7455 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

1) As I specifically pointed out the toggle option is one of possibly several solutions. I'm quite willing to consider other options as and when they are presented.

Okay that's fair.

2) Some of the comments on this thread strike me as being guilty of the very thing they lambast others for: Asking for special treatment. For some the special treatment they want is to ensure that no bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included because it offends their sensibilities. For others it is to ensure that bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included because it offends their sensibilities if they are left out. That creates a situation whereby the two camps are diametrically opposed and appear to the be anti-thesis of one another. That renders the likelihood of a mutually acceptable solution difficult, if not outright unlikely, save for the ability to grant each side what they specifically desire at the same time. The toggle system would theoretically allow for just such an outcome since it relies on each individual's input/desires without needing to take in to consideration the input/desires of any other player.

But HOW exactly is asking the s/s romances to be placed in the game like any other romance asking for special treatement?  They're asking for EQUAL treatment. Wanting superior treatment would be demanding there be no straight romances or more gay ones than straight. EDIT: Heck they're not even asking for EQUAL seeing as most of us just want one BI (Please note BI not completely GAY!!!) LI.


And you're right the toggle system allows it (ironically so does the colored text). 

3) When someone attacks another person for having a point of view not conducive to their own - be it pro-same sex or anti-same sex - they are effectively engaging in the same action though for different reasons. What I take issue with are individuals who claim they want fair and equal treatment yet then fail to take in to consideration the needs/wants of other people while branding those same people as being selfish or out of touch with reality, etc. As I mentioned the door swings both ways. If one group - be it pro or anti-same sex relationships - wans equal rights they must by logical necessity also extend those very same rights to other people and groups; even ones they vehemently disagree with. Which is why I brought up the point of this being a computer game, etc. because in the real physical world it would be difficult to grant both sides what they desire simultaneously without stepping on the other side in the process. However, since this is a virtual world we are dealing with it is only limited by the software and hardware capabilities of its creators. Thus with a system such as the proposed toggle system it ought to be possible to cater to both groups simultaneously and that is the point of this: Such a system would be fair to both camps. Neither side loses anything to the other short of whichever personal hang-ups and chips-on-shoulders that an individual may have...And quite frankly such things are not the responsibility of anyone else except the person carrying them.

Ultimately this is about choice. The ability of each individual to choose for him or herself. When we have the ability to empower each player in the game irrespective of their different points of view why not do so?

The whole thing is though this choice makes some feel a little defensive. I don't begrude them that because frankly yeah to me it is a bit offensive. Honestly you're telling me if Jacob's skin color was toggleable it would be AOK? Instead of just you know..ignoring him as a romance option? That really so hard? After all its just a game right? Who cares if it marginalizes people and needlessly puts them into little groups? <_<

And no frankly I don't believe in this "everyone needs equal rights spiel." some people are better than others (sadly in the case of s/s options it seems we're the ones that are the minority and below) that's life. If you say women are inferior to men in every way I reserve the right to laugh at your stupidity and call you a moron and have no reason to respect your beliefs after all you say this as though the other group respects their beliefs.

And yes you're right its a video game so yes the toggle is perfectly acceptable. Just don't expect people to take games seriously as anything other than children's toys if you're willing to use that defense!

Granted that said. I'm PRO toggle.

Jeez. I don't see how people play devil's advocate all the time. Tis exhasusting.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2010 - 08:45 .

[Ryzaki]

KalosCast wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And really would it have killed the devs to place a line where a paragon Jack admits that no one has cared about her (in a non sexual and just plain friendly I.E. her first true friend that wasn't using her for something) like Shep has? (following the right dialogue options of course).

Erm... she pretty much that it word for word several times over the paragon progression.

She does? For FemShep?

*feels dumb*

You mind telling me when? I must have missed that.

[Kryyptehk]

KalosCast wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

2) Some of the comments on this
thread strike me as being guilty of the very thing they lambast others
for: Asking for special treatment. For some the special treatment they
want is to ensure that no bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included
because it offends their sensibilities. For others it is to ensure that
bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included because it offends their
sensibilities if they are left out. That creates a situation whereby
the two camps are diametrically opposed and appear to the be anti-thesis
of one another. That renders the likelihood of a mutually acceptable
solution difficult, if not outright unlikely, save for the ability to
grant each side what they specifically desire at the same time. The
toggle system would theoretically allow for just such an outcome since
it relies on each individual's input/desires without needing to take in
to consideration the input/desires of any other player.

No. Just... no.

I hate to play race here, but this would be like saying that you could accomodate the racists by adding in an option to whitewash Kasumi and Jacob. You're taking a trait of human beings (and presumably aliens) that's completely natural and a significant portion of the world's population and then claiming that they're demanding special attention by wanting to have even just one character share that same trait simply because other people are too emotionally stunted to handle it.

This. And to add to that, what if that added a toggle turning off the romance option for Jacob? Sure, his relationship sucked but I'm willing to bet that if they put that in there, every kind of organization against racism would be up Bioware's butt. Because it makes it seem unnatural.

I like the idea about having colored dialogue to indicate romantic dialogue. That way you could avoid gay romances if you wanted to, but could also avoid other romances, like Miranda's if you are going for Jack or whatever.

And what if you set the toggle at the beginning of the game to make your character lesbian and then discovered you like the male romances better? And that would be the weirdest thing to have in a character generator, "So, you were born on Earth and you are the Butcher of Torfan. Are you gay/straight/bisexual?"

[The_KFD_Case]

KalosCast wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

2) Some of the comments on this
thread strike me as being guilty of the very thing they lambast others
for: Asking for special treatment. For some the special treatment they
want is to ensure that no bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included
because it offends their sensibilities. For others it is to ensure that
bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included because it offends their
sensibilities if they are left out. That creates a situation whereby
the two camps are diametrically opposed and appear to the be anti-thesis
of one another. That renders the likelihood of a mutually acceptable
solution difficult, if not outright unlikely, save for the ability to
grant each side what they specifically desire at the same time. The
toggle system would theoretically allow for just such an outcome since
it relies on each individual's input/desires without needing to take in
to consideration the input/desires of any other player.

No. Just... no.

I hate to play race here, but this would be like saying that you could accomodate the racists by adding in an option to whitewash Kasumi and Jacob. You're taking a trait of human beings (and presumably aliens) that's completely natural and a significant portion of the world's population and then claiming that they're demanding special attention by wanting to have even just one character share that same trait simply because other people are too emotionally stunted to handle it.

No, what I've typed is that if one side wants its desires catered to then in the spirit of fairness it must contemplate that the other side also wants its desires catered to. For me to decide what's right for you is hugely arrogant on some level and vice versa. While you and others may disagree I do not believe that it is the place of a computer game to begin to dictate to a person what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for them to feel, think, and believe. The pro-same sex camp clearly does not appreciate it when the anti-same sex camp tries to browbeat them and by all appearances the feeling is mutual when the roles are reversed. You can't force someone to not be something; what you can do is try to guide and encourage certain thoughts and behavioural trends, yet freedom and equality at their very foundations means that each individual is allowed to choose for him/herself and then face the consequences of his/her actions - I would expect the pro-same sex supporters of all people to understand this concept. While you may have good intentions I do not support the crusade to force the views of a tiny minority on a larger group when the option exists to allow the various groups to have their own way within their own game.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 02 mai 2010 - 08:54 .

[Ryzaki]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I'd argue there'd be a bigger field day by some sections of the media (Fox News, I'm looking at you) if they included (m/m) homosexual content without a 'toggle'. Not to mention the reaction from some players.

Really? Hm. Fox News doesn't actually play the game you see? They just look at the scene and jump to ridculous conclusions. Besides we all know the Fox people are too dense to realize they're being hit on by the same gendered character.

[Ryzaki]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

2) Some of the comments on this
thread strike me as being guilty of the very thing they lambast others
for: Asking for special treatment. For some the special treatment they
want is to ensure that no bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included
because it offends their sensibilities. For others it is to ensure that
bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included because it offends their
sensibilities if they are left out. That creates a situation whereby
the two camps are diametrically opposed and appear to the be anti-thesis
of one another. That renders the likelihood of a mutually acceptable
solution difficult, if not outright unlikely, save for the ability to
grant each side what they specifically desire at the same time. The
toggle system would theoretically allow for just such an outcome since
it relies on each individual's input/desires without needing to take in
to consideration the input/desires of any other player.

No. Just... no.

I hate to play race here, but this would be like saying that you could accomodate the racists by adding in an option to whitewash Kasumi and Jacob. You're taking a trait of human beings (and presumably aliens) that's completely natural and a significant portion of the world's population and then claiming that they're demanding special attention by wanting to have even just one character share that same trait simply because other people are too emotionally stunted to handle it.

No, what I've typed is that if one side wants its desires catered to then in the spirit of fairness it must contemplate that the other side also wants its desires catered to. For me to decide what's right for you is hugely arrogant on some level and vice versa. While you and others may disagree I do not believe that it is the place of a computer game to begin to dictate to a person what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for them to feel, think, and believe. The pro-same sex camp clearly does not appreciate it when the anti-same sex camp tries to browbeat them and by all appearances the feeling is mutual when the roles are reversed. You can't force someone to not be something; what you can do is try to guide and encourage certain thoughts and behavioural trends yet freedom and equality at their very foundations means that each individual is allowed to choose for him/herself and then face the consequences of his/her actions. While you may have good intentions I do not support the crusade to force the views of a tiny minority on a larger group when the option exists to allow the various groups to have their own ways within their own game.

Except for the fact that you know most of us even those who are anti toggle seem to be pro colored text which would accomplish the same thing and pro clearer dialogue options so no one is forced into a M/M romance.

..and how is that not the same the same thing exactly? 

Whitewashing Jacob is removing a human trait from him to appease a majority (say if this was the past where blacks weren't in the media as much) as is removing homosexuality from some characters. You're catering to them. Allowing them to make their own decisions would be placing it in the game but giving them the option to not partake. Which is pretty much agreeded upon unanomously.

And yes its not the place of a video game to dictate morality and the like. Thus the whole reason you don't have to pick certain options. And why those options should be made clear before you select them. Everyone wins!

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2010 - 08:53 .

[Hattie]

The confusion is that from a personal point of view having a 'toggle' that lets you have ss romance is better than no romance at all.



From a pr point of view, having no ss romance is can be defended with silly arguments as we have seen while having a 'toggle' cannot but be perceived for what it is: catering for homophobia.



It's not fair but i think that's how it is.

[Onyx Jaguar]

I don't think adding S/S romances would be as big of a deal as the controversy surrounding Modern Warfare 2's opening level (or as big as the controversy surrounding its homophobic viral campaign).



Such publicity would help in the short run, but could hurt in the long run. However I doubt that it would have a major impact either way because the target audience of Mass Effect is getting more progressive. Because of that, it may be part of the reason they cut it in ME 2, but frankly it isn't a very good reason. I don't think ME 3 will be very kind in this regard, hopefully future Mass Effect games will allow for such romances. (Seems like a lot of people do not want new romance options at all in ME 3, which would be problematic, especially for M/M options).

[Kryyptehk]

@Ryzaki, the colored thing is not really the same as the toggle. All the romances are still enabled but you know what you are getting into. I'd like to be able to talk to Miranda as a man without getting thrown into a romance. Female romances don't seem to have this problem like male romances do.

[Ryzaki]

Kryyptehk wrote...

@Ryzaki, the colored thing is not really the same as the toggle. All the romances are still enabled but you know what you are getting into. I'd like to be able to talk to Miranda as a man without getting thrown into a romance. Female romances don't seem to have this problem like male romances do.

I wasn't to clear. That's what I meant but it was accomplishing the same thing, I didn't mean to say they were the same. I know the differences.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2010 - 08:54 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Yeah, just talking to Jack as a male character (and not taking the "renegade option") seems to make her think you are in a relationship. Impossible situation to resolve.

[Kryyptehk]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yeah, just talking to Jack as a male character (and not taking the "renegade option") seems to make her think you are in a relationship. Impossible situation to resolve.

Exactly and I hate that. With my female Shep, I could talk to Garrus and I realized that the last option was "releaving stress" or something. She was with Thane, so I just stopped talking to Garrus. And I didn't talk to Jacob because I hate the way Bioware wrote Hale's lines.

But with MaleShep, if you talk to any of them, you are immediately in a relationship.

[KalosCast]

The_KFD_Case wrote...

No, what I've typed is that if one side wants its desires catered to then in the spirit of fairness it must contemplate that the other side also wants its desires catered to. For me to decide what's right for you is hugely arrogant on some level and vice versa. While you and others may disagree I do not believe that it is the place of a computer game to begin to dictate to a person what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for them to feel, think, and believe. The pro-same sex camp clearly does not appreciate it when the anti-same sex camp tries to browbeat them and by all appearances the feeling is mutual when the roles are reversed. You can't force someone to not be something; what you can do is try to guide and encourage certain thoughts and behavioural trends, yet freedom and equality at their very foundations means that each individual is allowed to choose for him/herself and then face the consequences of his/her actions - I would expect the pro-same sex supporters of all people to understand this concept. While you may have good intentions I do not support the crusade to force the views of a tiny minority on a larger group when the option exists to allow the various groups to have their own way within their own game.

And therefore, they couldn't be required to pursue a same-sex relationship. Just like how Shep doesn't have to pursue a xenophillic relationship. Or any relationship at all, it's a choice. An in-universe in-game, in-character choice. Just like how same-sex relationships would be a choice. Having the option to do something in a game doesn't make it "catering". You shouldn't decide what's right for the character to do, they should have the choice, gald to see we're in agreement for why having a "hide your gays" toggle to be incredibly insulting.

[ElitePinecone]

gmartin40 wrote...

But the PRIIIZE.

Putting in a toggle would indeed be a heavy risk...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Yeah, just talking to Jack as a male character (and not taking the "renegade option") seems to make her think you are in a relationship. Impossible situation to resolve.

This was really, really annoying. I eventually stopped talking to her altogether after her loyalty mission, the only outcomes were expletives or a really awkward romance that I had no intention of ever starting.

Kryyptehk wrote...

I like the idea about having colored dialogue to indicate romantic dialogue. That way you could avoid gay romances if you wanted to, but could also avoid other romances, like Miranda's if you are going for Jack or whatever.

 

Ideally if I had to pick a solution it would be the coloured dialogue over the toggle. It doesn't lock out options, it gives players a clear warning of what they're getting into (no more "Whoops I just romanced Tali...") and it would allow players with an ideological objection to certain content (or even those who want no romance altogether) to avoid romantic dialogue.

The only thing this creates is a kinda clunky, unnatural separation between 'normal' dialogue and 'romantic' dialogue. In real life pick-up lines aren't coloured pink...

[Kryyptehk]

ElitePinecone wrote...

Ideally if I had to pick a solution it would be the coloured dialogue over the toggle. It doesn't lock out options, it gives players a clear warning of what they're getting into (no more "Whoops I just romanced Tali...") and it would allow players with an ideological objection to certain content (or even those who want no romance altogether) to avoid romantic dialogue.

The only thing this creates is a kinda clunky, unnatural separation between 'normal' dialogue and 'romantic' dialogue. In real life pick-up lines aren't coloured pink...

True, but I bet if you could see your dialogue it would be:D

I don't know, I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it fixes the problem that the homophobes have and the problem with accidently romancing someone, thus making it impossible to romance another person with an akward breakup.

[KalosCast]

Ryzaki wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And really would it have killed the devs to place a line where a paragon Jack admits that no one has cared about her (in a non sexual and just plain friendly I.E. her first true friend that wasn't using her for something) like Shep has? (following the right dialogue options of course).

Erm... she pretty much that it word for word several times over the paragon progression.

She does? For FemShep?

*feels dumb*

You mind telling me when? I must have missed that.

Sorry, missed this. She says it for both during the pre-Loyalty progression, and then it comes up again in one of your two post-loayalty talks (either the "quick thanks" or the "brief bit of extra characterization, you're so cool" one, I forget which)

ElitePinecone wrote...

The only thing this creates is a
kinda clunky, unnatural separation between 'normal' dialogue and
'romantic' dialogue. In real life pick-up lines aren't coloured pink...

No,
but it's a whole lot easier in real life to know if what you're about
so say is a pickup line or just you being nice.

Modifié par KalosCast, 02 mai 2010 - 09:12 .

[Ryzaki]

KalosCast wrote...
Sorry, missed this. She says it for both during the pre-Loyalty progression, and then it comes up again in one of your two post-loayalty talks (either the "quick thanks" or the "brief bit of extra characterization, you're so cool" one, I forget which)

Oh so its subtle. I know I'm dense though so.

[KalosCast]

Ryzaki wrote...

KalosCast wrote...
Sorry, missed this. She says it for both during the pre-Loyalty progression, and then it comes up again in one of your two post-loayalty talks (either the "quick thanks" or the "brief bit of extra characterization, you're so cool" one, I forget which)

Oh so its subtle. I know I'm dense though so.

Yeah, it's more generally implied over the whole thing, than it is her coming out and directly saying it. It's one thing I like about FemShep though, you can make actual friends.

[Ryzaki]

KalosCast wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

KalosCast wrote...
Sorry, missed this. She says it for both during the pre-Loyalty progression, and then it comes up again in one of your two post-loayalty talks (either the "quick thanks" or the "brief bit of extra characterization, you're so cool" one, I forget which)

Oh so its subtle. I know I'm dense though so.

Yeah, it's more generally implied over the whole thing, than it is her coming out and directly saying it. It's one thing I like about FemShep though, you can make actual friends.

What about MShep does he have any bromances other than with boring Jacob? 

I wonder how a bromance with Thane would work out.

Edit: anyways its 5 in the morning and I probably should go to sleep. Been up since 10AM yesterday.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 02 mai 2010 - 09:21 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

It seemed to me that manshep looked at Thane merely out of curiosity rather than compassion (which is true of femshep up until the romance), I'm not sure they would click on the same level as Jacob or Garrus.

[KalosCast]

Ryzaki wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

KalosCast wrote...
Sorry, missed this. She says it for both during the pre-Loyalty progression, and then it comes up again in one of your two post-loayalty talks (either the "quick thanks" or the "brief bit of extra characterization, you're so cool" one, I forget which)

Oh so its subtle. I know I'm dense though so.

Yeah, it's more generally implied over the whole thing, than it is her coming out and directly saying it. It's one thing I like about FemShep though, you can make actual friends.

What about MShep does he have any bromances other than with boring Jacob? 

I wonder how a bromance with Thane would work out.

Edit: anyways its 5 in the morning and I probably should go to sleep. Been up since 10AM yesterday.

Garrus does the same "reach and flexibility" lines which is pretty bro-talk, but is then curiously busy for the rest of the adventure... so it's a close call. Dunno about Thane. Grunt doesn't go beyond "brothers in arms" respect. Wrex actually seems pretty bro, but he's not on your boat. Mordin's just a professional respect. And every non-Chakwas female with a name gushes about how much they wanna slap your junk around (except Samara who says she's too old for that... but totally would if she wasn't, and didn't have daughter issues).

[The_KFD_Case]

Ryzaki wrote...

But HOW exactly is asking the s/s romances to be placed in the game like any other romance asking for special treatement?  They're asking for EQUAL treatment. Wanting superior treatment would be demanding there be no straight romances or more gay ones than straight. EDIT: Heck they're not even asking for EQUAL seeing as most of us just want one BI (Please note BI not completely GAY!!!) LI.


And you're right the toggle system allows it (ironically so does the colored text). 


The whole thing is though this choice makes some feel a little defensive. I don't begrude them that because frankly yeah to me it is a bit offensive. Honestly you're telling me if Jacob's skin color was toggleable it would be AOK? Instead of just you know..ignoring him as a romance option? That really so hard? After all its just a game right? Who cares if it marginalizes people and needlessly puts them into little groups? <_<

And no frankly I don't believe in this "everyone needs equal rights spiel." some people are better than others (sadly in the case of s/s options it seems we're the ones that are the minority and below) that's life. If you say women are inferior to men in every way I reserve the right to laugh at your stupidity and call you a moron and have no reason to respect your beliefs after all you say this as though the other group respects their beliefs.

And yes you're right its a video game so yes the toggle is perfectly acceptable. Just don't expect people to take games seriously as anything other than children's toys if you're willing to use that defense!

Granted that said. I'm PRO toggle.

Jeez. I don't see how people play devil's advocate all the time. Tis exhasusting.

I'll focuse on the latter two of your three comments since the first comment is in agreement with my previous first comment.

2) I take issue with the people that appear to want the same-sex option for each and every LI in the ME games. I do not have a problem with making certain characters same-sex only LIs, nor making some that are bi-sexual. Conversely there should also be only heterosexual LIs in my opinion. I suppose one of the issues BioWare faces if it decides to change its approach in ME3 regarding such matters will be which characters will be altered to fit this desire? It is no more nor less selfish for the anti-same sex people to want Tali'Zorah, Miranda, Jack, Jacob, etc. to remain heterosexual LIs than it is for pro-same sex people to want these characters to become at the very least bi-sexual LIs. If one wants to really become technical about this then a bi-sexual LI option already exists in ME2 - well potentially two actually but only one of them is directly available in ME2 - which would be Kelly Chambers and Liara T'soni. That may not be sufficient choice for some people yet the fact remains that the choice does exist albeit perhaps not quite to the extent they might like. Then again disappointment with certain in-game decisions are hardly limited to this one area.

3) If you do not believe that everyone should have equal rights (barring specific mitigating circumstances), then this discussion becomes moot and for all intents and purposes the pro-same sex supporters who share the same point of view are just as guilty of totalitarian and tyrannical behaviour as the more extreme members of the anti-same sex movement. You can not ask/demand respect and not grant the same to the very people you demand it of. Well, you can yet such an approach is likely to rile a few feathers and if this debate does turn in to an attempt by a minority to push a majority in to a corner things could get very ugly, very quickly once the majority feels harrassed to the point of wanting to retaliate (and given it's superior size, resources and presumed strength it is likely going to be a very one-sided affair). This is why I personally consider steady attempts at rational, reasonable logic and persuasion to be preferable to an all-out confrontation.

Furthermore, we are dealing with the specific topic of same-sex relationships; not racism. While the two topics may seem related they are not one and the same thus direct relevance between the two is questionable. That aside, would I have a personal problem if someone wanted to toggle Jacob in to being Caucasian, Latino/Hispanic, Asian, African, etc. in appearance? No; I might consider it somewhat silly for someone to obsess so much over a surface character trait in a fictional character in a make-believe game but what said person decides to do in the confines of his/her private home without violating certain specifically egregrious laws is not really my concern and vice versa. It can also be argued that since Jacob appears as he does by what one presumes to be the willful decision of the developers then that's how it's meant to be in the game and one can take it or leave it. This train of logic is just as applicable to same-sex LI demands, so perhaps playing the race card on this occasion should be done with care.

For the record it comes as no revelation to me that not all individuals are necessarily equal in stature, ability, perceived value, etc. yet that is not to say that each individual should not be granted access to certain rights regardless. Equal rights and the somewhat subjective worth of an individual are not one and the same thing. Just as morality and religion are not one and the same thing. The same goes for lust and love, etc.

Modifié par The_KFD_Case, 02 mai 2010 - 11:18 .

[The_KFD_Case]

Ryzaki wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

2) Some of the comments on this
thread strike me as being guilty of the very thing they lambast others
for: Asking for special treatment. For some the special treatment they
want is to ensure that no bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included
because it offends their sensibilities. For others it is to ensure that
bi-sexual/homosexual romance plots be included because it offends their
sensibilities if they are left out. That creates a situation whereby
the two camps are diametrically opposed and appear to the be anti-thesis
of one another. That renders the likelihood of a mutually acceptable
solution difficult, if not outright unlikely, save for the ability to
grant each side what they specifically desire at the same time. The
toggle system would theoretically allow for just such an outcome since
it relies on each individual's input/desires without needing to take in
to consideration the input/desires of any other player.

No. Just... no.

I hate to play race here, but this would be like saying that you could accomodate the racists by adding in an option to whitewash Kasumi and Jacob. You're taking a trait of human beings (and presumably aliens) that's completely natural and a significant portion of the world's population and then claiming that they're demanding special attention by wanting to have even just one character share that same trait simply because other people are too emotionally stunted to handle it.

No, what I've typed is that if one side wants its desires catered to then in the spirit of fairness it must contemplate that the other side also wants its desires catered to. For me to decide what's right for you is hugely arrogant on some level and vice versa. While you and others may disagree I do not believe that it is the place of a computer game to begin to dictate to a person what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for them to feel, think, and believe. The pro-same sex camp clearly does not appreciate it when the anti-same sex camp tries to browbeat them and by all appearances the feeling is mutual when the roles are reversed. You can't force someone to not be something; what you can do is try to guide and encourage certain thoughts and behavioural trends yet freedom and equality at their very foundations means that each individual is allowed to choose for him/herself and then face the consequences of his/her actions. While you may have good intentions I do not support the crusade to force the views of a tiny minority on a larger group when the option exists to allow the various groups to have their own ways within their own game.

Except for the fact that you know most of us even those who are anti toggle seem to be pro colored text which would accomplish the same thing and pro clearer dialogue options so no one is forced into a M/M romance.

..and how is that not the same the same thing exactly? 

Whitewashing Jacob is removing a human trait from him to appease a majority (say if this was the past where blacks weren't in the media as much) as is removing homosexuality from some characters. You're catering to them. Allowing them to make their own decisions would be placing it in the game but giving them the option to not partake. Which is pretty much agreeded upon unanomously.

And yes its not the place of a video game to dictate morality and the like. Thus the whole reason you don't have to pick certain options. And why those options should be made clear before you select them. Everyone wins!

Actually I did not know that "most of you" favour a coloured coded text option. Whether the majority truly feels this way or not is not something I am privvy to without further empirical research. Regardless, if that option is acceptable then the toggle option appears equally acceptable. Each one requires that the individual player chooses for him/herself. Claims of bigotry against those who might opt to toggle same-sex dialogue off or on with the toggle option are just as applicable to the coloured text option since that too can be argued to be discriminatory in some sense. That's the inherent problem with topics of this nature: Just about anyone, anywhere can claim to be offended/discriminated against by those options, so to be on the safe side BioWare should simply completely drop the features which would make for a far worse end product in my opinion. Political correctness taken too far can be just as damaging as a number of other things taken too far. To paraphrase Aristotle, "Everything in moderation including moderation itself". In other words, there may well be a time and place for most anything - both moderation and extremism.

The option to allow each player to choose as he/she desires does indeed grant a "everyone wins!" scenario for those involved. It seems that the issue at hand is beginning to merge with a larger desire to change some other people's perceptions. If Mr. X and Mrs. Y can both get the gaming experience they prefer - be it with or without same-sex options - then that addresses the desires of both sides without detracting from the other. Not doing so will inevariably force one side's desires upon the other whichever way the final verdict goes in regards to pro or anti-same sex LIs.

P.S. Technically Caucasians are a global minority.

[The_KFD_Case]

KalosCast wrote...

The_KFD_Case wrote...

No, what I've typed is that if one side wants its desires catered to then in the spirit of fairness it must contemplate that the other side also wants its desires catered to. For me to decide what's right for you is hugely arrogant on some level and vice versa. While you and others may disagree I do not believe that it is the place of a computer game to begin to dictate to a person what is acceptable and what is not acceptable for them to feel, think, and believe. The pro-same sex camp clearly does not appreciate it when the anti-same sex camp tries to browbeat them and by all appearances the feeling is mutual when the roles are reversed. You can't force someone to not be something; what you can do is try to guide and encourage certain thoughts and behavioural trends, yet freedom and equality at their very foundations means that each individual is allowed to choose for him/herself and then face the consequences of his/her actions - I would expect the pro-same sex supporters of all people to understand this concept. While you may have good intentions I do not support the crusade to force the views of a tiny minority on a larger group when the option exists to allow the various groups to have their own way within their own game.

And therefore, they couldn't be required to pursue a same-sex relationship. Just like how Shep doesn't have to pursue a xenophillic relationship. Or any relationship at all, it's a choice. An in-universe in-game, in-character choice. Just like how same-sex relationships would be a choice. Having the option to do something in a game doesn't make it "catering". You shouldn't decide what's right for the character to do, they should have the choice, gald to see we're in agreement for why having a "hide your gays" toggle to be incredibly insulting.

Just as deciding to choose which items to toggle on or off would be a choice each player gets to make for him/herself. Mission accomplished. That you may feel it is an attempt to "hide your gays" is your cross to bear. Not mine. I won't presume to speak on behalf of others without their consent, yet I can state that for me personally it has little to do with that rather colourful and loaded charge you just delivered.