793 réponses à ce sujet

[Garlador]

I'm mature enough to handle a game with tasteful nudity...

... and I'm mature enough to accept a romance without sideboob and blue alien buttocks.

[Vlainstrike]

Khavos wrote...

Vlainstrike wrote...

Well you'd beter get over yourself, because you don't dictate to me who I can and can't argue with on a public forum.

Remarkably hypocritical advice, but you're absolutely right.  I do not dictate how enraged you're allowed to get over the lack of nudity in your video game.

By all means, continue.

It is not hypocritical of me, because I have not once tried to dictate to others what they should or shouldn't argue about in this thread, as you have.

[foilpainter]

It does seem they responded to the pressure and did not want bad publicity for the game and changed the love scenes this time but I thought there would be suggested nudity like clothes on the floor and such. I did like the love scene with Jack, very touching. Mirandas was good also but disappointed with female Shepards love choices, looks like the ladies got the short end of the stick on this go around. Also hope Samara will return in the next game as a love interest.

[Khavos]

Garlador wrote...

I'm mature enough to handle a game with tasteful nudity...
... and I'm mature enough to accept a romance without sideboob and blue alien buttocks.

Better get your fire extinguisher ready, old bean. 

[Vlainstrike]

pedal2metal wrote...

Vlainstrike wrote...

Something that occurred to me - if we are to believe (as some in this thread have tried to infer) that remaining clothed during sex is an artistic choice rather than bowing to marketing & media pressures, what exactly is the message?

In other words, assuming that artistic decisions are meant to have some sort of impact on the audience, what meaningful revelation is the artist trying to convey about romantic sexual encounters by keeping the participants clothed?  Given that, for some odd reason, most people choose to have sex without clothing.

Are you kidding me?  Haven't you ever heard of foreplay?  The engine room wasn't sex!  Most adults move into sex in a progressive manner, even between married couples who have known each other for years/decades (been married 20 yrs myself w/3 kids so I'm not some hypothesizing high-school sophomore), not in .1 seconds.  Geez...  ME2 may not have gone to the next logical step after the engine room but to suggest that the engine room type of interaction isn't realistic or natural just doesn't wash.  It's completely natural & enticing.  To remove foreplay as a part of the natural process of sexual intimacy is to destroy the romance & just make it about sex.  So perhaps the artist is trying to convey a natural sense of progression in a genuine romantic manner (vs. just "jump in the sack") & let the gamer take it from there once it's clear that the love interest is willing & able.
I can understand the folks that wanted to see it progress naturally to the next level in the captain's quarters but to suggest that the engine room was sex is ludicrous.  It's foreplay, not sex.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Nope, I'm only 36, I haven't heard of foreplay.  Thank you for clearing that up oh educated-married-with-kids-one.

[Khavos]

Fexelea wrote...

Khavos wrote...


Then you need to be in a different thread, because this one is about people getting extraordinarily upset that Stanley Woo stated that game developers make the decisions about the games they're designing, not the fans. 

I thought we had established that the objective of this thread, as direcly referenced in the title, is not that.

Yes, yes.  You think it's about your hurt feelings, Vlainstrike thinks it's a discussion about why the content was cut. 

Let me know when you reach a consensus, though I'll admit that it's a little more funny without one. 

[Garlador]

Khavos wrote...

Garlador wrote...

I'm mature enough to handle a game with tasteful nudity...
... and I'm mature enough to accept a romance without sideboob and blue alien buttocks.

Better get your fire extinguisher ready, old bean. 

Trust me, I used to frequent the Mortal Kombat forums. This is weak sauce flaming by comparison.

[Vlainstrike]

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

Khavos wrote...


Then you need to be in a different thread, because this one is about people getting extraordinarily upset that Stanley Woo stated that game developers make the decisions about the games they're designing, not the fans. 

I thought we had established that the objective of this thread, as direcly referenced in the title, is not that.

Yes, yes.  You think it's about your hurt feelings, Vlainstrike thinks it's a discussion about why the content was cut. 

Let me know when you reach a consensus, though I'll admit that it's a little more funny without one. 

And I suppose you've never once posted something on the forums that wasn't directly related to the OP.

[pedal2metal]

Vlainstrike wrote...

pedal2metal wrote...

Vlainstrike wrote...

Something that occurred to me - if we are to believe (as some in this thread have tried to infer) that remaining clothed during sex is an artistic choice rather than bowing to marketing & media pressures, what exactly is the message?

In other words, assuming that artistic decisions are meant to have some sort of impact on the audience, what meaningful revelation is the artist trying to convey about romantic sexual encounters by keeping the participants clothed?  Given that, for some odd reason, most people choose to have sex without clothing.

Are you kidding me?  Haven't you ever heard of foreplay?  The engine room wasn't sex!  Most adults move into sex in a progressive manner, even between married couples who have known each other for years/decades (been married 20 yrs myself w/3 kids so I'm not some hypothesizing high-school sophomore), not in .1 seconds.  Geez...  ME2 may not have gone to the next logical step after the engine room but to suggest that the engine room type of interaction isn't realistic or natural just doesn't wash.  It's completely natural & enticing.  To remove foreplay as a part of the natural process of sexual intimacy is to destroy the romance & just make it about sex.  So perhaps the artist is trying to convey a natural sense of progression in a genuine romantic manner (vs. just "jump in the sack") & let the gamer take it from there once it's clear that the love interest is willing & able.
I can understand the folks that wanted to see it progress naturally to the next level in the captain's quarters but to suggest that the engine room was sex is ludicrous.  It's foreplay, not sex.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Nope, I'm only 36, I haven't heard of foreplay.  Thank you for clearing that up oh educated-married-with-kids-one.

If you're so "worldly-wise", then why would you infer that they were having sex with their clothes on & that this was the "artistic choice" being represented by the scene?  Is it because that was the only choice your brilliant mind could conceive of?  You should actually think a little bit more before posting & consider that maybe there's more than just 1 interpretation to the absence of your precious sex scene besides genophobia on the part of Bioware or anyone else.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Modifié par pedal2metal, 09 février 2010 - 02:59 .

[Khavos]

Vlainstrike wrote...

And I suppose you've never once posted something on the forums that wasn't directly related to the OP.

Like I said, let me know when you've reached a consensus.  You'll want to be getting John Hyperion and a lot of others over the past few pages involved in it as well, because they do indeed think it's a debate about whether or not gamers make design decisions on games.  

[Fexelea]

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

Khavos wrote...


Then you need to be in a different thread, because this one is about people getting extraordinarily upset that Stanley Woo stated that game developers make the decisions about the games they're designing, not the fans. 

I thought we had established that the objective of this thread, as direcly referenced in the title, is not that.

Yes, yes.  You think it's about your hurt feelings, Vlainstrike thinks it's a discussion about why the content was cut. 

Let me know when you reach a consensus, though I'll admit that it's a little more funny without one. 

Good try. Not good enough, red herring not accepted!

First, I don't think it is about *my* hurt feelings. I personally have no emotional attachment to the matter, and our previous conversation explained why I regarded Stanley's posts as argumentatively flawed and needlessly emotional in the context of a professional perspective.

I do not need to reach a consensus with anyone regarding the above. You are the one who keeps proposing that opinion as fact, as I have quoted you doing, even after I have made a clear and logical dissection of the matter that demonstrates the contrary.

[Khavos]

Fexelea wrote...

Good try. Not good enough, red herring not accepted!

First, I don't think it is about *my* hurt feelings. I personally have no emotional attachment to the matter, and our previous conversation explained why I regarded Stanley's posts as argumentatively flawed and needlessly emotional in the context of a professional perspective.

I do not need to reach a consensus with anyone regarding the above. You are the one who keeps proposing that opinion as fact, as I have quoted you doing, even after I have made a clear and logical dissection of the matter that demonstrates the contrary.

All our previous conversation explained was that you spend far too much time deciding on whether or not a QA tester and forum moderator is "professional."  If it doesn't bother you, you wouldn't have posted.  You certainly wouldn't keep coming back to defend your intellectual honor or whatever it is you're attempting to accomplish here.

Your "clear and logical dissection" failed to take into account every other poster in the thread save yourself, but I give you points for at least spelling it all correctly.  

Modifié par Khavos, 09 février 2010 - 03:04 .

[Vlainstrike]

And what exactly is the purpose of this consensus?

The OP is long enough to invite discussion on a number of topics, and I for one have no problem with people veering off into related tangents.

You seem to be the self-proclaimed authority about who should be posting what in this thread, so good luck in your continued efforts trying to dictate what you think everyone else should be talking about.

I'm off to play ME2.

[Khavos]

Vlainstrike wrote...

And what exactly is the purpose of this consensus?

I think it would be hilarious.  

[Fexelea]

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

Good try. Not good enough, red herring not accepted!

First, I don't think it is about *my* hurt feelings. I personally have no emotional attachment to the matter, and our previous conversation explained why I regarded Stanley's posts as argumentatively flawed and needlessly emotional in the context of a professional perspective.

I do not need to reach a consensus with anyone regarding the above. You are the one who keeps proposing that opinion as fact, as I have quoted you doing, even after I have made a clear and logical dissection of the matter that demonstrates the contrary.

All our previous conversation explained was that you spend far too much time deciding on whether or not a QA tester and forum moderator is "professional."  If it doesn't bother you, you wouldn't have posted.  You certainly wouldn't keep coming back to defend your intellectual honor or whatever it is you're attempting to accomplish here.

Your "clear and logical dissection" failed to take into account every other poster in the thread save yourself, but I give you points for at least spelling it all correctly.  

Your assessment of what is "too much time"  for me to spend doing anything is irrelevant.

If that was all you could gather from our conversation, then I am inclined to think that you were not really interested in understanding why anyone would feel anything, or why the argument itself was flawed, but rather on defending a pre-defined stance at all costs regardless of logic. This is dissapointing to me.

Your further assessment that I am "coming back to defend my intellectual honor" is innacurate, and whatever I am attempting to accomplish has nothing to do with the subject we are discussing. You realize that your efforts to attack my intentions instead of my argument fall under ad-hominem as well right? Therefore I am going to ignore them.

My logical explanation about why the thread was on a particular subject took into account the OP. The creator of the thread should be representative of what the thread is "about". Obviously, as any conversation, it then branches and ramificates into sub-discussions that interlap with each other. This does not change the thread's topic, nor does it change the fact that even Stanley Woo himself has addressed that topic repeatedly by explaining and apologizing about his chosen words (and not the "message").

[Khavos]

Fexelea wrote...

This does not change the thread's topic, nor does it change the fact that even Stanley Woo himself has addressed that topic repeatedly by explaining and apologizing about his chosen words (and not the "message").

I don't recall him apologizing.  I'd be disappointed if he did. 

[Images]

Such wisdom.

Modifié par Images, 09 février 2010 - 03:26 .

[Fexelea]

You can read it in his posts:



"...I'm sorry if you felt my comments were addressed to you or, indeed, anyone who presented their arguments in a professional, civil manner..."



"... If you did feel as if my comments were directed at you, and you were one of the former group, then I apologize wholeheartedly..."



"...I'm sorry if I inadvertently insulted you..."

[The Grey Coyote]

The OP has a point. I found it a little odd that Shepard f**ked Jack fully clothed. If I want to see nudity, I watch porn. Still, the romance scene with Jack looked extremely strange, and at odds with its emotional weight.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

And Fexy wins the thread!

[AngryFrozenWater]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

And Fexy wins the thread!

She does indeed.

[Khavos]

Fexelea wrote...

You can read it in his posts:

"...I'm sorry if you felt my comments were addressed to you or, indeed, anyone who presented their arguments in a professional, civil manner..."

"... If you did feel as if my comments were directed at you, and you were one of the former group, then I apologize wholeheartedly..."

"...I'm sorry if I inadvertently insulted you..."

Oh, yeah, he's said he's sorry you feel the way you feel.

He's never apologized for saying what he said, though.  And I like that about him.  Non-apology apologies always work on the right people.   

[Litos456]

I have to be honest but I lol'd at this thread... Why do you need nudity in Mass Effect? If that's what you're looking for, I mean, can't you appreciate the characters for what they are?

[Fexelea]

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

You can read it in his posts:

"...I'm sorry if you felt my comments were addressed to you or, indeed, anyone who presented their arguments in a professional, civil manner..."

"... If you did feel as if my comments were directed at you, and you were one of the former group, then I apologize wholeheartedly..."

"...I'm sorry if I inadvertently insulted you..."

Oh, yeah, he's said he's sorry you feel the way you feel.

He's never apologized for saying what he said, though.  And I like that about him.  Non-apology apologies always work on the right people.   

Hahaha. Thanks, that actually made me lol.

You keep trying to throw red herrings. Not gonna work. My point was not about how sincere his apology might or not have been. He does "apologize if he insulted". If you wish to question Stanley on his sincerity, I suggest you do so with him.

My point was that he has addressed the topic of this thread, that being people feeling insulted by his chosen words, with an apology. Once more, that is what the "topic" is about.

[Khavos]

Fexelea wrote...

Khavos wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

You can read it in his posts:

"...I'm sorry if you felt my comments were addressed to you or, indeed, anyone who presented their arguments in a professional, civil manner..."

"... If you did feel as if my comments were directed at you, and you were one of the former group, then I apologize wholeheartedly..."

"...I'm sorry if I inadvertently insulted you..."

Oh, yeah, he's said he's sorry you feel the way you feel.

He's never apologized for saying what he said, though.  And I like that about him.  Non-apology apologies always work on the right people.   

Hahaha. Thanks, that actually made me lol.

You keep trying to throw red herrings. Not gonna work. My point was not about how sincere his apology might or not have been. He does "apologize if he insulted". If you wish to question Stanley on his sincerity, I suggest you do so with him.

My point was that he has addressed the topic of this thread, that being people feeling insulted by his chosen words, with an apology. Once more, that is what the "topic" is about.

No, I'm afraid you said he apologized for his chosen words.

Fexelea wrote...

This does not change the thread's topic,
nor does it change the fact that even Stanley Woo himself has addressed
that topic repeatedly by explaining and apologizing about his chosen
words (and not the "message").

See? 

He didn't.