7455 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

SorenTrigg wrote...

And again, Collider, that is *exactly* why you should not be arguing that they are straight.

^this.

You may think X character is straight and have evidence to support it but until either X character or a writer says so you're just assuming. Just like I may think character X is bi and have evidence to support it but until either X character or a writer says so I'm just assuming. It works both ways Collider.

[Collider]

SorenTrigg wrote...

And again, Collider, that is *exactly* why you should not be arguing that they are straight.

I've only stated that they are straight in practice. I am not arguing that they ARE straight.

[Collider]

Siansonea II wrote...
This situation actually occurs in real life, so it is not illogical that it can occur in a video game. Placing logic in quotes may appear to cast aspersions on its legitimacy, but the concept is a valid one. And for the record, I'm not suggesting Kaidan or Ashley become exclusively homosexual. But I would find a bisexual Kaidan and Ashley no more jarring than Tali and Garrus suddenly becoming romantically interested in Shepard. Certainly it comes out of left field for many people, but it doesn't negate everything that came before.

It's not as if I'm arguing that if Kaidan and Ashley were bisexual in ME1, it would be "jarring" or out of character. It WOULD be their character. We are talking about DLC however. Again, this would imply that they would magically be interested in another gender in the same conversations where they once weren't.

[SorenTrigg]

Collider wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

And again, Collider, that is *exactly* why you should not be arguing that they are straight.

I've only stated that they are straight in practice. I am not arguing that they ARE straight.

Then why, exactly, does it bother you so much if they are open to both sexes?

[Collider]

SorenTrigg wrote...

Collider wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

And again, Collider, that is *exactly* why you should not be arguing that they are straight.

I've only stated that they are straight in practice. I am not arguing that they ARE straight.

Then why, exactly, does it bother you so much if they are open to both sexes?

Because they already have romances and they weren't open to the same gender. I don't like the idea of someone's orientation being so malleable when they've already had their romances. For instance, I would not be against Joker being gay in ME3 because he's never had a romance.

[SorenTrigg]

I still do not understand why that matters so much, though. Can you please explain it in more depth?
And again, it is not changing their orientation, as no one *has* one in ME unless stated.

Modifié par SorenTrigg, 14 avril 2010 - 08:59 .

[Nordic Einar]

Collider wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

Collider wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

And again, Collider, that is *exactly* why you should not be arguing that they are straight.

I've only stated that they are straight in practice. I am not arguing that they ARE straight.

Then why, exactly, does it bother you so much if they are open to both sexes?

Because they already have romances and they weren't open to the same gender. I don't like the idea of someone's orientation being so malleable when they've already had their romances. For instance, I would not be against Joker being gay in ME3 because he's never had a romance.

I assume then that you had a problem with them returning Juhani from Kotor to purely lesbian instead of bisexual then, right?

[Collider]

I think it is bad retconning. I don't like the idea that in one playthrough I talk to Jacob about his father and then he doesn't show interest, but then with DLC, the next playthrough I go through the same conversation yet he is magically interested in me. The only reason I care about this is for character integrity and canon. Why are we focusing on DLC so much? Are new characters not preferable to getting table scraps?

[Servo to the bitter end]

Collider wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

Collider wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

And again, Collider, that is *exactly* why you should not be arguing that they are straight.

I've only stated that they are straight in practice. I am not arguing that they ARE straight.

Then why, exactly, does it bother you so much if they are open to both sexes?

Because they already have romances and they weren't open to the same gender. I don't like the idea of someone's orientation being so malleable when they've already had their romances. For instance, I would not be against Joker being gay in ME3 because he's never had a romance.

But if they're not positively identified as hetero/******/bisexual, and all you have to go on is the fact that they once engaged in a hetero/homosexual relationship, how can you assume this?  

[Siansonea]

Collider wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
This situation actually occurs in real life, so it is not illogical that it can occur in a video game. Placing logic in quotes may appear to cast aspersions on its legitimacy, but the concept is a valid one. And for the record, I'm not suggesting Kaidan or Ashley become exclusively homosexual. But I would find a bisexual Kaidan and Ashley no more jarring than Tali and Garrus suddenly becoming romantically interested in Shepard. Certainly it comes out of left field for many people, but it doesn't negate everything that came before.

It's not as if I'm arguing that if Kaidan and Ashley were bisexual in ME1, it would be "jarring" or out of character. It WOULD be their character. We are talking about DLC however. Again, this would imply that they would magically be interested in another gender in the same conversations where they once weren't.

Actually, as I've stated in previous posts, I would want the new information to be presented in new scenes, later in the chronology than ME1. This would not negate or override existing content. You seem to be objecting to my points on reflex, rather than evaluating them

[Collider]

TommyServo wrote...

Collider wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

Collider wrote...

SorenTrigg wrote...

And again, Collider, that is *exactly* why you should not be arguing that they are straight.

I've only stated that they are straight in practice. I am not arguing that they ARE straight.

Then why, exactly, does it bother you so much if they are open to both sexes?

Because they already have romances and they weren't open to the same gender. I don't like the idea of someone's orientation being so malleable when they've already had their romances. For instance, I would not be against Joker being gay in ME3 because he's never had a romance.

But if they're not positively identified as hetero/******/bisexual, and all you have to go on is the fact that they once engaged in a hetero/homosexual relationship, how can you assume this?  

What exactly am I assuming? I think that in light of the fact that male and female shepard can act in the same way, yet they are only open to the opposite or same gender, I disagree with changing their romance to be open to both genders. Again, I don't understand this fixation on changing existing romances. Why don't we fight for new characters instead?

[Siansonea]

Collider wrote...

I think it is bad retconning. I don't like the idea that in one playthrough I talk to Jacob about his father and then he doesn't show interest, but then with DLC, the next playthrough I go through the same conversation yet he is magically interested in me. The only reason I care about this is for character integrity and canon. Why are we focusing on DLC so much? Are new characters not preferable to getting table scraps?

I would also dislike DLC that changed existing content options. DLC that supplements existing options is okay, but once again we are splitting hairs. New characters would be fine with most of us. No one is saying that they do not want new characters. I keep presenting the example of Kaidan and Ashley because they have an emotional weight in the game that new characters do not have, so if their characters are expanded in ME2 DLC or ME3, then they would be much more meaningful than a new character showing up who has no connection to the story other than to be a gay boyfriend for Shepard.

[Atomic Space Vixen]

Collider wrote...

I think it is bad retconning. I don't like the idea that in one playthrough I talk to Jacob about his father and then he doesn't show interest, but then with DLC, the next playthrough I go through the same conversation yet he is magically interested in me. The only reason I care about this is for character integrity and canon. Why are we focusing on DLC so much? Are new characters not preferable to getting table scraps?

If they are going to make changes through DLC - and put the time and money into it - they could add new dialogue options.
That's if the DLC was all new.
Seeing as the dialogue has already been recorded and the romances removed, the DLC in this case would be more of a patch.

[SorenTrigg]

At this point, a new romancable character seems unlikely, save for in ME3.

Since both new characters we have gotten thus far lack dialogue wheels.

[Servo to the bitter end]

Collider wrote...

I think it is bad retconning. I don't like the idea that in one playthrough I talk to Jacob about his father and then he doesn't show interest, but then with DLC, the next playthrough I go through the same conversation yet he is magically interested in me. The only reason I care about this is for character integrity and canon. Why are we focusing on DLC so much? Are new characters not preferable to getting table scraps?

New characters would be an acceptable compromise, but the fact that there are existing characters who could plausibly fit this role seem like an easier, more elegant solution.  Particularly when some of these characters were planned as such early on.  I understand your position regarding character progression.  But looking at some of the characters who were intended as s/s options in the finished game - Tali, Kaidan, etc - there's no way bisexuality would have made any change to their basic character.  Their removal seems totally arbitrary.  Adding a new character, when there are already terrific options available, would make the crew seem bloated.  Note that when I say "new," I mean entirely new - not like Joker/Chakwas/etc, but a new recruitable character previously unseen.

Personally - and I'm only speaking for myself, but I think quite a few people hold a similar position - I don't think that Jacob, to use your example, needs to be exactly the same character in two different games with two very different protagonists.  I wish the non-player characters were more malleable than they are.  We just need to agree to disagree.

Modifié par TommyServo, 14 avril 2010 - 09:09 .

[catabuca]

Siansonea II wrote...


Seriously, if humanity is still homophobic and intolerant in 2185, I think I'm going to side with the Reapers in ME3.

Oh god, please, can I quote you in my signature? That's priceless

[spacehamsterZH]

Collider wrote...
Jack was used by the couple. People are assuming she actually did something with the woman when she didn't have to.

I'll just randomly barge in here again and say if it was actually planned for Jack to be bisexual and the content was recorded, whatever the reason for it being cut, I'm glad. The character is enough of an annoying walking stereotype as it is, and her being bisexual would only have added to that. Actually, I fully expected it and was kind of surprised when it turned out she wasn't.

And while I totally see the logical point that just because a character hasn't explicitly been stated to be bisexual doesn't mean we can automatically assume he or she is straight, I still think it would be better to introduce a new male character who's gay. Like I said earlier, the way Tali's attraction to Shepard was added seems incredibly tacket on, and frankly, I also just don't like the idea that absolutely everyone and everything irrespective of species or genital configuration can be romanced just because a bunch of people on a messageboard demanded it. I was actually relieved to find Kasumi is still hung up about her dead boyfriend and Samara outright rejects Shepard. You may have noticed that in real life, not everyone is attracted to you.

[SorenTrigg]

spacehamsterZH wrote...
I was actually relieved to find Kasumi is still hung up about her dead boyfriend and Samara outright rejects Shepard. You may have noticed that in real life, not everyone is attracted to you.

Kausmi *also* makes remarks about how attractive Jacob is and she wonders if he would be into her.

Also, Mass Effect? Not real life.

[Nordic Einar]

I still don't understand why everyone is so hard on Jack being a stereotype - her character is one of the few three dimensional ones in ME2, as far as I'm concerned. I know dykes *and* straight girls who fit that punker role. Miranda is far more offensive as far as stereotyping and caricatures are concerned, imho.

[Siansonea]

catabuca wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...


Seriously, if humanity is still homophobic and intolerant in 2185, I think I'm going to side with the Reapers in ME3.

Oh god, please, can I quote you in my signature? That's priceless

Of course, I would be honored Catabuca.

[LiquidGrape]

Nordic Einar wrote...

I still don't understand why everyone is so hard on Jack being a stereotype - her character is one of the few three dimensional ones in ME2, as far as I'm concerned. I know dykes *and* straight girls who fit that punker role.

Indeed.
It's been said far more eloquently by other people before me, but;
While it's perfectly true that Jack could very easily have descended into a stock kind of character, the substantial characterisation prevents this.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 14 avril 2010 - 09:25 .

[Ryzaki]

Nordic Einar wrote...

I still don't understand why everyone is so hard on Jack being a stereotype - her character is one of the few three dimensional ones in ME2, as far as I'm concerned. I know dykes *and* straight girls who fit that punker role. Miranda is far more offensive as far as stereotyping and caricatures are concerned, imho.

What's wrong with Miranda? O_o

[The Uncanny]

Ryzaki wrote...

What's wrong with Miranda? O_o

The problem with Miranda is that it is hard to see past her ass.

Or over it... or under it... or beside it...

[LiquidGrape]

The Uncanny wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

What's wrong with Miranda? O_o

The problem with Miranda is that it is hard to see past her ass.

Or over it... or under it... or beside it...

Don't forget "across".

[Temper_Graniteskul]

Collider wrote...

I think it is bad retconning. I don't like the idea that in one playthrough I talk to Jacob about his father and then he doesn't show interest, but then with DLC, the next playthrough I go through the same conversation yet he is magically interested in me. The only reason I care about this is for character integrity and canon. Why are we focusing on DLC so much? Are new characters not preferable to getting table scraps?

I don't consider opening existing romances (through DLC or in ME3) 'table scraps,' in part because who people would like to see as romanceable is entirely a matter of personal opinion. Was Tali a table scrap? No, because there was a fanbase who was interested specifically romancing that character. Garrus? Nope again. Similarly, asking for the Kaidan/Ashley LI to be opened up is a matter of personal preference and interest in romancing those characters.

As well, arguing that the best option for implementing s/s LIs might be to open up existing LIs or use existing characters is also not 'table scraps.' Most of the people who are for this option seem to be of the mind that it helps curtail character bloat, as well as offers a kind of continuity that would not be found with a new LI in ME3. I can't remember many people saying that it's because Bioware probably won't introduce a s/s LI in ME3, so this is the best we could likely get, darn it all.

Finally, no one is saying that 'we' shouldn't be arguing for new characters to fulfill s/s gaps. We're arguing for what we'd like to see, and there is nothing saying that we cannot argue for both. This isn't an either/or scenario, here. There are a lot of ideas, and a lot of preferences. We, as posters on this thread or even as members of the Fight for the Love group, don't have to pick one and throw all our weight behind it to launch it in front of the devs' visual range. There are some ideas that appear to have near universal consensus, but it's not like we're fighting varren, here. We don't have to pick a dog to fight - we can show them every idea puppy we have.