7455 réponses à ce sujet

[SP One Nineteen]

EA_BiowareAccount wrote...

good for this thread

What is??

[Thicketford]

Darkhour wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I have noticed that many young people today are actually quite unfazed by homosexuality, that it is not nearly as controversial an issue as when I was young. Slowly humanity is evolving, but much too slowly in my opinion.

Could you sound just tad bit more pompous and self righteous?

How exactly is this pompous and self rightous?

[LiquidGrape]

Thicketford wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I have noticed that many young people today are actually quite unfazed by homosexuality, that it is not nearly as controversial an issue as when I was young. Slowly humanity is evolving, but much too slowly in my opinion.

Could you sound just tad bit more pompous and self righteous?

How exactly is this pompous and self rightous?

Oh, but it's so obvious!
Sincerity, deliberate and succint diction, a progressive mindset...
Clearly the product of pompous and self righteous behaviour.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 26 avril 2010 - 11:00 .

[Darkhour]

Thicketford wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I have noticed that many young people today are actually quite unfazed by homosexuality, that it is not nearly as controversial an issue as when I was young. Slowly humanity is evolving, but much too slowly in my opinion.

Could you sound just tad bit more pompous and self righteous?

How exactly is this pompous and self rightous?

This arrogant idea that your beliefs constitute a superior mindset. If only people who don't think like you could evolve to your level and embrass your smugly superior beliefs which apparently constitute some kind of universal objective fact.

[LiquidGrape]

Darkhour wrote...
This arrogant idea that your beliefs constitute a superior mindset. If only people who don't think like you could evolve to your level and embrass your smugly superior beliefs which apparently constitute some kind of universal objective fact.

Excuse me, but considering that homophobia is defined as an irrational fear of homosexuality, the hope that we will one day be rid of that kind of incongruous thinking isn't so much a declaration of  moral superiourity as an expression of reason.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 26 avril 2010 - 12:27 .

[Nordic Einar]

Darkhour wrote...

Thicketford wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

I have noticed that many young people today are actually quite unfazed by homosexuality, that it is not nearly as controversial an issue as when I was young. Slowly humanity is evolving, but much too slowly in my opinion.

Could you sound just tad bit more pompous and self righteous?

How exactly is this pompous and self rightous?

This arrogant idea that your beliefs constitute a superior mindset. If only people who don't think like you could evolve to your level and embrass your smugly superior beliefs which apparently constitute some kind of universal objective fact.

Yeah, how dare she hold to the belief that inclusion and mutual respect, as opposed to exclusion and homophobia, are the ideals we should strive for. <_<

I know American culture has fostered this belief that all opinions are equally valid, but straight up? Inclusion is better than exclusion, and respect is greater than blind or irrational distaste. A crazy concept, I know.

[Darkhour]

LiquidGrape wrote...

Excuse me, but considering that homophobia is defined as an irrational fear of homosexuality, the hope that we will one day be rid of that kind of incongruous thinking isn't so much a declaration of  moral superiourity as an expression of reason.

I doubt the homophobes would agree with that definition. If I let people with one set of values define another group with an opposing set of values can I honestly expect and objective unbiased definition? Of course not.

Nordic Einar wrote...

Yeah, how dare she hold to the belief that inclusion and mutual respect, as opposed to exclusion and homophobia, are the ideals we should strive for. <_<

I know American culture has fostered this belief that all opinions are equally valid, but straight up? Inclusion is better than exclusion, and respect is greater than blind or irrational distaste. A crazy concept, I know.

If all you're going to do is arbitrarily dictate that your views are rational, logical, open-minded, etc. and any opposing view is close-minded, irrational and blind then you demonstrate my point. Typical self righteous pompous arrogance.

Maybe there is a guy who wants to have a love interst who is a consenting prepubescent ten year old. And you not being a close-minded bigot would support this I'm sure. Because inclusion is better than exclusion and respect is greater than blind and irrational distaste. I'm sure there is a thread wanting graphic sex and nudity, intercourse with hanar, krogan, varren, shifty looking cows, etc. I'm sure you'd welcome them all, but eveyone isn't as open-minded as you. 

[Siansonea]

Darkhour wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

Excuse me, but considering that homophobia is defined as an irrational fear of homosexuality, the hope that we will one day be rid of that kind of incongruous thinking isn't so much a declaration of  moral superiourity as an expression of reason.

I doubt the homophobes would agree with that definition. If I let people with one set of values define another group with an opposing set of values can I honestly expect and objective unbiased definition? Of course not.

Nordic Einar wrote...

Yeah, how dare she hold to the belief that inclusion and mutual respect, as opposed to exclusion and homophobia, are the ideals we should strive for. <_<

I know American culture has fostered this belief that all opinions are equally valid, but straight up? Inclusion is better than exclusion, and respect is greater than blind or irrational distaste. A crazy concept, I know.

If all you're going to do is arbitrarily dictate that your views are rational, logical, open-minded, etc. and any opposing view is close-minded, irrational and blind then you demonstrate my point. Typical self righteous pompous arrogance.

Maybe there is a guy who wants to have a love interst who is a consenting prepubescent ten year old. And you not being a close-minded bigot would support this I'm sure. Because inclusion is better than exclusion and respect is greater than blind and irrational distaste. I'm sure there is a thread wanting graphic sex and nudity, intercourse with hanar, krogan, varren, shifty looking cows, etc. I'm sure you'd welcome them all, but eveyone isn't as open-minded as you. 

I do not equate homosexuality with pedophilia. A ten-year-old is not capable of informed consent. This analogy is not applicable.

If you wish to label me pompous and arrogant, you are free to do so. I am not diminished by it.

[Jennifer Kenney]

I totally agree that games that include romances should allow for same sex options. Let people romance as they wish.

[The Uncanny]

Just a reminder for everyone to avoid personal attacks and keep it on topic about Mass Effect, please.

[The_KFD_Case]

In my opinion the creator(s) of a given work - be it a computer game, a painting, music, movie, book, etc. - should be the one(s) to determine whether a given character or set of characters are of a certain persuasion. This is irrespective of what certain fans or potential customers may, or may not, want. I suspect many of us would resent being told how a personal creative piece of work that we're responsible for has to be like, provided we aren't operating under a pre-established agreement/contract that specifies certain items be included.

That said it does appear that reason dictates that allowing for both heterosexual and homosexual/bi-sexual preferences in romantic relationships in a game need not detract from any of the sexual persuasions provided each one has its own separate course of action which the individual player determines of his/her own free volition. Certain things, such as a voluntary romantic outcome in a computer game, only have as much power over the beholder as he/she allows. Conversely, it bears worth mentioning that since everyone is entitled to an opinion and preference, no one should be forced to include a heterosexual or a homosexual/bisexual romantic relationship in a computer game if it is their genuine personal conviction that such a character trait does not fit with their creative vision. If we expect and demand the freedom to choose for ourselves then it is a right that by logical necessity must be granted to others as well (with possible mitigating circumstances if said right is likely to lead to direct harm and grossly illegal activities, which I would argue does not appear to be the case in regards to BioWare's ME gaming franchise).

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 27 avril 2010 - 02:54 .

[SorenTrigg]

Keep in mind, Bioware has put s/s relationships in their games before (including ME), so they are not against it. And we are not demanding anything, we are just stating that we would like this included.

Which other fans have done with other things before (Tali and Garrus romances, for example).

[SP One Nineteen]

Siansonea II wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

Excuse me, but considering that homophobia is defined as an irrational fear of homosexuality, the hope that we will one day be rid of that kind of incongruous thinking isn't so much a declaration of  moral superiourity as an expression of reason.

I doubt the homophobes would agree with that definition. If I let people with one set of values define another group with an opposing set of values can I honestly expect and objective unbiased definition? Of course not.

Nordic Einar wrote...

Yeah, how dare she hold to the belief that inclusion and mutual respect, as opposed to exclusion and homophobia, are the ideals we should strive for. <_<

I know American culture has fostered this belief that all opinions are equally valid, but straight up? Inclusion is better than exclusion, and respect is greater than blind or irrational distaste. A crazy concept, I know.

If all you're going to do is arbitrarily dictate that your views are rational, logical, open-minded, etc. and any opposing view is close-minded, irrational and blind then you demonstrate my point. Typical self righteous pompous arrogance.

Maybe there is a guy who wants to have a love interst who is a consenting prepubescent ten year old. And you not being a close-minded bigot would support this I'm sure. Because inclusion is better than exclusion and respect is greater than blind and irrational distaste. I'm sure there is a thread wanting graphic sex and nudity, intercourse with hanar, krogan, varren, shifty looking cows, etc. I'm sure you'd welcome them all, but eveyone isn't as open-minded as you. 

I do not equate homosexuality with pedophilia. A ten-year-old is not capable of informed consent. This analogy is not applicable.

If you wish to label me pompous and arrogant, you are free to do so. I am not diminished by it.

She said it. 

Cool it man

[The_KFD_Case]

SorenTrigg wrote...

Keep in mind, Bioware has put s/s relationships in their games before (including ME), so they are not against it. And we are not demanding anything, we are just stating that we would like this included.
Which other fans have done with other things before (Tali and Garrus romances, for example).

True. As long as it is BioWare's own free decision - one which isn't brought about solely by the efforts of pressure groups - to choose to include, or not include, a heterosexual and/or homosexual relationship in any game of theirs, then I'm content that freedom has been preserved in the matter. Whether I will like their decision or not is another matter.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 27 avril 2010 - 03:12 .

[SorenTrigg]

It is not a case about Bioware being 'free'. They are free to do whatever they want.

But remember, this is a *product*. We are giving input as to what a section of the consumers want.

[Iehoa0083]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

In my opinion the creator(s) of a given work - be it a computer game, a painting, music, movie, book, etc. - should be the one(s) to determine whether a given character or set of characters are of a certain persuasion. This is irrespective of what certain fans or potential customers may, or may not, want. I suspect many of us would resent being told how a personal creative piece of work that we're responsible for has to be like, provided we aren't operating under a pre-established agreement/contract that specifies certain items be included.

That said it does appear that reason dictates that allowing for both heterosexual and homosexual/bi-sexual preferences in romantic relationships in a game need not detract from any of the sexual persuasions provided each one has its own separate course of action which the individual player determines of his/her own free volition. Certain things, such as a voluntary romantic outcome in a computer game, only have as much power over the beholder as he/she allows. Conversely, it bears worth mentioning that since everyone is entitled to an opinion and preference, no one should be forced to include a heterosexual or a homosexual/bisexual romantic relationship in a computer game if it is their genuine personal conviction that such a character trait does not fit with their creative vision. If we expect and demand the freedom to choose for ourselves then it is a right that by logical necessity must be granted to others as well (with possible mitigating circumstances if said right is likely to lead to direct harm and grossly illegal activities, which I would argue does not appear to be the case in regards to BioWare's ME gaming franchise).

Well said! There are people who just don't bend
that way and this happens both in reality and games. To forcefully put this
option on some chars will only damage the authenticity and the dynamic of
the char. 



I'm not against gay/lesbian chars in the game, I
would be fine if they add some new chars in there that bend the other way or
even both ways. For example, like what Bioware did in DAO. It was both
convincing and authentic. However, I just think that it is wrong to change the
whole dynamic of some existing, even quite well established chars from ME1
and 2 just for the sake of having that option open. 

[The Uncanny]

Iehoa0083 wrote...
However, I just think that it is wrong to change the whole dynamic of some existing, even quite well established chars from ME1and 2 just for the sake of having that option open.

Established? Exactly how are the sexual orientations of most of the squad members in these two games definitively established? Explain please.

[Iehoa0083]

SorenTrigg wrote...

It is not a case about Bioware being 'free'. They are free to do whatever they want.
But remember, this is a *product*. We are giving input as to what a section of the consumers want.

Well, if we look at this from a business point of view, allowing homosexual option for all char is probably not a good idea unless they know for sure that the number of people who want it vastly out number the number of people who doesn't want it. 

[The_KFD_Case]

SorenTrigg wrote...

It is not a case about Bioware being 'free'. They are free to do whatever they want.
But remember, this is a *product*. We are giving input as to what a section of the consumers want.

I believe my previous posts already addressed that. I stand by my previous comments.

Furthermore, as much as this is a series of computer games we are dealing with, it is all but inevitable that less "strictly business" factors will come in to play. Such as human traits like personal opinions and feelings - the people involved in business are not above nor beyond this. Just because a decision may seem logical, reasonable, rational, etc. does not mean it will necessarily be the one that is carried out. This phenomenon is also quite visible within politics as well in case you were wondering.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 27 avril 2010 - 03:47 .

[The Uncanny]

Iehoa0083 wrote...

Well, if we look at this from a business point of view, allowing homosexual option for all char is probably not a good idea unless they know for sure that the number of people who want it vastly out number the number of people who doesn't want it.

And an incredibly good idea if those who either want it or don't care either way vastly outnumber those who don't.

[The_KFD_Case]

The Uncanny wrote...

Iehoa0083 wrote...
However, I just think that it is wrong to change the whole dynamic of some existing, even quite well established chars from ME1and 2 just for the sake of having that option open.

Established? Exactly how are the sexual orientations of most of the squad members in these two games definitively established? Explain please.

Well, off the top of my head I can cite both Tali'Zorah and Garrus as apparently not being bisexual nor homosexual.

[The Uncanny]

The_KFD_Case wrote..

Well, off the top of my head I can cite both Tali'Zorah and Garrus as apparently not being bisexual nor homosexual.

Apparently. So... not established then.

[The_KFD_Case]

The Uncanny wrote...

Iehoa0083 wrote...

Well, if we look at this from a business point of view, allowing homosexual option for all char is probably not a good idea unless they know for sure that the number of people who want it vastly out number the number of people who doesn't want it.

And an incredibly good idea if those who either want it or don't care either way vastly outnumber those who don't.

Yes, but to my knowledge there does not appear to have been any empirically sound survey carried out in a large, generally representative pool of potential customers. Bear in mind that this forum probably does not fit the bill as many customers do not venture in to online forums, and that those of us whom are present are likely a minority whose points of view may, or may not, accurately reflect the much larger market out there.

P.S. The notion that the majority is always in the right is also potentially troubling.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 27 avril 2010 - 03:57 .

[The_KFD_Case]

The Uncanny wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote..

Well, off the top of my head I can cite both Tali'Zorah and Garrus as apparently not being bisexual nor homosexual.

Apparently. So... not established then.

What would satisfactorily constitute "established" to you?

[The Uncanny]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

The Uncanny wrote...

Iehoa0083 wrote...

Well, if we look at this from a business point of view, allowing homosexual option for all char is probably not a good idea unless they know for sure that the number of people who want it vastly out number the number of people who doesn't want it.

And an incredibly good idea if those who either want it or don't care either way vastly outnumber those who don't.

Yes, but to my knowledge there does not appear to have been any empirically sound survey carried out in a large, generally representative pool of potential customers. Bear in mind that this forum probably does not fit the bill as many customers do not venture to online forums, and that those of us whom are present are a minority whose points of view may, or may not, accurately reflect the much larger market out there.

I never suggested there was any empirical evidence. Which means that neither argument can be made definitively. I was merely pointing out that the reverse was true.