with. It would be a logical result of the circumstances based on pre-established lore.
The objections can be differentiated from open and polite discussion. If the person's rationale is unsound, then it should be obvious.
Limiting player choice does a disservice to the game, the characters, and the players.
The only things that should really cater to Russia these days are vodka and dash cams. I don't think it's a good idea at all to cater to them in terms of fictional content, given their poor track record.
I was resisting saying something along similar lines but with far less tact or diplomacy than you have. Suffice it to say if I ever did sense that BioWare had changed anything, cut out anything, put in anything merely to cater to Russian sensibilities about lgbt issues then I'd probably cease buying their games.
The ones I already raised about player choice and roleplaying. For example, what if the next game has us pick a character from Par Vollen? And what if I pick a Qunari? Not just of the race, but of the belief as well? What if I want a Qunari like Sten, who had a very clear, black and white picture of gender, sex, and gender roles? What if I want a Qunari who comes upon a transgender and wants to follow the Qun philosophy to the most literal degree and have that person re-educated? Is Weeks saying this won't be an option because he thinks my motive would arise from some phobia? Bull crap. It has nothing to do with what I personally agree or disagree with. It would be a logical result of the circumstances based on pre-established lore.
The objections can be differentiated from open and polite discussion. If the person's rationale is unsound, then it should be obvious.
Well, this is kind of the reason why BioWare is likely not going to have us be able to play a Qun adherent, or a Tevinter slaver, because it's a lot of content dedicated to this one type of character. Despite the playable origin sequences, even the Warden is on rails, albeit an elaborate set of them. Heck, even when Hawke can be pretty respectful of the ways of the Qun, can never become a viddathari.
1. They are a statistically insignificant population.
2. Capitulating to them could potentially anger other, potentially larger populations.
3. You don't want to include said option.
I don't see how that's the same situation at all, but okay, instead of "being an ass" I'll change it to "RPing being ignorant yet still deciding to voice an uneducated opinion anyway."
Because they are asking you to produce content you don't want to produce, and because trying to appease people who are fundamentally irrational (ie, those who won't buy the game because it's a huge deal to be able to role-play ignorance re: trans people) is a rabbit hole that isn't worth going down.
1. So are transgenders, but you don't see that as a reason to disregard their requests.
2. The capitulation would be to allow for player choice. Such a capitulation would benefit all players.
3. What matters is what the players want and what will make for the best gameplay experience.
If that one were asking for something outside the scope of the game, like being able to side with Corypheus, that's one thing, because that's not what the game is about. However, in this case the one would only be asking for an opposing dialogue choice to an existing scenario so that the character can state his or her opinion of something. How is that too much to ask, especially in an RPG that is supposed to be about choice?
We can be racist though. My Origin Elf hates humans and bashed them all the time. My human noble treats elves like dirt. My Dwarf Warden mocked surfacer culture at every turn.
Elves and dwarves aren't real life groups though and mocking surfacers is more like mark of classism since race is same.
Players nor characters in the game don't make racist comments towards Isabela, Vivienne, Dorian etc. that would resonate more with IRL racism, but I think it's good to not have this option in my opinion.
If their alienation from a video games series is the result of their own (acknowledged or not) homophobia, racism, and/or misogyny, then I would hope that EA and Bioware would indeed let those gamers go for good.
I mean, where does it end? If a small group of players demanded the ability to be rude/assholes at the idea of three women being at the head of the Inquisition, should Bioware have catered to them, so as not to lose those few players?
Why? How does keeping or dropping those players affect you? And would they be right to say that BioWare should drop players who promote homosexuality and transgenderism?
If the demand would change the very nature of the game, or if the demand is based on nothing substantial, then no. Otherwise, BioWare should take the request into consideration.
I think this case has a rational and substantial basis, and it's one that Patrick Weeks held during Inquisition's development. One that he seems to have abandoned since.
I don't really see the difference. Both are works of fiction and both creators profit from it.
One cares about selling the product to a wide consumer base. The other does not.
Well, that's fine, if you're perfectly okay with being called a bigot by the rest of the community.
Anyone who disagrees with the aggressive push of sexual politics is a bigot, right? It's a totalitarian doctrine that will allow no dissent. As an offshoot of political correctness in general, that's to be expected.
I have no issue with allowing everyone to think and feel however they want about sexuality. The thing is, I mean everyone, not just the gay/lebian/trans community.
This is the second recent interview I've read where everything seems to take a back seat to the modern politics imposed on medieval high fantasy. Humor me with a reality break, however ill-placed you think it may be. During these times, life was cheap. Besides diseases and plagues, men marched to their deaths to the point of decimating themselves. Fortunately, a single fertile man can easily impregnate hundreds of fertile women, which makes fertile women at least two orders of magnitude more important than men to the survival of the race. The population can bounce back in a generation. There was no in-vitro. There was no surrogacy. And women have the wombs and the breasts, so they stay home, have the kids, and raise them, as isolated from danger as possible. Sex with another man for fun might have been common in the field, but it had little to do with the serious business of procreation.
This was not only an issue for the Great Unwashed. Nobility had to produce heirs and bloodlines. While they would be a lot more free to pursue their sexual tastes however they wanted, again, the serious business of furthering themselves was front and center.
Religion imposed a much-more strict morality. Because life was so cheap, and science was virtually unknown, the afterlife occupied their minds much more than it does ours. Modern political movements seeking to override the traditional dogma would have as much chance as a snowball in hell. Religion was a political as well as a moral force.
Now, back to the Dragon Age fantasy. As I said, I have no issue with anyone thinking whatever they like, including the writers. But does this hot potato have to be the central social issue in these games? Really? Why don't they add helicopters, tanks and ICBMs while they're at it? Modern warfare would not be any more anachronistic.
One cares about selling the product to a wide consumer base. The other does not.
You mean Game of Thrones right? because if they did not care to sell it at a wider consumer base the series would had been a lot more like the books. The whole Dorne shitty plot at the moment is a good example.
Edit: Also in the next game I hope I can say, being cis is overrated and heteros are boring.
That's not what this is about, though. If the dialogue you want gets into the game, a different dialogue option gets taken out. It's not about the amount of player choice at all, but rather the specific nature of the choices that do get in.
That IS what this is about. Weeks (in my best understanding of the tweets) is talking about injecting liberal ideals into the game with reckless abandon, not giving the players a choice in how to respond through our custom characters, and then flipping us the bird if we don't like it by assuming we're all phobic rather than simply rational gamers who want more dialogue options and a better roleplay experience.
I completely disagree that adding one or two more options to a conversation forces other things out of the game. And even if it did, I'll gladly give up a few fetch quests for it, as I'm sure most of us would.
"Nature of the choices" would require there actually be more than just the option to blindly agree with the gender concept.
#BiowareTalk with @PatrickWeekes: The next @dragonage will not be @davidgaider next story, @PatrickWeekes respects his work TOOOO much
I think we can all agree on one thing; Twitter sucks when it comes to trying to do an interview.
Well, this is kind of the reason why BioWare is likely not going to have us be able to play a Qun adherent, or a Tevinter slaver, because it's a lot of content dedicated to this one type of character. Despite the playable origin sequences, even the Warden is on rails, albeit an elaborate set of them. Heck, even when Hawke can be pretty respectful of the ways of the Qun, can never become a viddathari.
You're probably right that they won't have such a flexible character in the next game, but that was just an example. My point is that if the scenario arises where you interact with a trans character and are forced to stand there and listen to the forced, pro-transgender message, then as a player you should at least have choices on how to respond to it, not just one "choice" of agreeing with it and encouraging it. Remember the widow and her husband's ring? Remember how Laidlaw touted the awesome option to not care about her plight and just move on to things you consider more important? Yeah. So why shouldn't we have the same option with the transgender character?
My point is that if the scenario arises where you interact with a trans character and are forced to stand there and listen to the forced, pro-transgender message, then as a player you should at least have choices on how to respond to it, not just one "choice" of agreeing with it and encouraging it.
There is no "pro-transgender message". Nobody is asking for your blessings or qualms on the matter.
Your character can act either clumsy or polite. Whether it is "pro" or "con" to be transgender or not, is none of your goddamn business.
Until you -or your character- is faced with doubts about your/their psychological gender, that is.
You mean Game of Thrones right? because if they did not care to sell it at a wider consumer base the series would had been a lot more like the books. The whole Dorne shitty plot at the moment is a good example.
Edit: Also in the next game I hope I can say, being cis is overrated and heteros are boring.
I mean George R.R. Martin, not the show producers and rewriters who are milking the series.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
