630 réponses à ce sujet

[SofaJockey]

Why should it be that way? Why can't BioWare accommodate those concerns by making such elements optional, in other words, easily avoidable? I think you're only saying that because you agree with the message. When Dragon Age only had "Female" elf and Serendipity, a few loud "fans" complained, and BioWare accommodated them. So why are they more worthy of accommodation than a much larger percentage of fans?

 

(sigh)

 

Pandering to the bigots is as dumb as one Russian media outlet demanding a 'gay toggle'...

Thedas is a diverse place: fantastic.

There is a huge difference between characters being hidden away and making romance choices.

Specifically on romance, if folk don't want to bang Dorian, they shouldn't flirt with him.

There is a foolish assumption that different types of content are only played by people with the same 'real life' characteristics, they are not.

The largest group of fans requiring accommodation are those that detest players who are hateful to each other.

We don't have to have that tired unpleasant entitlement debate again do we?

As far as I'm concerned, if folk are offended that content simply exists in the game, not even that they have to select it,

then I'm more than happy that the door slams their ass as they head out of it.

[Dai Grepher]

I'm still shaky on what counts as a "pro-transgender message." What exactly are you worried about?

And I hate to keep beating on ROI, but what I'm getting from you is that not letting the PC be an ass about a transgender NPCs is unacceptable, so they shouldn't have transgender NPcs if they don't want to burn the wordcount for the PC being an ass. This sounds like a caricature, so what's the actual position?

 

I'm worried that the only options we'll be given will be to support the concept of transgenderism, and we'll have no options to voice disagreement with it, or even the option to not care about it at all.

 

Again, I have written that its fine to have transgendered characters in the game, just so long as player characters are not forced to agree with them or encourage their behaviors/actions.

[Dai Grepher]

(sigh)

 

Pandering to the bigots is as dumb as one Russian media outlet demanding a 'gay toggle'...

Thedas is a diverse place: fantastic.

There is a huge difference between characters being hidden away and making romance choices.

Specifically on romance, if folk don't want to bang Dorian, they shouldn't flirt with him.

There is a foolish assumption that different types of content are only played by people with the same 'real life' characteristics, they are not.

The largest group of fans requiring accommodation are those that detest players who are hateful to each other.

We don't have to have that tired unpleasant entitlement debate again do we?

As far as I'm concerned, if folk are offended that content simply exists in the game, not even that they have to select it,

then I'm more than happy that the door slams their ass as they head out of it.

 

But you are wrongly labeling these players as bigots. That's the problem. The other problem is that it isn't pandering to simply allow them the option to disagree or avoid the scenario completely. That's just common courtesy.

 

I don't think anyone was demanding the content be cut from the game, just that it isn't forced on players to agree with and encourage via the custom character and dialogue options.

[Dai Grepher]

On the issue of Hawke still being alive, but the same perhaps not being said for Stroud/Alistair/Loghain...

 

I think this means that the Champion is being saved for a grand epic team-up with the Hero/WC, the Inquisitor, and probably the next new character that we'll pick in the next game.

[AlexiaRevan]

But you are wrongly labeling these players as bigots. That's the problem. The other problem is that it isn't pandering to simply allow them the option to disagree or avoid the scenario completely. That's just common courtesy.

 

I don't think anyone was demanding the content be cut from the game, just that it isn't forced on players to agree with and encourage via the custom character and dialogue options.

And how were you forced to agree ? really ? watever you are smoking must be goddamn Good....

[AlexiaRevan]

Oh, by the way, this is hardly some far-fetched hypothetical process. We can see it happening frequently enough.

The concept of beauty hurts people. It marginalizes and excludes people who don't meet those ideals. So what do people attempt to do? Obliterate the concept of beauty. And so we see drivel such as "all bodies are beautiful" and whatnot. The goal is to turn 'beauty' into a pointless, empty word. To obliterate any meaning behind it.

The concept of gender hurts people. It excludes or marginalized people who don't or can't meet the ideals and norms. So what do people attempt to do? Obliterate the concept of gender. Turn masculinity and femininity into meaningless, empty words. Hence the people gleefully eager to point out that baby boys were once dressed in pink and so forth to 'prove' that anyone who believes masculinity or feminine mean anything is an archaic fool.

Hence the mainstream 'progressive' stance of "A woman is a person who identifies as a woman." It should be obvious to any idiot that this is a definition that literally carries no meaning - which is precisely the point. To make the concept of 'woman'' and therefore gender, as empty and meaningless as possible. To obliterate it.

Inevitably, of course, these attempts have been pathetic failures. And they'll continue to be, since they're utterly inundated with hypocrisy.

Stop smoking elfroot ...

[Ashaantha]

Hawke might not be dead? of course Hawke might not be dead, don't sacrifice Hawke and Hawke will be confirmed alive at the end of DAI.

 

I also never came across being forced to agree with companions, npc's or Krem about their particular choices. I had the option to ignore it completely, which is definitely not the same thing: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

[In Exile]

That in itself is flawed. Physical beauty [a social advantage] or lack there of [a social disadvantage] is a lottery of birth, how do you propose "Equality" deal with such things, make everyone ugly, pretty or plainish?

Or how about something unintuitive, discriminating against the impaired? A disproportionately high number of dyslexics make up the leaders of fortune 500 companies, should there be affirmative action against dyslexics? What about just getting everyone to agree on what constitutes genuine equality in the first place? People have had a field day with that for a long time.

The original and true notion of Equality has never been about balancing the scales, as such becomes inevitably futile, but rather about formal equality before the law. That doesn't mean you are arbitrarily owed anything, or that you should be given special exemption from having your feelings hurt because you're a member of what ever currently fashionable victim-group happens to win out in the lottery of political correctness*.

*Witness many liberals refusing to condemn Islam (whilst having no such qualms with regards to Christianity) for oppressing women because muslims themselves are also a "victim" group.

Equality before the law has absolutely nothing to do with this strange notion of formal equality you seem to think it embodies. Equality before the law means the law applies in the same way *to the same facts and circumstances* which includes people's backgrounds and history.

But more to the point you've misunderstood the point entirely. Who says we should do anything about beauty? It's clearly a disadvantage. But it might not be one that we should care about in terms of social policy. That's the question: what do we as a society think is an unfair disadvantage or advantage that we need to remedy. Following up with that is the question of what we think - again as a society - might remedy the unfairness.

This idea that there's some perfect absolute answer to fundamental questions about the world is nonsense. There's no answer to these issues you'll divine by thinking about it really hard.

But by all means come up with ridiculous hypotheticals you think are proof of something.

[In Exile]

A 'shorthand.'

So is this 'shorthand' accepting of the inevitable inequalities - that's 'inequalities' as in the actual defined word - that have and will arise when we place value on human qualities?

Accepting of the reality that people are going to be excluded, people are going to be marginalized, people are going to be barred from the places they want to be and the roles they want to play?

Largely perfectly innocent and decent people, who often just simply lucked out on the genetic lottery?

And of course, all the effects due to that. Suicides, violence, drugs, abuse, self harm, depression, people shooting up schools and workplaces, yada, yada, yada. The usual stuff.

Or are we back to wringing our hands, saying that's all unacceptable, and demanding 'equality' after all? Equality as in the real word this time around?

Again, this is verbal tossed salad. As best I can tell what you're trying to argue is that by deciding that some particular feature is an advantage we've somehow devalued the people who have it. That's just nonsense.

But what goes beyond nonsense - into the realm of the actually absurd - is the apparent suggestion that it's being mean to people with advantages that leads to school shootings.

This isn't an idea. This isn't even an intellectual position.

[Dieb]

I still can't believe the "don't alienate people who alienate people"-argument hasn't run dry in nine pages.

 

It adds a very handy veteran-vibe on the internet to pander to "harsh reality", but call me glass-half-full when I say the actual reality is that we've overcome even more dangerous mindsets yet, and we will continue to do so.

 

P.S.: We should also narrow down whether this is about character choice for the sake of roleplay, or personal issues. Because whether you fellas realize it or not, your language keeps rubberbanding back and forth between either.

[KaiserShep]

This discussion on the inherent inequalities of humanity and how it relates to equality in terms of public policy is super riveting.

[TK514]

P.S.: We should also narrow down whether this is about character choice for the sake of roleplay, or personal issues. Because whether you fellas realize it or not, your language keeps rubberbanding back and forth between either.

I can't speak for others, but my position relates only to character choice.

[StanojeZ]

We were supposed to meet Architect here and that almost became true?! Does this mean that he would have been one of Corypheuses chest pieces and would have been behind screwing with wardens?

 

"Chest pieces"? Like, Corypheus going all Orsino man-mountain-of-bodies?

:-o

[Panda]

"Chest pieces"? Like, Corypheus going all Orsino man-mountain-of-bodies?

:-o

 

Well I was meaning more similar lore as Calpernia, Samson or some other somehow misguided follower of Corypheus. Maybe Architect would have replaced the Tevinter mage that manipulated Wardens to summon demons and acted as one of Corypheuses top followers.

 

That's not role I'd want for him though, I'd have loved if he instead wanted to bring Corypheus down and sided with Inquisition or that Inquisition at least had opporunity to side with him, but I think him serving Corypheus could have been one of choices for his role in DAI.

[BSpud]

*Witness many liberals refusing to condemn Islam (whilst having no such qualms with regards to Christianity) for oppressing women because muslims themselves are also a "victim" group.  

 

LOL

[Dabrikishaw]

Hey hey, David's on about something that doesn't exist again (except in his mind)!

Is he David?

[SofaJockey]

I don't think anyone was demanding the content be cut from the game, just that it isn't forced on players to agree with and encourage via the custom character and dialogue options.

 

Ah, you want to give players the option for the protagonist to behave as a bigot in game?

Nope that makes no sense to me at all.

 

And what would that look like in the dialogue tree?

 

'Actually Krem I'm going to refer to you as 'she' because' I'm an ass and I want to disregard your experience...'

'Yes Dorian, you should get yourself magically 'fixed' because my preferences of normality must be imposed on everyone else...'

 

BioWare are more than entitled to tell a range of stories.

If some players have irrational hang ups about some of those stories then that is their issue, not BioWare's.

And that is pretty much the stance that has been articulated by them.

[BSpud]

I wish we could torture our Mabari hounds. Stupid animal-lover agenda ruining my roleplay.

[KaiserShep]

I wish we could torture our Mabari hounds. Stupid animal-lover agenda ruining my roleplay.

Heh, well, if you play a dwarf or elf, you do have a chance to kill a mabari, though the kennel master just sees you as doing what had to be done. 

[daveliam]

The bottom line is that every game limits choice in some capacity.  I've never seen a game ever that didn't limit your choices in some capacity, for obvious reasons.  This means that developers need to make decisions on how they are going to limit the players.  Those decisions are theirs to make. 

 

These developers have a clear stance that they don't allow you to RP a character who shows bigotry towards groups that exist in the real world (LGBT individuals, women, etc.).  Bigotry towards fictional groups (elves, mages, etc.) is possible.  Whether it would 'add to the experience' for some people or not is irrelevant because they've made their stance clear on this.  Additionally, for the vast majority, this request is either not important or something not wanted.  I do not see how adding this option in will affect sales in any significant way.

 

And, to be honest, I'm thoroughly unconvinced that the reason for asking for this is because of a 'more choices is always better' attitude, despite what people say.  I'm confident that there's a distinct undertone that belies the true root of this request. 

[Linkenski]

They can play around with romances and plot progressions in any way they like, as long as it doesn't come as a result of some angry fans saying "we want you to do this in the next game!" and then Bioware ends up doing it because they feel forced to.

 

Storytelling and writing has to come from a place of honesty from its creators or it just usually doesn't become good IMO.

[dsl08002]

I'm worried that the only options we'll be given will be to support the concept of transgenderism, and we'll have no options to voice disagreement with it, or even the option to not care about it at all.
 
Again, I have written that its fine to have transgendered characters in the game, just so long as player characters are not forced to agree with them or encourage their behaviors/actions.

There is another problem as well, I understand why bioware wants to enlarge this but it just doesn't fit in a game that could take place in the medieval period, and I cant imagine that if the Chantry is an inspiration of the church would allow this because this would be considered TABU.
it just feels so out of place

I understand why Bioware want to do it and they should, but they need to look at this from another perspective, How was it back then and how was it viewed.

[The Loyal Nub]

Oh, by the way, this is hardly some far-fetched hypothetical process. We can see it happening frequently enough.

The concept of beauty hurts people. It marginalizes and excludes people who don't meet those ideals. So what do people attempt to do? Obliterate the concept of beauty. And so we see drivel such as "all bodies are beautiful" and whatnot. The goal is to turn 'beauty' into a pointless, empty word. To obliterate any meaning behind it.

The concept of gender hurts people. It excludes or marginalized people who don't or can't meet the ideals and norms. So what do people attempt to do? Obliterate the concept of gender. Turn masculinity and femininity into meaningless, empty words. Hence the people gleefully eager to point out that baby boys were once dressed in pink and so forth to 'prove' that anyone who believes masculinity or feminine mean anything is an archaic fool.

Hence the mainstream 'progressive' stance of "A woman is a person who identifies as a woman." It should be obvious to any idiot that this is a definition that literally carries no meaning - which is precisely the point. To make the concept of 'woman'' and therefore gender, as empty and meaningless as possible. To obliterate it.

Inevitably, of course, these attempts have been pathetic failures. And they'll continue to be, since they're utterly inundated with hypocrisy.

 

I don't think your concept of beauty has anything to do with rights for transgender individuals or respecting them or characters based on them.

 

I don't think your concept of beauty, or the concept of beauty (whatever the heck that is as it's always been entirely subjective) for that matter, has anything to do with issues relating to, or the concept of, gender.

 

You have an absolutely excellent way of framing an argument that is not based on anything meaningful or based on anything in actual, objective, reality. Kudos on being able to do that but, also, get real kid.

[Ajna]

Because no matter how optional and minimal those elements are, some people will still whine.

Krem has maybe five minutes of dialogue about his gender. Dorian has one quest to go see his estranged father in which his sexuality is a major plot point which lasts maybe ten minutes. That's fifteen minutes of content in a game that can easily last a hundred hours or more. And yet, people still complain. Why bother trying to please them?


Ultimately, players can complain about whatever they want. Some of it I agree with (bring back the Tactics system!) and some of it I don't (really could not care less about hairstyles.) Whether BioWare listens or not is up to them. I don't think BioWare should put stuff in the game or take it out just because fans say so - that would lead to a very weird game if they tried to listen to everyone. That doesn't mean fans never make a reasonable argument for what they want, and I think the people who complained about Serendipity had a good point. Apparently the writers agreed with me.


Frankly, I don't think accommodating players who want to roleplay characters who are jerks about this particular issue is worth the genuine pain it would cause some trans players to see those dialogue options pop up.

The game is full of an infinite number of things your Inquisitor cannot do. You cannot refuse to become the Inquisitor. You cannot side with Corypheus. You cannot murderknife random people. You cannot abandon the story and run away to Antiva. The same is true of all previous BioWare games. There's only so much energy they're willing to expend on letting your character be an arsehole. I think that if they want to give us more jerk choices, they'd be much better off letting us murderknife more people or hate on entirely fictional groups like elves and mages than giving us the option to be rude to Krem for no reason. One of DAI's weaknesses is a real lack of 'Renegade' options, but I really don't think that conversation needed one.

Holy crap, I need the option to LOVE this! A mere like is unacceptable!

[leadintea]

Even though Krem's quest did feel a bit preachy, I never felt the need to disagree with his transexuality because we really never had any options to actually support it. The only options we had were to question it or ignore it and move on to the other chargers. In Dorian's case, however, I do feel like we should have had an option to chastise him for his behavior. In his case, we get 1 option to support his decision and 2 options that just dismiss the entire matter. The worst part about all of it is that Dorian's quest wasn't even about his sexuality, so giving us the option to disagree with his choice to abandon his family wouldn't even be bigoted and would've been more on the lines of chastising Merrill for pursuing the Eluvian instead of listening to her clan's warnings.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that if we're given an option to support a certain matter, we should also be given an option to disagree with it. After all, fair's fair, and all that, right? In Krem's case, we didn't get an option to support his transexuality, so we didn't need need an option to disagree with it. On the other hand, in Dorian's case we did get an option to support his decision, even getting to call it "brave" to abandon his country's traditions, yet we didn't get an option to tell him that he should've honored his family and country's ways and gone through with his marriage arrangement? That's bullshit, plain and simple.