256 réponses à ce sujet

[Darth_Atreyu]

Just going to leave this here.

clickbait site?

[Former_Fiend]

clickbait site?

 

No, just an article relevant to the discussion on the cultural values of people in the middle ages.

[Sartoz]

Now.  There was a time not too long ago when it was seen as inappropriate for a lady ever to be completely unclothed, so she would keep one garment on while bathing, and then swap it out later.

 

                                                                         <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

LOL... not a pretty picture compared to today's shower selfies.

 

Yep, males that want to control the supposedly "free will" of the female. Forcing them to bathe with clothes on, calling them whores but not the guy who uses their services. Disgusting, hypocritical attitude. Men who accuse females for wearing "revealing clothes" but easily forget their own sins... you know, the branch in one's eye vs the sliver in the one you accuse? For Bible junkies, how easily they dish out the hurt but forget that Jesus preached and went amongst the sinners or the old but good ".. cast the first stone?".

 

Frankly, a M rated game that says NUDITY, is a game these guys are told to avoid. Yet, here they are.

[Former_Fiend]

And with that, I abandon thread.

[Quarian Master Race]

Of course it is. But where does the personal attacks come into it? Criticise the idea and leave the condescending remarks out of it. There's no intelligent discussion to be had from calling people 'children' and 'prudes', it simply increases the level of toxicity and intolerance to opposing views.

Since when is calling things how they are a personal attack? A prude is, according to Merriam-Webster one who is "easily shocked or offended by things that do not shock or offend other people" or "who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum", significantly in excess of normal prevailing standards. Anyone who is overly obsessed with wanting developers to waste huge amounts of time and effort on a toggle to remove mature content from a mature rated video game at the expense of more meaningful content could be easily described as such. As for children, that is the only demographic other than prudes for which there could be any justification for such a feature, but since these games are not targeted at children, there is no real need for it in that case either. The offense that anyone takes at my (proper, I might add)"toxic" use of such language frankly does not concern me, and your accusation of "intolerance" is utterly laughable. When I get moderator privlidges and start banning everyone who posts stupid, irrational (given the content of these games) and ill informed opinions, than that qualifier might have more merit, though even then I'd argue it is simply removing undesirable elements responsible for perpetrating unreasonable discord from the community.

 

That's a silly comparison. Of course any kind of toggle based on discrimination would be in a whole different league. Consideration of people not wanting to experience excessive violence isn't similar to giving in to homophobia and sexism. Was DA:O discriminating to you with its gore toggle?

It isn't at all, because toggles for eliminating nudity or other sexual content are entirely based upon outdated, classist and often sexist interpretations of human sexuality, such as concepts of "decorum" and "propriety" in which there is an implicit assertion that not ascribing to such ridiculous, illogical moral concepts is somehow a sign of being less proper or lacking in morality. It is just as exclusionary and discriminatory a belief system as those which include homophobia or sexism (indeed, there is quite a bit of overlap with the latter in terms of where such attitudes are sourced from). Toggles for supposedly inappropriate language are similar, in that many of the words that are considered "inappropriate" evolved out of terms used by those lower in the social caste systems or who were otherwise considered undesirables (in the case of English, curses and profanity are often based upon Gaelic terms. For Russian матерщи́на, a dozens of terms are derived from Mongol, Caucasian or Turkic languages).

Gore is slightly different. Personally I don't think that anything beyond a reasonably realistic depiction of violence should be used. This goes both ways, i.e bloodless deaths as well as bodies being eviscerated because of a simple shot to the arm by a relatively underpowered weapon are ridiculous. ME really has neither, so anyone who is complaining one way or the other is being unreasonable. If time was invested in that gore toggle in DA:O that could have been invested in meaningful content, than yes I was technically being discriminated against, not that discrimination should really take precedence over popular opinion or writer/creator/artist intent. There are also the disparate national ratings boards that Bioware has to navigate, and if they have unreasonable opinions on gore, than it is in EA/Bioware's financial interest to include such toggles or otherwise lose large marketshares. I don't agree with it, but that is understandable. People simply asking that bioware change their product to appeal to their own minority, personal tastes despite the fact that it would not gain maketshare and would objectively make the game worse in other areas due to the logistics of resource appropriation, however, are not reasonable or understandable, and their opinions should not be treated as such.

 

People pointlessly argue for hundreds of things weekly. Weird sex fetishes, playing as Shepard's son or daughter, the freedom to kill every NPC you meet. Should we round those thread-starters up and tell them how [insert insult] they are till they stay quiet with their silly ideas we don't agree with? Or should we perhaps accept that there'll be lots of suggestions that only a small minority agree with and that we know will never come to fruition?

and many if not most of those idiotic ideas are universally derided (assuming they aren't obvious trolls, which the explicit content thread isn't). What is your point? Yes, I'm all for those parroting stupid opinions being encouraged to reexamine their ill conceived worldviews and reconsider or else shut the hell up, and I don't think my posts on this topic are any different. The world doesn't exist to ensure you aren't offended or your feelings hurt even if you refuse to examine your opinions or consider at all that you are grossly in the minority. In fact, being challenged and getting hurt feelings are great motivators to becoming a better, more well rounded person.
 

It's mature to act in a civilised manner. I never argued for tolerating the ideas and not speaking up about disagreeing with them - if you got that impression, then I apologise for maybe not making my point clear. I'm not a native English speaker, so it's certainly possible. Anyway, disagree all you like, but try to avoid ganging up on them in what feels like an attempt to virtually oust them from our establishment because their crazy notions aren't welcome here. We're a big community - showing a little respect to those who think differently can go a long way to making the forums a better place to be.

And I assume you are the one who gets to define "civilized", correct Queen Victoria? As long as I'm following the rules of this forum, I see no reason to not post what or how I like, nor to take your implicit accusation of my immaturity (waaahhh ad homenim!) seriously. No one is ganging up on anyone. I'm not communicating with other forumites to coordinate attacks against prudes on how dumb their opinion is or "oust" them. As it turns out, consistently and publicly spewing stupid ideas all over an internet forum tends to make lots of people voice their disagreement with you, who knew?

Respect is a two way street. Asking for ones minority demands be catered to at the expense of the vast, vast majority is in and of itself extremely disrespectful, so why should I care about respecting their thoughts on the issue beyond the merit of the rationale and dialectical reasoning that is presented to me (which in this specific case, is very little)?
 

 

There is and has always been an abundance of threads asking for Bioware to pander to their specific requests. Funnily enough, this guy only asked them to consider a toggle, meaning you'd still get your treasured M-rated content while he could opt out. Yet his thread made people sharpen their pitchforks and gather in the town square. Why is that, I wonder?

Because it means taking content away from other areas that most people actually care about? Resources are finite, and this suggestion would use a large amount of zots to placate an extremely small minority. How hard is that to understand?

No one has sharpened pitchforks or whatever other hyperbolic nonsense metaphor you are using to defend those poor, innocent prudes right to have their cake at the expense of everyone else's. If people stopped posting nonsense, then no one would have to call them out on it, yet they persist for 50+ pages despite the intervention of a developer on the behalf of reason.

[Elhanan]

Vulgarity is often designed to shock and offend; one does not have to be Sherlock to be attentive to that fact.

Options that one does not utilize may be of help to others. If one does not care to use them, then that is a personal choice; same as the other Players that did choose to use them. The Options hurt nobody.

[Former_Fiend]

Vulgarity is often designed to shock and offend; one does not have to be Sherlock to be attentive to that fact.

Options that one does not utilize may be of help to others. If one does not care to use them, then that is a personal choice; same as the other Players that did choose to use them. The Options hurt nobody.

 

Well, I said I was out, but damnit if this didn't pull me back in.

 

For the sake of argument, let's ignore the 'often' there. What's your opinion on explicit material, be it nudity or language, that is included for purposes other than shock and offense? You keep on throwing around the fact that it's "often" to shock and offend, but what about when it isn't? Nothing about the nudity or language in DAI was designed to be shocking or offensive. 

 

Besides, if the purpose of including those materials was to shock and offend someone, then including a toggle for it does kind of defeat the initial point, so the inclusion of that toggle seems counter-intuitive, from a design perspective.

[Monica21]

Vulgarity is often designed to shock and offend; one does not have to be Sherlock to be attentive to that fact.

Options that one does not utilize may be of help to others. If one does not care to use them, then that is a personal choice; same as the other Players that did choose to use them. The Options hurt nobody.

 

Sure they do. It puts more work on the game designers who have finite resources and the end result will suffer. Which means the player base will suffer because something like 100 people want a toggle for what they consider to be explicit content.

 

I do not think that nudity in a sexual situation is explicit. I think it's actually kind of necessary to make the sex, you know, believable. So the people who want the options are requesting that resources be taken from some other part of the game to appeal to them, when in fact, all those people have to do is not play the game.

[pdusen]

The Options hurt nobody.

 

Stop.

[Chealec]

Chaucer's Wife of Bath's tale is fiction written from the point of view of one man, what is your point, that fiction was written during the medieval period?

 

And the Witcher is fiction written now... if the Witcher followed Chaucerian literary standards it would probably be far more crass than it is.

[Chealec]

Could you try to be more condescending please?

 

I live in a town with ~1400 years of history, which is well documented.

 

Please tell me more about my education derived from video games.

 

Damn - you've got me beat by about 400 years, my city was only founded about 1000 years ago :|

 

Though the town I grew up in was probably a Roman roadside settlement so that pushes it back to about 2000 years old!

[Elhanan]

Well, I said I was out, but * if this didn't pull me back in.
 
For the sake of argument, let's ignore the 'often' there. What's your opinion on explicit material, be it nudity or language, that is included for purposes other than shock and offense? You keep on throwing around the fact that it's "often" to shock and offend, but what about when it isn't? Nothing about the nudity or language in DAI was designed to be shocking or offensive. 
 
Besides, if the purpose of including those materials was to shock and offend someone, then including a toggle for it does kind of defeat the initial point, so the inclusion of that toggle seems counter-intuitive, from a design perspective.

I would say the use of vulgarity by Dorian against his father was designed to do just that. Or Blackwall using it towards the Inq. Or rather than vulgar, one could use obscene:

1. - offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.

2. - causing uncontrolled sexual desire.

3. - abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

I use these terms interchangeably myself; have no idea if others take them more specifically.

[Killroy]

Vulgarity is often designed to shock and offend; one does not have to be Sherlock to be attentive to that fact.

Options that one does not utilize may be of help to others. If one does not care to use them, then that is a personal choice; same as the other Players that did choose to use them. The Options hurt nobody.

Did you play the previous Mass Effect games, despite the "vulgarity"? Yes, you did. So this feature would be a waste of everyone's time.

[Chealec]

I would say the use of vulgarity by Dorian against his father was designed to do just that. Or Blackwall using it towards the Inq. Or rather than vulgar, one could use obscene:

1. - offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.

2. - causing uncontrolled sexual desire.

3. - abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

I use these terms interchangeably myself; have no idea if others take them more specifically.

 

 

... but there's nothing in the Mass series that comes close to anything like that ... except maybe, just maybe, the massive pile of corpses in the Citadel at the end of ME3 which could be classified as disgusting or repulsive.

[Former_Fiend]

I would say the use of vulgarity by Dorian against his father was designed to do just that. Or Blackwall using it towards the Inq. Or rather than vulgar, one could use obscene:

1. - offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.

2. - causing uncontrolled sexual desire.

3. - abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

I use these terms interchangeably myself; have no idea if others take them more specifically.

 

You know, I actually had to rewatch the scene with Dorian and his father to remember the use of profanity there. All things considered I think Dorian was being remarkably restrained; were I in his position I'd punch my father in the face.

 

In any event, I don't think the goal there was to offend the player. To offend Dorian's father? Sure, maybe. I think it was more a point of emphasizing his justifiable outrage with his father. I also don't recall any use of profanity from Blackwall that I'd consider offensive. Indeed, I found it rather endearing, and I believe that was it's intention. If you can link a video of the line that you think was intentionally offended, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

In any case, I don't think any language or nudity in DAI qualifies for those definitions. Dorian's father's past behavior qualifies for the first and third, as does Blackwall's past behavior. All of the sexual desire in the series is rather well controlled. There are plenty of things throughout the series I'd consider repulsive, but generally speaking that was the point.

[KaiserShep]

Anyone who is shocked by Dorian's language, despite the clear anguish in his voice, needs to stick to E for Everyone. In this scene, he's obviously heartbroken, and the most he's done to lash out at the man that wanted to use bloodmagic to alter his mind was to say a naughty word. Andraste's ass, I've been trying not to be hostile toward this filter toggle, but it sure is hard.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Anyone who is shocked by Dorian's language, despite the clear anguish in his voice, needs to stick to E for Everyone. In this scene, he's obviously heartbroken, and the most he's done to lash out at the man that wanted to use bloodmagic to alter his mind was to say a naughty word. Andraste's ass, I've been trying not to be hostile toward this filter toggle, but it sure is hard.

 

It's also irritating to have the same conversation in three different threads.

[KaiserShep]

Dagnabbit. Sucks that the titles are identical and I don't always check the name in the header.

[Former_Fiend]

I've been trying to keep to my promise of staying out of the other one. Already reneged on staying out of this one, don't want to do that twice. 

[Elhanan]

Did you play the previous Mass Effect games, despite the "vulgarity"? Yes, you did. So this feature would be a waste of everyone's time.

Yep; benched Vega and played w/o him on most Missions. In DAI, I bench the Iron Bull and Blackwall. Now that someone has suggested another method for including them, am for it.

And I did not purchase ME3 until Chris Priestly and others helped me with info to get around it.

[Elhanan]

Anyone who is shocked by Dorian's language, despite the clear anguish in his voice, needs to stick to E for Everyone. In this scene, he's obviously heartbroken, and the most he's done to lash out at the man that wanted to use bloodmagic to alter his mind was to say a naughty word. Andraste's ass, I've been trying not to be hostile toward this filter toggle, but it sure is hard.

It is offensive; designed to be contextually, and also breaks the DA lore about cursing:

http://dragonage.wik...:_Common_Curses

Now I simply avoid the subject with Dorian, as his language otherwise appears to be suitable.

[Former_Fiend]

I would like to say that you ducked my initial question, Elhanan; what about explicit content that is included without the express intent of offending? You brought up some examples that you think were intentionally offensive - examples I dispute, but that's neither here nor there - but you didn't actually address the question.

[Killroy]

Yep; benched Vega and played w/o him on most Missions. In DAI, I bench the Iron Bull and Blackwall. Now that someone has suggested another method for including them, am for it.

And I did not purchase ME3 until Chris Priestly and others helped me with info to get around it.

Do you expect movie studios to make edited versions of R-rated films to fit your specific(and obviously quite hypocritically flexible) standards of decency? No, you just don't watch those "offensive" movies, correct? Why should video games be held to your absurd standards? Why should ANY artists have to alter their work to fit someone else's childish views of decency? If a few swear words offend you ever so deeply that's a personal issue, not an entertainment issue. You have to choose to be offended by such inconsequential things.

[Former_Fiend]

It is offensive; designed to be contextually, and also breaks the DA lore about cursing:

http://dragonage.wik...:_Common_Curses

Now I simply avoid the subject with Dorian, as his language otherwise appears to be suitable.

 

Did it occur to you that the purpose of that the purpose of that codex entry is to explain the context of curses that are specific to Thedas? The fact that it doesn't include real world curses doesn't mean they don't exist - especially considering that the use of several real world curses in the series predate the existence of that codex entry. 

 

They just aren't included on that list because the writers assume we do not need context on them because we already know what they mean. That doesn't break the lore.

[Elhanan]

Do you expect movie studios to make edited versions of R-rated films to fit your specific(and obviously quite hypocritically flexible) standards of decency? No, you just don't watch those "offensive" movies, correct? Why should video games be held to your absurd standards? Why should ANY artists have to alter their work to fit someone else's childish views of decency? If a few swear words offend you ever so deeply that's a personal issue, not an entertainment issue. You have to choose to be offended by such inconsequential things.

Believe they already do for varied markets; pls seek confirmation.