7455 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I wonder why people keep harping on about reproduction when in these days people are having less children?

Its mindboggling.

In developed countries anyway.

True. But one would assume if you're on a video game forum with enough cash to buy these games you're probably in a developed country.

Not to mention using the internet.

*sighs* Honestly though I'm so sick of reproduction being used as a excuse. Hello tis a video game? I'm pretty sure MShep can't reproduce with Tali. And FemShep can't reproduce with Garrus or Thane and they're heterosexual relationships so who cares. Those relationships don't progate the species.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2010 - 02:04 .

[Temper_Graniteskul]

mrfoo1 wrote...

But with romances specifically the only effect that they have in the game are interpersonal with the player. It's not about increasing the capacity of the gameplay or the level of immersion that a player has with a character or what the player is capable of experiencing. In both ME1 and ME2 The effect of the romance options are only relevant to very minor story changes. And even more so in DA:O. So it seem's to me that the actual gameplay value that romances provide are only cosmetic in relation to the story and what extra blurbs there are about the the character at the end epilogue as is the case with DA:O. Where as with DA:A the decisions effect that actual story that you play through.

Romancing Tali has no effect on if she lives or dies at the end of ME2 for example when it should. It's merely a cosmetic value of gameplay.

I disagree. I think romances, as well as general PC/NPC interaction, go quite far in encouraging immersion of the player into the world and story of the game. While in general I think they're designed to have a lesser impact on the larger story arc, I think that's a symptom of limited time to anticipate and allow for all the different ways in which a player can choose to interact with the recruitable NPCs. It may end up being cosmetic as far as the story endgame, but it carries through the 30+ hours of gameplay that lead up to endgame. Veneer or not, it still has an impact on the game experience.

I think there's definitely an argument to be made for a general increase of impact for PC/NPC interaction - I quite liked how some DA party members would abandon you if you made decisions not to their liking. But that's something that I'd like to see Bioware work on in general; it still doesn't change my opinion that the non-combat interaction with NPCs helps with immersion and satisfactory gameplay overall.

[Collider]

There are a lot of people in the world already. We don't particularly need any more. There is nothing inherently better about heterosexuals let alone because they can reproduce.

[Lightice_av]

I wonder why people keep harping on about reproduction when in these days people are having less children?

Won't be an issue in a decade or two anyway; male sperm has been extracted from female stem cells, and soon enough eggs will be available from males, as well. Out of body incubation is in planning stages, so we can expect genetic offspring of homosexuals and single parents after awhile. It's also been proven with animal testing that three or more individuals could share genetic parenthood. The implications are interesting, to say the least.

Not that it exactly matters; the number of children in contrast to the number of parents is already overwhelming, as the overseas adoption business pretty avidly demonstrates.

[Mimaiselphenai]

Lol.  Okay, you stated:  women are more aesthetically pleasing than men because that's what most people believe.  This whole statement is refutable because you provide no operational definition and have no way of knowing what most people believe.  The most you can say is "from the people I have talked to and from what I have read of a few biased and select opinions' online, I have come to the conclusion that women are more aesthetically pleasing than men as a whole."  Even if this were the case, I still refute it because it is invalid and fallacious.  It is not necessarily your actual observations I am refuting, but your methodology, as I have previously stated boldly (literally).

I responded because I found your opinion interesting and merely wanted you to expand upon the matter.  If you don't wish to, then I understand.

I suppose you're right to a degree. I could have taken a bit more time to put what I was thinking in writing. Or at least waited until I wasn't distracted. It would have been safer to say that lesbianism is most likely more acceptable in western culture than male homosexuality because of the prevailance of female sexuality/sensuality in western media (I can't speak for anywhere else, obviously). Well, that could be one reason at least, but to go any further would just take us more and more "off topic," so I'll restrain myself. =P

[FataliTensei]

Ryzaki wrote...

I wonder why people keep harping on about reproduction when in these days people are having less children?

Its mindboggling.

What's next? Banning birth control pills? * killing everyone who's sterile? Killing all those who have diseases that can be passed on to the youth?  Oh noes! Reproduction is the only thing that matters! NM the fact that they're far to many people on this planet already.

Anyways. I wonder how Hendel would even fit into Shepard's story? 

without going into to many spoilers

the haestrom sun plot point involves dark energy, biotics manipulate dark energy hendel himself is a power biotic and gillian is even more naturally powerul than jack, so i guess that could factor in

i'm sure BW could come up with something since they know the full plot of ME, if they wanted to that is

[Temper_Graniteskul]

Gay and bisexual people have managed to propogate the species just fine up to now, just like self-identified heterosexual people. Which is irrelevant when discussing ME, anyway - none of the f/m or f/f LIs required potential reproduction as justification for inclusion.

[Mimaiselphenai]

I somehow don't see Shepard and Garrus reproducing anytime soon.

[Collider]

Temper, I do think he is right in some places. While the romances provide extra immersion, they are for the most point inconsequential to the main plot and does not really have an impact on the core gameplay. Truthfully, I have no problem with this. Some people have suggested pitting Shepard with a choice between their LI or multiple people, effectively making Shepard have to be a selfish ****** in order for the romance to occur. That's a horrifying idea. Though I would like the romances to be expanded, especially in the light of importing Shepards, it's hard to see Bioware justifying in a tasteful way the romances have more effect on the main plot.

[FataliTensei]

JohnnyDollar wrote...

Lightice_av wrote...

I wonder why people keep harping on about reproduction when in these days people are having less children?

Won't be an issue in a decade or two anyway; male sperm has been extracted from female stem cells, and soon enough eggs will be available from males, as well. Out of body incubation is in planning stages, so we can expect genetic offspring of homosexuals and single parents after awhile. It's also been proven with animal testing that three or more individuals could share genetic parenthood. The implications are interesting, to say the least.
Not that it exactly matters; the number of children in contrast to the number of parents is already overwhelming, as the overseas adoption business pretty avidly demonstrates.

That is opening up a can of worms.  Please lets not go in that direction with the discussion. 

that's an understatement

[Lightice_av]

That is opening up a can of worms. Please lets not go in that direction with the discussion.

Well, it's not Mass Effect related, so that's a given. I just thought it to be a fun conjencture in a sci-fi game forum.

Modifié par Lightice_av, 24 mars 2010 - 02:09 .

[Collider]

I eagerly await the day - then again I'll be dead by then - where humans will have learned to master themselves.

[Grawl]

One thing I'm thinking, is how the persons that makes the voice-over will react if they see that they have to do homosexual dialogues with another species.

[Mimaiselphenai]

Collider wrote...

I eagerly await the day - then again I'll be dead by then - where humans will have learned to master themselves.

Humans will destroy each other before that day comes. =D

[Collider]

Mimaiselphenai wrote...

Collider wrote...

I eagerly await the day - then again I'll be dead by then - where humans will have learned to master themselves.

Humans will destroy each other before that day comes. =D

Have more faith in humanity.

[Ryzaki]

Collider wrote...

I eagerly await the day - then again I'll be dead by then - where humans will have learned to master themselves.

There's a good chance that day won't happen until the day after a major tragedy.

I don't have too much faith in the human race as a whole anymore. <_<

I'm a cynic can't help it.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2010 - 02:16 .

[Collider]

Ryzaki wrote...

Collider wrote...

I eagerly await the day - then again I'll be dead by then - where humans will have learned to master themselves.

There's a good chance that day won't happen until the day after a major tragedy.

I don't have too much faith in the human race as a whole anymore. <_<

I'm a cynic can't help it.

Why not? We've done great things. It's true that humans are capable of great evil, but we're also capable of great good as well. The only animal able to, in fact.

[Mimaiselphenai]

Collider wrote...


Have more faith in humanity.

No. I'm coming back as an Elcor.

[Blackveldt]

mrfoo1 wrote...

Blackveldt wrote...

Just thought I would add this for anyone interested:

Putting the Gay in Games: Cultural Production and GLBT Content in Video Games, Shaw, A., 2009.

Abstract: This article addresses gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) representation in video games from a cultural production perspective. It addresses how members of the video game industry account for the relative lack of GLBT representation in this medium. Previous studies have shown that certain stakeholders actively invest in GLBT representation in media. Factors in the inclusion of GLBT content include (a) the presence of motivated producers in the industry, those that are personally, politically, or commercially interested in GLBT content; ( how the audience for a text or medium is constructed; © what the public backlash from both the GLBT community and conservative groups will be, as well as industry-based reprisals in the form of censorship or ratings; (d) the structure of the industry and how it is funded; and (e) how homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender identities can be represented in the medium. (PsycINFO Database Record © 2009 APA, all rights reserved)

If the link doesn't work for (because I'm not sure if access is available to everyone, just message me and since I do have access, I can send a PDF version.

I will look into seeing if I can't get it to work for me but if you have read it's entirety what does it say about point's C. For me that is a big concern.

Well, to summarize as quickly as possible, "backlash can come in the form of loss of sales, ratings, and censorship as well as pro-GLBT content activism."

Advertisers don't want their product to be labeled as 'gay.'  Game designer Kevin Mack stated that a significant reason is that "GLBT content can engender outright hostility . . . Christian 'family' groups can get all over you."  Advertisers are also very wary of sexual content, which is already a controversy in video games.  Adding same-sex sexual explicity further alienates potential consumers; image is also a factor.

Shaw goes on to explain that game developers must consider "fiscal and regulatory ramifications of content choices."  Fiscal risk is the reason or reasons for not including GLBT content via forums, blogs, articles, etc.  In addition, there is also the risk of a specific individual losing his/her job or being affected vocationally at odds with personal choice or actions.  As Kevin Mack states, "...nobody gets fired for saying no."  The video gaming industry is "highly risk-averse."

Both negative and positive attention to GLBT content has also been cause for some concern.  The "fear of offense and risk has more to do with what audiences might do" as opposed to what they have actually done, a phenomenon known as "imaginary feedback loops."

Obviously, fear of backlash subsequentially affects game content.  Shaw gives the example of forms of self-censorship (rating systems) and (movie) studies have shown that sexual content has more of an impact on ratings than violence and this is similar to the operation of the Electronic Software Ratings Board.  And just to add to this, same-sex content has been rated as more 'mature' than heterosexual content.

It is important to note that video games are seen as a form of entertainment for children despite being inaccurate.  And that can lead to backlash from parents as well.

Then Shaw gets into backlash as a form of pro-GLBT activism.  While companies/marketers may not necessarily admit to being influenced by activists (which can include the company's own personnel, etc), there are times where they do indeed give in to certain demands, "succumbing to pressure," so to speak. Specific attention to GLBT content in video games is not a high priority for the GLBT community for several reasons:  a) limited resources disinterest due to the history of video games (having been developed after the Stonewall riots) and c) 'gaymers' do not demand in-game representation from the GLBT community.  It is noted that, despite this, individualism can have influence (Dancer, 2007; Glover, 2007).  As Shaw puts it, "If fear of activism against GLBT content is enough to dissuade companies from including it, perhaps eventually fear of pro-GLBT content activism could hold similar sway."

What's really amusing (imo) though, is that you have same-sex marriage as an option in a video game and people start to really pay attention not because of 'video game,' but because of 'same-sex marriage,' which is always a controversial topic.

[Mimaiselphenai]

Collider wrote...

Why not? We've done great things. It's true that humans are capable of great evil, but we're also capable of great good as well. The only animal able to, in fact.

The balance of "good and evil" that the human race has accomplished is debatable, but...OFF TOPIC AGAIN, SHUCKS.

[Ryzaki]

Collider wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Collider wrote...

I eagerly await the day - then again I'll be dead by then - where humans will have learned to master themselves.

There's a good chance that day won't happen until the day after a major tragedy.

I don't have too much faith in the human race as a whole anymore. <_<

I'm a cynic can't help it.

Why not? We've done great things. It's true that humans are capable of great evil, but we're also capable of great good as well. The only animal able to, in fact.

Only animal able to be capable of great good? Seeing as humans are also the animal capable of the most evil I would say that's only balancing itself out.

Majority (not all) of humanity's "good" deeds are developed for survival for themselves or greed. Or for that warm fuzzy feeling you get for helping someone. There's not too many people willing to help others at sacrifice to themselves.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 24 mars 2010 - 02:23 .