The issue I am trying to explain, is someone had to have less options due to wanting to add romances. The complaints have very little to do with the dissapointment. I get why guys were dissapointed. Many of us can empathize with the disappointment and have said so on many occasions. We also don't think you guys deserve to have less (and neither did Allan).
I don't fully agree with that it would just take a lot more effort but it isn't a necessity to be balanced of course as the main purpose of the game isn't romance. But it could be balance it just is not the focus of Bioware. (Which is understandable, I'd rather have resources focused on more story arcs, better all round gameplay and world assets than making another romance option).
I think that it's funny of you to write the second line that I highlighted Whenever a straight male says something [nowadays] he is automatically entitled because as I mentioned before, he had it great before so how dare he complain! The sad thing that a lot of people do not seem to realise is that people are willing to and do punish straight males in society and think it is justice because of the past. How can you honestly say that someone comments that "If they were to choose someone to give less to it would be straight males. How would you not think that the same deserves to have less?"
The point is that straight guys so often have extra that when extra time came along, they decided why not give it to someone else? There will be times when someone has extra, nearly all their games have an extra romance for someone. And due to a certain logic, it always went to straight men.
I understand where you are coming from it would definitely happen. In terms of Dragon Age the last two games have favoured females.Which honestly did not matter to me as I was ok with the options I had as a straight male.
Well it's understandable from a business point of view. Straight males most likely make up most of the sales. In this case the certain logic = business sense. When you make a product you cater to your target audience.
As for the last couple of paragraphs.
I understand you are using general terms however you can't and should not lump everyone in the same category and say "you" think and "you" do. You do not know my feelings and views on every situation, now I will try to explain some of my views.
Honestly when the news came out about the LI's I was disappointed about the options that I had available and my response was not take away from females or that I should have 20. I looked at the infamous LI chart and wanted EVERYONE (save females since they were in the lead so to speak) to get more. I was more concerned with equality not justice. However as I saw on the forums a lot of people were more concerned with justice. It was not until I started to see the responses of others on the forums (females, LGBT and Allan) that the thought that it could be a punishment to straight males came to mind. When Allan made his statement is when it hit home.
So is it fair to say it's entitlement when people believe that if someone should be given the short end of the stick it's straight males because justice? That people are ok or willing for them to be punished? It means that it could possibly be punishment because of past trends and that straight males should not complain about it?
My point is using the past (which straight males had no control over mind you since it was the design of the company not us) to say "Hey this time we'll give you [straight males] less if the choice comes up!" is ludicrous. What to me is more childish is "I suffered before so now you must suffer!"
To answer your last question directly, I would not be happy that anyone has less options. I would want everyone to have the best experience possible. What you should be mindful of in future discussions as well, is that not everything is entitlement. And that you should look at how people react to straight males voicing anything currently.
Retour en haut
dwarves)
