214 réponses à ce sujet

[I Pyrrhus I]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

I Pyrrhus I wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

I don't like the idea of an options menu toggle, a personality choice like that should never be set on an options menu, it would break immersion more than any awkward conversation.

People have pretty much covered every point that would need to be covered to make everyone a winner.

• A male/male romantic interest should involve new characters as dynamics have already been well established with existing crew members.
  Any male/male romance would have to be initiated by Shepard, and it should be subtle so the only people that go looking for M/M romance will experience the dialoge. This means crew members will not so much as insinuate they are interested in Shepard without him saying something first.

People who dont want to see it wont see it. Those that want to see it get to see it. Everybody wins.

No one seemed to have a problem with selecting a personality profile of War Hero, Sole Survivor or Ruthless.

I understand the notion that proponents of same/sex romances do not want to select a personality label in order to pursue what the feel is natural.

However, anything less is really a complete concession on the part of the opposition with nothing gained in return. A once-per-game option is a comparatively small concession on the part of proponents. Without such an option, the opposition loses entirely and some may feel compelled to avoid certain characters (and miss out on part of the story) because of it. Whether or not some might label this as irrational homophobia is no more relevant than if they find homosexuality to be unnatural. The purpose here is not which side is right, but how best to accomodate both without undermining the other entirely.

I would distinguish between chosing past events in your life before you control Shepard and current choices you make while playing Shepard. Chosing gay/straight through the an options menu would be more similar to choosing to be Paragon or Renegade before the game starts.

I honestly dont see how people opposed to it would feel underminded by having the option there. It's just an option, one they wouldn't have to choose. Bioware could hide it well, but make it obvious that a straight Shepard doesn't want to be clicking on that button. If it was forced upon you, then and only then would the opposition feel offended.

I would distinguish between morality choices in the option menu and romance options in the menu on the basis that for one we have a genuine debate and for the other we don't. Whether or not players chose to play paragon, renegade, both or neither; is not a point of contention on these forums. Even though hypotheticly there could be such a debate, we all know the reality is that there isn't one.

By contrast, the debate on the inclusion of same/sex romances is a very hotly contested topic on this game. Whether or not you agree with the opposition isn't relevant, they exist, and they do not want same-sex options, thus including them is to directly undermine their position. Unless you include them without requiring those opposed to avoid them ("off by default"). In so doing the statusquo is maintained while also allowing the change which proponents desire.

Furthermore, I would argue that good and evil(for lack of a better
word) decisions are made on a case by case basis, although usually in
line with the persons personality (but not always). Sexual orientation probably does not change on a case by case basis, rather the decision to be interested in a person is the variable. Therefore it is logical to make orientation an initial choice, while not logical to make morality a one time choice.

[I Pyrrhus I]

diskoh wrote...

I Pyrrhus I wrote...

I don't see the need to force the option upon us at all, no I'm not worried about accidently selecting it, I just don't want to sacrifice my own immersion and ideals by being offered that option.

How does it sacrifice your immersion or ideals to have an option? I'm genuinly curious.

My intentions are not to debate the merits of each side of the arguement, but the acceptability of a compromised solution.

In order not to dodge your question though:
Such options will compel me to avoid characters I suspect of having said options. In so doing I will be making a meta-game decision that will potentially deprive me of experiencing some character related plot.

Now I would ask you, what do you gain by requiring these plot options for everyone? I thought the desire of proponents was to have options for the sake of fairness. This can be achieved within the context of my proposition.

The only gain I can see for requiring such options for everyone is that of an ulterior motive to impose some measure of tolerance upon the opposition. Right or wrong, a video game is not the proper medium for such political goals. Instead I believe that the only goals appropriate to a video game are fairness to the customers, in this case, those on both sides of this issue.

[diskoh]

I Pyrrhus I wrote...

In order not to dodge your question though:
Such options will compel me to avoid characters I suspect of having said options. In so doing I will be making a meta-game decision that will potentially deprive me of experiencing some character related plot.

Do you not already do this with character who you know are romanceable, but choose not to romance? If you intend to romance Miranda, are you not deprived of some character related plot with Jack?

Character related plot issues are the main reason that I support same-sex romances. I feel that by not allowing them, we aren't allowed to explore certain characters as much as we can with the other gender. For example, Jack has a very deep character with interesting motivations that male Shepard gets to learn about. However, if you play a female Shepard, you get right to the brink of learning these things, but then suddenly get "Ok, bye," and we're not allowed to further explore that character because we've reached the final bit of dialogue before the romance would start.

Now I would ask you, what do you gain by requiring these plot options for everyone? I thought the desire of proponents was to have options for the sake of fairness. This can be achieved within the context of my proposition.

I guess what I'm not really grasping is this concept of "requiring an option." An option is just that, optional. Nothing is required. It's a bit of text that you can choose not to follow, and nothing about your game will have changed.

Even with a toggle to have the text not show, the option will still be there. You'll still know it's there. So I don't understand why being able to hide the text would change your opinion on it. Because in actuality, the text would still be there, just not displayed.

The only gain I can see for requiring such options for everyone is that of an ulterior motive to impose some measure of tolerance upon the opposition. Right or wrong, a video game is not the proper medium for such political goals. Instead I believe that the only goals appropriate to a video game are fairness to the customers, in this case, those on both sides of this issue.

On the other side of this coin, can you see how having a toggle off by default would basically be saying "We recognize that the default state of being is intolerance, but for those who aren't, you can turn on this option..."

To me, it would make sense to say "We would like to present you this option. If you do not like it, you may turn it off."

Also, I'd like to thank you for the civil conversation on the issue.

Modifié par diskoh, 07 février 2010 - 10:24 .

[danman2424]

That would be great until people start posting videos up on the web of gay Shepard love scenes and the public at large starts to see the game as some kind of joke.



Bioware is trying to get this franchise to be taken seriously.

[Arik7]

danman2424 wrote...

That would be great until people start posting videos up on the web of gay Shepard love scenes and the public at large starts to see the game as some kind of joke.

Bioware is trying to get this franchise to be taken seriously.

You mean scenes like this: www.youtube.com/watch

[Ryzaki]

danman2424 wrote...

That would be great until people start posting videos up on the web of gay Shepard love scenes and the public at large starts to see the game as some kind of joke.

Bioware is trying to get this franchise to be taken seriously.

Its a space opera. And Meer's voice already makes me not take it seriously. <_<

[Funkenstein23]

That sounds completely fair and reasonable. It would appease both sides without either giving up too much ground.

[biddypocket]

I would say that if this was the ultimate decision, and was incorporated into the last game, I would be satisfied. In reality, not every aspect of society is ready to handle the fact that homosexuals exist, which I understand (I should clarify...homosexual men). This would be a nice way of easing into it, though. It would show the gamers that Bioware is listening to us and is trying to make us feel as appreciated and accepted as possible. It would show those opposed that it would require nothing on their part to avoid it. Lastly, it would show the public that this is a reality that everyone must deal with, whether they disagree with it or not.

With that said, however, I would still very much rather see it simply incorporated into the game, and in general, a refining of the romance options in the game (as some people had suggested, I like the idea of colord dialogue to begin specific romances, friendships, etc., similarly to how paragon/renegade work). As one person posted before me (I forget, read a few posts above), choosing not to select a romance with one character who happened ot be male wouldn't be any different than choosing not to select a romance that alredy exists in the game.

So, if this was the ultimate option, I would be satisfied. I think it would get the job done. Thanks to the author of this thread for being mature about it, and kudos to everyone being well mannered so far!. Yay.

[I Pyrrhus I]

diskoh wrote...

I Pyrrhus I wrote...

In order not to dodge your question though:
Such options will compel me to avoid characters I suspect of having said options. In so doing I will be making a meta-game decision that will potentially deprive me of experiencing some character related plot.

Do you not already do this with character who you know are romanceable, but choose not to romance? If you intend to romance Miranda, are you not deprived of some character related plot with Jack?

Character related plot issues are the main reason that I support same-sex romances. I feel that by not allowing them, we aren't allowed to explore certain characters as much as we can with the other gender. For example, Jack has a very deep character with interesting motivations that male Shepard gets to learn about. However, if you play a female Shepard, you get right to the brink of learning these things, but then suddenly get "Ok, bye," and we're not allowed to further explore that character because we've reached the final bit of dialogue before the romance would start.

The difference here is that there are those of us who will avoid the entire character, for example I will not party with the elf in DA:O. There are those who may find this to be irrational, but I view it as a matter of personal belief. The advantage of a toggle allows for a greater degree of catering to each perspective, we can have a completely straight version of the NPCs in our game, while those who would prefer an alternative can have NPCs that meet their criteria. (I say criteria so as not to insinuate that proponents want some sort of flamboyant NPC.)

Now I would ask you, what do you gain by requiring these plot options for everyone? I thought the desire of proponents was to have options for the sake of fairness. This can be achieved within the context of my proposition.

I guess what I'm not really grasping is this concept of "requiring an option." An option is just that, optional. Nothing is required. It's a bit of text that you can choose not to follow, and nothing about your game will have changed.

Even with a toggle to have the text not show, the option will still be there. You'll still know it's there. So I don't understand why being able to hide the text would change your opinion on it. Because in actuality, the text would still be there, just not displayed.

While you may not grasp our desire for a lack of these options in our game, we can also say that we do not grasp your need for an inclusion of the options. This is the fundemental difference, and the basis of the arguement. Can't it just be acceptable that we don't wish to have these options, the same way that it is acceptable for you to desire these options?

Of course we will know there is an option, but that is the sacrafice from our side of the compromise. The advantage we gain is that the mechanism is indirect in the form of "off by default." The difference this provides, for me at least, is the difference between evading something, and ignoring it. Not having to evade it is a luxury worth comprosmising for, the alternative is that I can't ignore it and have to actively evade it.

The only gain I can see for requiring such options for everyone is that of an ulterior motive to impose some measure of tolerance upon the opposition. Right or wrong, a video game is not the proper medium for such political goals. Instead I believe that the only goals appropriate to a video game are fairness to the customers, in this case, those on both sides of this issue.

On the other side of this coin, can you see how having a toggle off by default would basically be saying "We recognize that the default state of being is intolerance, but for those who aren't, you can turn on this option..."

To me, it would make sense to say "We would like to present you this option. If you do not like it, you may turn it off."

Also, I'd like to thank you for the civil conversation on the issue.

I have previously acknowledged that I understand the reluctance to have to enable something which someone might feel is natural. However, the manner in which this is presented does not have to be descriminatory.

Such an option need not be marketed with negative spin, to say that the default is intolerant. Rather it could be said that "We have a predefined story of  who Shepard is, but we recognize the desires of some customers to pursue an alternative view of that character." I would like to cite an interview on the validity of a predefined Shepard: xbox360.ign.com/articles/106/1066954p2.html

None-the-less I think that it is important for both sides to at least consider the value of outcomes which are short of "total victory." For me this value is a reduction in the probability that I will have to play future RPGs in an evasive manner as I previously described.

[PyroFreak301]

I find myself agreeing with diskoh on this. Setting an on/off button for gay romance sets a pretty bad precedent on how games should deal with issues like these.

I honestly don't see how it would be entirely different from there being a yes/no option to include black people in a game, it just screams of discrimination. Any game that did introduce an option like this would kick up such a political sandstorm, it wouldnt ever see a store shelf. A white supremacist might take the same evasive behaviour you described about the potential gay romance, yet he wouldn't have a leg to stand on should he complain about it. I hate to draw extreme parrallels like this, but the only difference between racism and homophobia is that we, as a culture, have outgrown racism. Sadly the same can't be said for homophobia... yet.

An option that you can avoid doesn't need to be hidden for you not to chose it. Only the options you select are relevant to your Shepard.

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 08 février 2010 - 12:19 .

[Ryzaki]

PyroFreak301 wrote...

I find myself agreeing with diskoh on this. Setting an on/off button for gay romance sets a pretty bad precedent on how games should deal with issues like these.

I honestly don't see how it would be entirely different from there being a yes/no option to include black people in a game, it just screams of discrimination. Any game that did introduce an option like this would kick up such a political sandstorm, it wouldnt ever see a store shelf. A white supremacist might take the same evasive behaviour you described about the potential gay romance, yet he wouldn't have a leg to stand on should he complain about it. I hate to draw extreme parrallels like this, but the only difference between racism and homophobia is that we, as a culture, have outgrown racism. Sadly the same can't be said for homophobia... yet.

An option that you can avoid doesn't need to be hidden for you not to chose it. Only the options you select are relevant to your Shepard.

QFT

I wish BioWare had placed an option to turn Jacob white in the game. The press would have had a field day. <_<

[Lord Shadowsong]

According to my cannon, shepard is a lesbian... however in ME2 she is like straight? Cannon is a lie!

[Justin2k]

We don't need more threads on this.



This has never been about homophobia or discrimination. Its about not every tv show, video game, rock band or form of media needing a gay romance.



You don't have gay romances in 99% of games and noone cries about it. Its not discrimination, bioware are one of the few companies to have made games that include gay romance. Its just not part of the ME story.

[Justin2k]

Lord Shadowsong wrote...

According to my cannon, shepard is a lesbian... however in ME2 she is like straight? Cannon is a lie!

Liara is not a female.  There was no lesbian option in ME1 however much you like to think so.

[PyroFreak301]

Justin2k wrote...

We don't need more threads on this.

This has never been about homophobia or discrimination. Its about not every tv show, video game, rock band or form of media needing a gay romance.

You don't have gay romances in 99% of games and noone cries about it. Its not discrimination, bioware are one of the few companies to have made games that include gay romance. Its just not part of the ME story.

I think it's the fact that Bioware have touched on the issue quite tastefully in past games where character development happens. People just made a suggestion for ME3 saying they'd like to see it in the game and made quite convincing points for it not changing gameplay for those that didn't choose to.

It should have ended there.

However as with any controversial subject discussed on the internet, it's brought the outspoken opponents of it to come and argue against a suggestion claiming it would ruin their game completely. Then people jump in to defend the option. Then the trolls join, on both sides of the argument. Then all we have is chaos.

Modifié par PyroFreak301, 08 février 2010 - 12:36 .

[PyroFreak301]

Justin2k wrote...

Lord Shadowsong wrote...

According to my cannon, shepard is a lesbian... however in ME2 she is like straight? Cannon is a lie!

Liara is not a female.  There was no lesbian option in ME1 however much you like to think so.

Surely canon states that Shepard is omnisexual then, he seemed to dig Liara without a second thought to her gender.

[YakoHako]

danman2424 wrote...

That would be great until people start posting videos up on the web of gay Shepard love scenes and the public at large starts to see the game as some kind of joke.

Bioware is trying to get this franchise to be taken seriously.

Oh, yes, I forgot homosexuality is just one gigantic joke and has never been taken seriously.

[Ryzaki]

YakoHako wrote...

danman2424 wrote...

That would be great until people start posting videos up on the web of gay Shepard love scenes and the public at large starts to see the game as some kind of joke.

Bioware is trying to get this franchise to be taken seriously.

Oh, yes, I forgot homosexuality is just one gigantic joke and has never been taken seriously.

Can't be as bad as Raiden. Guy wasn't even gay and he got bashed more than the actual gay Bisexual characters (Vamp, Volgin.) Then again Volgin would eat your face so that's probably why they refrained from bashing him and Vamp was scary as hell too.

Poor poor Raiden. XD And his little thong.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 février 2010 - 12:58 .

[danman2424]

Ryzaki wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

I find myself agreeing with diskoh on this. Setting an on/off button for gay romance sets a pretty bad precedent on how games should deal with issues like these.

I honestly don't see how it would be entirely different from there being a yes/no option to include black people in a game, it just screams of discrimination. Any game that did introduce an option like this would kick up such a political sandstorm, it wouldnt ever see a store shelf. A white supremacist might take the same evasive behaviour you described about the potential gay romance, yet he wouldn't have a leg to stand on should he complain about it. I hate to draw extreme parrallels like this, but the only difference between racism and homophobia is that we, as a culture, have outgrown racism. Sadly the same can't be said for homophobia... yet.

An option that you can avoid doesn't need to be hidden for you not to chose it. Only the options you select are relevant to your Shepard.

QFT

I wish BioWare had placed an option to turn Jacob white in the game. The press would have had a field day. <_<

That's basically what they'd be doing if they were to place a gay option. Players of the game don't get to choose if their love interest is white, just like they don't get to choose if they're gay. The game is what it is. Gays aren't entitled to homosexual relationships being in the game and people that are into animals aren't entitled to bestiality relationships being the game.

Bioware only has so many resources to create so many choices. They can't appease every little group and every little minority that feels entitled to being catered to.

[I Pyrrhus I]

Ryzaki wrote...

PyroFreak301 wrote...

I find myself agreeing with diskoh on this. Setting an on/off button for gay romance sets a pretty bad precedent on how games should deal with issues like these.

I honestly don't see how it would be entirely different from there being a yes/no option to include black people in a game, it just screams of discrimination. Any game that did introduce an option like this would kick up such a political sandstorm, it wouldnt ever see a store shelf. A white supremacist might take the same evasive behaviour you described about the potential gay romance, yet he wouldn't have a leg to stand on should he complain about it. I hate to draw extreme parrallels like this, but the only difference between racism and homophobia is that we, as a culture, have outgrown racism. Sadly the same can't be said for homophobia... yet.

An option that you can avoid doesn't need to be hidden for you not to chose it. Only the options you select are relevant to your Shepard.

QFT

I wish BioWare had placed an option to turn Jacob white in the game. The press would have had a field day. <_<

Posts like these set the same precedent that the gay bashing posts set. Until now this thread was free of inappropriate remarks from either side of the debate.

I am sure those from your side of the debate do not appreciate you undermining their credibility by being the first to add such things to this discussion. I certainly would not appreciate gay-bashers to come and undermine my postition, which is why I asked to keep it civil from the beginning.

The obvious problem with drawing extreme parallels is that they are in fact, extreme. I feel I should point out the obvious difference between racism, and that which you shoehorn into one ideology (homophobia). That difference is that in one case there is a hatred of people. While in the other hatred of people can (and unfortunately does) exist, but there can also exist (in my case) a hatred of the action and not of the person commiting it.

Despite an ironicly narrow view from some in the supposedly "pro-tolerance" camp, there are oppositional view points not based around hatred of gay people, but rather opposition to their choices. There are many sources for such views in the opposition, to cite a significant source for some people; Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In this example religion is a VERY valid source of ideology, and I think you will find that the (the Religous) ideal is NOT to hate "sinners," even if the "sin" itself is hated. Of course I am not making any statements for -or- against these merits, but I felt that I should give an example of a credible oppositional viewpoint that is not grounded in hate.

If you find yourself incapable of tolerating views outside your own, do not come in here and expect others to tolerate your views as well. There are other threads for that.

To get back on topic, I don't see how declaring your orientation in this case is any different than declaring it on a dating website. In both cases you are looking to solicate, or avoid solicitation of certain attentions. Why should people in this game be deprived the right to avoid such soliciation in this game?

Modifié par I Pyrrhus I, 08 février 2010 - 01:41 .

[PyroFreak301]

I Pyrrhus I wrote...

Posts like these set the same precedent that the gay bashing posts set. Until now this thread was free of inappropriate remarks from either side of the debate.

I am sure those from your side of the debate do not appreciate you undermining their credibility by being the first to add such things to this discussion. I certainly would not appreciate gay-bashers to come and undermine my postition, which is why I asked to keep it civil from the beginning.

I dont see how my post was inappropriate or undermining any points previously made. I simply drew a parallel to another group of people that have also been unjustly stigmatised in the past. I should make clear that I wasn't referring to the option of having a gay love interest possibility, but rather the ability to turn it off and on via a button, like homosexuality is somehow abnormal or immoral and something that requires censoring...

The obvious problem with drawing extreme parallels is that they are in fact, extreme. I feel I should point out the obvious difference between racism, and that which you shoehorn into one ideology (homophobia). That difference is that in one case there is a hatred of people. While in the other hatred of people can (and unfortunately does) exist, but there can also exist (in my case) a hatred of the action and not of the person commiting it.

But they are parallels all the same, whether they like to be heard or not. I also use the word homophobia in the widest possible sense to include those that only opinion on the matter could be described as a mild distaste.

The way I see it, both racism and homophobia both target groups of people for aspects of their life they have absolutely no control over. Being gay is as much a choice for a person as being born with coloured skin, there is absolutely no plausible reason we should hold them accountable or attempt to reject or segregate them from society, be it in games or issues much larger.

Despite an ironicly narrow view from some in the supposedly "pro-tolerance" camp, there are oppositional view points not based around hatred of gay people, but rather opposition to their choices. There are many sources for such views in the opposition, to cite a significant source for some people; Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. In this example religion is a VERY valid source of ideology, and I think you will find that the (the Religous) ideal is NOT to hate "sinners," even if the "sin" itself is hated. Of course I am not making any statements for -or- against these merits, but I felt that I should give an example of a credible oppositional viewpoint that is not grounded in hate.

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I dont hold any reason good enough to actively promote segregation of gay people, which going back to the original point, an on/off button for homosexual encounters encourages, even if in the grand scale of things a game is insignificant. I'll hold my view on religions back as to not derail this thread completely, but needless to say I disagree with them on many things.

If you find yourself incapable of tolerating views outside your own, do not come in here and expect others to tolerate your views as well. There are other threads for that.

The only view I find myself incapable of tolerating is active intolerance and ignorance (not aimed at you, but there are some). It's contradictory I know.

To get back on topic, I don't see how declaring your orientation in this case is any different than declaring it on a dating website. In both cases you are looking to solicate, or avoid solicitation of certain attentions. Why should people in this game be deprived the right to avoid such soliciation in this game?

The big difference here is purpose. Declaring your orientation on a dating site serves a purpose beyond personal preferances, it's there to allow the agency to match you accordingly and let others know that you will or will not be interested.

In a game, especially one like Mass Effect where the main aspect of play is the discovery and moulding of your own Shepard, being faced with a gay options is not out of the question. Just like you would in everyday life, if someone were to proposition you with such an option, you would decline and forget about it. You would not insist that it should not have been allowed to happen.

In short, my problem is with the on/off button for homosexuality. Why stop there? It should ask me if I'm okay with certain religions in my game, Ashley admitting she was believed in a God could have put me off, leading to avoidance of that character. On/Off switches for certain social stigmas wont lead to anywhere good... of this I am certain.

[Funkenstein23]

@PyroFreak301

I think the problem with your comparison is that America's view of black people, unlike America's view of homosexuality, is not up in the air right now. Agree or disagree, like or dislike, it is a hot topic issue. BioWare would be well within their rights to implement a system like the one offered in this thread. Your point is valid but so is the OP's. If BW were to implement something that many in their target audience would dislike, it is sensible to have a means to outright avoid it.

Modifié par Funkenstein23, 08 février 2010 - 02:37 .

[tyddrwsau]

Like others, I'm not delighted at the precedent suggested by a "toggle same-sex romance" option: but it would be better than nothing. Perhaps instead "enable character romance" would be a better setting.



It certainly wouldn't be hard for me to notice the check-box and switch it to "ON" during my routine check for whether or not I can turn bloody gore "OFF."

[diskoh]

Justin2k wrote...

Liara is not a female.  There was no lesbian option in ME1 however much you like to think so.

The game codex says she is.

[Ryzaki]

Once again Pyro has said it better than I ever could.The example is an extreme one but it is valid. And the whole black issue is not completely settled as anyone who is actually black could tell you. Treated equally? Hah that's a laugh. <_< It may not be as bad as it used to be but blacks are still not treated equally.

And please don't try to point out Obama as reference one person making it to the top doesn't negate all the ones left on the bottom.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 08 février 2010 - 02:51 .