By John Walker on March 25th, 2011 at 11:20 am.
A peculiar accusation was made against Dragon Age II on the BioWare forums, in which a user accused the game of not properly catering for the straight male gamer. Honestly, I’d launched into writing this with the intention of factually reporting it, but just typing those words has made me want to start throwing chairs. What? Good grief, even if that were true, which it so spectacularly isn’t, wouldn’t it… but… good grief. Amazingly, one of BioWare’s writers, David Gaider, gave a calm, level-headed response where I would have said capital swears. He makes some interesting comments, as EG point out.
In Dragon Age II you’re able to form relationships with your companions. In order to cater for players choosing to play as, or indeed being, male or female, these characters are essentially bisexual. Some are overt about this, others you’d never know until you played again as a different sex. When I finally write my treatise on the game, I will have some criticisms to make of the way relationships are handled, but the variety, and offering of straight, gay and bisexual relationships certainly won’t be one of them.
The original poster said things that make my spine hurt, like,
“Its ridiculous that I even have to use a term like Straight Male Gamer, when in the past I would only have to say fans.”
But the crux of his argument was,
“In every previous BioWare game, I always felt that almost every companion in the game was designed for the male gamer in mind. Every female love interest was always written as a male friend type support character. In Dragon Age 2, I felt like most of the companions were designed to appeal to other groups foremost, Anders and Fenris for gays and Aveline for women given the lack of strong women in games, and that for the straight male gamer, a secondary concern. It makes things very awkward when your male companions keep making passes at you. The fact that a “No Homosexuality” option, which could have been easily implemented, is omitted just proves my point.”
Imagine the news stories if BioWare had included a “no homosexuality” button. Anyway, we’re not supposed to be dragging some guy on a forum over the coals for what some may think are deeply homophobic remarks. Gaider’s reply is the interesting part of this story.
He does point out that it’s a politely expressed ignorant opinion, before going on to criticise the behaviour of others in the (clearly heavily modified) thread. And then offers an eloquent explanation of the decisions made for Dragon Age II’s romance. I’ll paste the whole thing here:
“The romances in the game are not for “the straight male gamer”. They’re for everyone. We have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention. We have good numbers, after all, on the number of people who actually used similar sorts of content in DAO and thus don’t need to resort to anecdotal evidence to support our idea that their numbers are not insignificant… and that’s ignoring the idea that they don’t have just as much right to play the kind of game they wish as anyone else. The “rights” of anyone with regards to a game are murky at best, but anyone who takes that stance must apply it equally to both the minority as well as the majority. The majority has no inherent “right” to get more options than anyone else.
More than that, I would question anyone deciding they speak for “the straight male gamer” just as much as someone claiming they speak for “all RPG fans”, “all female fans” or even “all gay fans”. You don’t. If you wish to express your personal desires, then do so. I have no doubt that any opinion expressed on these forums is shared by many others, but since none of them have elected a spokesperson you’re better off not trying to be one. If your attempt is to convince BioWare developers, I can tell you that you do in fact make your opinion less convincing by doing so.
And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.
The truth is that making a romance available for both genders is far less costly than creating an entirely new one. Does it create some issues of implementation? Sure– but anything you try on this front is going to have its issues, and inevitably you’ll always leave someone out in the cold. In this case, are all straight males left out in the cold? Not at all. There are romances available for them just the same as anyone else. Not all straight males require that their content be exclusive, after all, and you can see that even on this thread.
Would I do it again? I don’t know. I doubt I would have Anders make the first move again– at the time, I thought that requiring all romances to have Hawke initiate everything was the unrealistic part. Even if someone decides that this makes everyone “unrealistically” bisexual, however, or they can’t handle the idea that the character might be bisexual if they were another PC… I don’t see that as a big concern, to be honest. Romances are never one-size-fits-all, and even for those who don’t mind the sexuality issue there’s no guarantee they’ll find a character they even want to romance. That’s why romances are optional content. It’s such a personal issue that we’ll never be able to please everyone. The very best we can do is give everyone a little bit of choice, and that’s what we tried here.
And the person who says that the only way to please them is to restrict options for others is, if you ask me, the one who deserves it least. And that’s my opinion, expressed as politely as possible.”
25/03/2011 at 11:23 Mashakosha says:
Two sexy sex tags in one day? What is this madness?!
In all seriousness though, props to Gaider for that response. Shows that some of the employees of BioWare haven’t sold their souls to EA.
25/03/2011 at 16:36 bob_d says:
Especially considering the original post (apparently with which the writer spammed the message boards) frankly didn’t merit a response, much less the thoughtful, measured one it received.
26/03/2011 at 04:36 Martha Stuart says:
My question is how is 2 hot chicks gettin it on not geared to the “Stright male gamer”. That is percisly who that option is for isn’t it?
26/03/2011 at 11:58 DigitalSignalX says:
@Martha: Exactly. Same reason why I play as a female in most games given the option. More fun to watch for endless hours, and since I’m suspending reality in a game anyway, might as well toss in some hot lesbian action just for kicks.
Why yes, I’m am single, ladies.
er wait, what?
25/03/2011 at 11:24 WeFlySpitfires says:
They should add a sliding meter that lets you determine how homosexual you want the game to be.
25/03/2011 at 11:43 Choca says:
Something like : “Slightly Gay – Pretty Gay – Totally Queer – Wham’s music video” would do the trick
25/03/2011 at 11:44 Beastbaron says:
I think an in-game homosexuality slider would be awesome, as long as one end imbued the game’s dialogue with the ‘not gay’ homo-exoticness of Top Gun. The other end should contain full on Priscilla, Queen of the Desert costumes and combat should be replaced with dance-off quick time events.
I would pay good money to see a squad of Hurlocks pirouette in unison.
25/03/2011 at 11:48 Earl-Grey says:
Surely such a slider has a home in every game?
One that goes from 1 (NOHOMO!) to 11 (Fabulous).
Just imagine how much more fun the dreary annual CoD would be with a special “Bedazzling Cabaret” setting?
Not to mention how much more pleasant the suit in Crysis would be.
25/03/2011 at 12:00 SuperNashwanPower says:
We need a Kinsey Scale slider in the game options tab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
25/03/2011 at 14:24 MikoSquiz says:
I usually don’t do anything “gayer” than just plain old bumming blokes (yes, all right, and occasionally buying them flowers or taking them to dinner), and don’t buy any Lady Gaga records or get my hair styled by hairstylists, but I would totally play the shit out of Fabulous Dragon Cabaret Age.
25/03/2011 at 15:10 Vanderdecken says:
Every comment above this one has so much win I honestly can’t believe my eyes. And I think a Kinsey scale slider would be a fantastic idea for determining your character’s sexuality during creation.
25/03/2011 at 16:52 cheese lol says:
A “…no homo” conversation interrupt would be great. They already have the code to implement it, too.
25/03/2011 at 17:10 jonfitt says:
DA3 just needs to implement Gaydar.
All NPC characters should watch your interactions with other NPCs and then make a judgement on if they think you swing their way. If they do think you swing their way they might make an advance, if not they’d wait for you to make an advance. If you approach them and contradict their judgement of you they could even make comments about how they didn’t realise…
There. Fixed.
25/03/2011 at 18:12 Tally says:
I’m feeling ME2′s paragon/renegade QTE’s. Sort of a gay/’see, look I swear I’m not gay” choice appearing on screen during some events.
e.g. Anders could break down about a friends death and start crying.
Gay opt.- Hug, caress and comfort him.
“Dude, I’m not gay” opt.- Say, “Quit crying like a queer. Man up.”
25/03/2011 at 19:38 Cooper says:
I particularly love the idea of the “srsly, no gay here” option being the Top Gun style.
25/03/2011 at 21:46 Caleb367 says:
All the way to the Culture Club setting.
This is gonna be exciiiitiiiiing.
26/03/2011 at 22:51 TSA says:
Jeremy Freese’s excellent piece of interactive fiction, Violet, has something like this. The specific command is: “Heteronormativity off”.
25/03/2011 at 11:25 Groove says:
I couldn’t romance a darkspawn, I am discriminate.
25/03/2011 at 11:48 The Tupper says:
That’s hate speech, man.
25/03/2011 at 12:34 Avenger says:
You mean “Blackspawn” ? (JK)
Ok ok one more, because Niggaspawn sounds awesome
25/03/2011 at 13:05 GHudston says:
No, no it doesn’t.
25/03/2011 at 13:13 Avenger says:
How about “Niggaspawn my bike?”
25/03/2011 at 13:48 battles_atlas says:
How about you sit the rest of this conversation out, Champ?
26/03/2011 at 17:20 shitflap says:
Beautiful
25/03/2011 at 11:31 JackShandy says:
I didn’t realise David Gaider was such a lovely man. All I’d heard on Bioware’s inclusiveness were the debates on the lack of black or asian people in dragon age, and the way the marketing exclusively focuses on males.
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=3784
http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=3920
I suppose I’ll go and revise my opinion now.
25/03/2011 at 11:32 thecrius says:
I’ve a lot of gay friend.
But anyway can someone explain me how can i make clear to the damn justice/vendetta npc that i DO NOT WANT to have sex with him? Why we can’t be just good friend?
Yes, I’ve a lot of gay friend. And DA2 is gay friendly. A little too much.
But hey, i can understand that with a ridiculous main story, the Bioware guys tried to keep us busy dodging the advances of all the gay of our party.
Dragon age: Stalking was the original title.
25/03/2011 at 12:12 zergrush says:
I finished the game with a male character and can’t even remember Anders making a pass on me, but I’m pretty sure I didn’t romance him and his friendship bar was almost 100% friendly.
So either it’s perfectly possible to deny his advances and still keep his friendship or he put something on my character’s drink.
25/03/2011 at 12:16 Tom OBedlam says:
In 2011 I’m not sure you’re allowed to parenthesise recreationary comments with “I know gay people”
25/03/2011 at 12:56 psycho7005 says:
@Tom
That made me laugh, a lot, for an extended period of time haha.
25/03/2011 at 21:09 Oddtwang of Dork says:
Did you mean “reactionary” there?
Also, Richard Littlejohn makes a ludicrously large living out of doing precisely that.
25/03/2011 at 11:32 TheApologist says:
I played the demo, and the really worrying thing was how long Hawke spent staring at his sister. Naughty Hawke.
25/03/2011 at 12:30 Creeping Death says:
I remember actually seeing a thread on the Steam forums on release about people complaining how you couldnt romance your sister… yea -.-
26/03/2011 at 08:39 thebigJ_A says:
I demand a “yes incest” option in my games!!
28/03/2011 at 18:09 Ragnar says:
What about the Mabari hound?
25/03/2011 at 11:35 Savage Henry says:
Well, it’s the thin end of the wedge really, isn’t it? It starts off as a casual sexual pass made by an NPC towards a ruggedly handsome, muscular, ever-so-slightly homoerotically designed player-character, and where does it end up? Collectable saucy postcards of young men’s sweaty bottoms in The Witcher 2! NOT ON MY WATCH!
25/03/2011 at 11:40 CMaster says:
Hahaha. That sounds brilliant – The Witcher 3: Geralt sees the error of his playboy ways, not in that treating his sexual partners as conquests, but that he was making conquests of the wrong sex.
25/03/2011 at 11:47 kikito says:
“and where does it end up?”
JRPGs lol.
25/03/2011 at 11:50 Groove says:
Witcher 4: Whatever. Men, women and saucily posed furniture. Sticking it wherever it’ll fit.
25/03/2011 at 12:17 Tom OBedlam says:
I love the idea of Geralt’s sex card collection being the IKEA catalogue
25/03/2011 at 12:29 Spatula says:
i lol’d
25/03/2011 at 13:02 Savage Henry says:
I’m going to Ikea in the next couple of weeks. I’m going to hear that ruddy panpipe sex-music every time I sit down in a comfy chair now. Thanks for that.
25/03/2011 at 16:21 Makariel says:
Great, now I feel dirty for reading the IKEA catalog earlier today…
25/03/2011 at 16:56 Nick says:
As well you should, considering you found it in a bush and some of the pages were stuck together.
25/03/2011 at 17:52 Hammurabi says:
Chippendale or Chippendale’s — you no longer need to make a choice.
25/03/2011 at 18:03 Man Raised by Puffins says:
Mais oui, mon armoire!
25/03/2011 at 19:44 Cooper says:
I was already in sitches at the comment thread so far, but that’s a pun worthy of a standing ovation.
25/03/2011 at 19:44 Zogtee says:
Geralt: “Oh, Billy Bookshelf, tonight I’m yours. All yours!”
Billy: …
Geralt: Uh! Uh! Uh! Arggghh..!
Billy: …
26/03/2011 at 11:05 Teph says:
Where does it end? With Shadow Hearts: Covenant’s infamous collectibles (quite likely NSFW).
Clearly my perspective’s been twisted by those evil decadent consoles. After trading gay porn to a pair of exceedingly camp tailors in exchange for custom-made puppet-dresses, the potential of being hit upon by a male DA2 companion holds little concern.
29/03/2011 at 01:37 tonweight says:
BLOOD AND THUNDER!
VICTORY AT SEA!
25/03/2011 at 11:38 Comradebluesky says:
“…the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance.” I’m not used to seeing these sorts of fundamental injustices acknowledged so clearly by a videogame developer, and – more to the point – seeing these sorts of ideals actually expressed in a videogame, and then openly and unabashedly defended by one of its writers. It might sound pie-in-the-sky-optimistic, but it openly tackling such issues really gives me hope for the future of videogames.
25/03/2011 at 11:41 TheApologist says:
Agree 100% with this.
Reading his response sent my optimisimeter off the chart.
One day we’ll look back at games in the first couple of decades of the 21st century with the same cringing embarrassment we look at so much comedy of the 60′s and 70′s. And that’s a good thing.
25/03/2011 at 11:54 Dolphan says:
While his reply was generally spot on, the ‘majority’ line is a bit wrong. Class and gender priviledge are obvious exceptions.
25/03/2011 at 12:52 TheApologist says:
@Dolphan
Fair point.
25/03/2011 at 16:09 Jumwa says:
Comrade and Dolphan, both well said.
Now I have a lot of gay friends, but–…
Just kidding, I had to throw that in there.
The original comment by the “fan” was cringe-worthy, especially, for me, his remark about all the female characters. The response by the writer was great. It’s the kind of well thought-out response you’d expect from an armchair analyst with a lot of time and no PR to worry about, not a corporate lackey.
I hope it marks the beginning of more such thinking amongst game developers. I’m sick of my partner and I playing games that don’t even acknowledge 50% of the human population, let alone “minorities”.
26/03/2011 at 04:01 ping says:
100%.
25/03/2011 at 11:38 Holybasil says:
Why you’d want to romance any of the potential L.I. are beyond me, regardless of orientation or gender.
25/03/2011 at 11:39 karry says:
I dont see whats wrong with being somewhat homophobic. Of course, i also do not live in USA, that haven for sexual freaks and bizarre fetishists of every kind, so what do i care. And really, “no homosexual romance” button sounds like a good enough idea to me.
25/03/2011 at 11:48 Deano2099 says:
You’re allowed to be homophobic. Just when someone starts saying other people should change their games to suit your homophobia then you cross the line in to being a dick. And there is a “no homosexual romance” option – you just turn down their advances. If you’re really offended, given it’s a Bioware game, there’s probably a way of getting them killed at the end as well.
25/03/2011 at 11:48 kikito says:
“I dont see whats wrong with being somewhat homophobic.”
The same as being somewhat racist.
25/03/2011 at 11:50 Crimsoneer says:
Yeah. I don’t see what’s wrong with hating people either. What’s wrong with a little intolerance? I mean Hitler was a little TOO racist, but what’s wrong with a BIT of racism?
PS: I was going to answer this is a sensible, joking manner, but in hindsight, I’m going to be blunt. I hate your kind. The idea that being homophobic is okay, as long as it’s just “a little” is what gets people killed. It’s what stops gay men and women everywhere enjoying the privileges everybody else takes for granted. It’s blatant oppression of the majority of the minority, and if you can’t see what’s wrong with that, you’re scum.
Meh. Sorry. Moderate if you must, but I felt it had to be said.
25/03/2011 at 11:53 Lars Westergren says:
I am moderately karry-phobic.
25/03/2011 at 11:59 matty_gibbon says:
You don’t? Really? R E A L L Y?
R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E A L L Y?
25/03/2011 at 12:19 Tom OBedlam says:
Wot Crimsoneer said basically.
25/03/2011 at 12:23 Urael says:
Chaps/Chapesses, Karry is a Grade A troll. It’s not here to indulge in anything other than negativity and shit-stirring, presumably for some entirely transitory amusement. Its latest comment being designed for one thing only.
The Ego at work here is clearly damaged and must not be fed.
25/03/2011 at 12:27 gganate says:
i always thought the USA was seen as sexually conservative, but it’s nice to see we’re apparently a haven for sexual freaks, whatever those are.
25/03/2011 at 12:32 DiamondDog says:
Karry has some impressive trolling skills. Where did you learn your craft, sir?
25/03/2011 at 12:48 Lilliput King says:
Urael: Yep. The man’s an arse, fellas. Stop giving him the attention he craves.
25/03/2011 at 16:58 Nick says:
Pretty much everyone has prejudices of some kind, its the way you act that ultimately matters.
25/03/2011 at 11:40 yourmotherspeaking says:
Would anyone dare to criticise the inclusion of non-white characters and inter-racial relationships? I think not.
Who knows, perhaps we’ll see certain media sources now claiming that games turn people gay.
25/03/2011 at 14:34 Archonsod says:
It used to be common, but since in most fantasy settings such people are more than happy to support elf sex, even when said elves were just a cypher for a real world racial group, it tended to reduce their ability to argue to pretty much blatant and superficial racism. Most modern bigots hate being unable to use pseudo-logic to hide behind.
25/03/2011 at 11:40 Hentzau says:
His response there does raise my opinion of him by a fair bit, but the fact remains that all romance in Bioware games – be it gay, straight, bisexual, whatever – is terribly handled, being essentially a matter of giving a series of clearly-signposted positive dialogue responses until the sex happens. That’s about as two-dimensional an implementation of romance as it’s possible to come up with.
I mean, remember Baldur’s Gate 2? My trek through the minefield of Jaheira’s romance dialogue was abruptly cut short when I accidentally let a bandit cut her throat. If you romance Aerie you eventually have a kid together. Things happened in those romance scenarios which were not sex, and they were tricky enough that success in one felt like something of an achievement.
I guess my point here is that the egalitarian approach to romance is admirable but the actual treatment of it is universally awful, and until the latter is fixed the former is going to be a bit of a damp squib in terms of player impact.
25/03/2011 at 11:44 JackShandy says:
Oh, I don’t know. I never tried Jack’s romance option (Rule 23: Never go for someone with your name) but apparently you actually lost her if you went for the cheap sex option.
25/03/2011 at 11:52 Deano2099 says:
Same happened with Viconia in BG… I can see why they did it though, those romances were, if anything, more difficult than in the real world.
It’s odd actually isn’t it. A romance that has a challenge to it, one you have to ‘game’ is inherently at odds with the realism factor. I mean, most of us give up on playing real life ‘dating games’ at some point in our 20s. We accept that actual romances are like in a later Bioware game – they just happen, and if they’re genuine and good they tend to move forward unless someone does something really stupid. It’s rare we start thinking “hmm, what is the best thing to say to impress her” and “oh, how best do I navigate this conversation in order to come out on top” or whatever.
25/03/2011 at 12:08 sonofsanta says:
@JackShandy: you could go for cheap sex, and it did end that romance path, but… the cheap sex option was clearly placed in the Bastard position on the dialogue wheel, whereas all other options for romance in ME are always in the Shiny Git position. So it was still pretty obvious and 2D.
25/03/2011 at 12:09 Rich says:
“Giving a series of clearly-signposted positive dialogue responses until the sex happens.”
If only real human interaction were so simple.
25/03/2011 at 15:22 Urthman says:
Hentzau, this is a really strong article that makes some similar points:
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2011/03/design_diversions_is_a_biweekl.php
party members are supposed to be the player’s friends and allies…Yet conversations in this game encourage players to say whatever will (literally) score them the most points with their in-game friends. Even if players are motivated by nothing more than a genuine interest in the character, the game system still rewards manipulative dialogue…
Because the dialogue system is structured around like/dislike, the game doesn’t support the idea that I might admire a character as a person but disagree with their attitude towards the world. The game system seems to assume that you either agree with what she says and like her or disagree with what she says and dislike her.
25/03/2011 at 15:25 Archonsod says:
“His response there does raise my opinion of him by a fair bit, but the fact remains that all romance in Bioware games – be it gay, straight, bisexual, whatever – is terribly handled, being essentially a matter of giving a series of clearly-signposted positive dialogue responses until the sex happens. That’s about as two-dimensional an implementation of romance as it’s possible to come up with.”
If you thought the romance responses weren’t clearly signposted in BG II you really ought to work on your reading comprehension. The only reason Jaheira was “more difficult” than Aerie or Viconia was because she wanted more neutral responses while the other two went to the extremes (which meant if you didn’t understand the character you could still work it out via process of elimination). It’s just as two dimensional.
Of course the romances are usually contrived, awkward and often downright stupid. But the same can be said of 90% of movies, TV, books and indeed art in general.
25/03/2011 at 17:00 Nick says:
Yes, their romance writing is now frankly pathetic “romance novel” trash for the most part.
25/03/2011 at 21:34 JFS says:
You’re quite right, and it’s a sad development. Well, perhaps we’ve got to remind ourselves that this stuff is still in its infant shoes and shouldn’t expect too much. However, I’m still totally with you.
Urthman, the quote you have there is very nice. It summarizes my thoughts about the companion system in Dragon Age… I can’t really role-play or try to have my character say what I would say because there’s always the “XX disapproves” thingy looming which punishes you mechanically – pretty badly, even, if you mess around too much. The goal is always to manipulate them to hell and back, not be “real” with them. If designers sorted that out, perhaps in a way where your relations didn’t at all matter mechanically (I mean, you even get bonus stats if your allies like you in DA:O!), and where party members only left you when you really acted squarely in contrary to their holiest beliefs and not because you told two lame jokes in two different conversations weeks apart, we would have taken quite a big step.
On the other hand, all we want from our RPGs is interactivity, choices and consequences that really matter and shape the world. So, going with “do whatever you want to and no one will care” isn’t going to work, either. I’m glad I don’t get paid to think up a good solution to that conundrum!
26/03/2011 at 22:25 Betamax says:
Video game romances are hardly great across the board, however. BioWare handle them better than a lot of others. As for DA2, did you not try to romance someone while on the rivalry path with them? It has quite a different feel to it playing out that way, very unlike most of their previous stuff as well. Isabela’s romance is also a little different to the norm depending on how you go about it. The comparison to trashy romantic novels gets bandied about a lot, but I sometimes wonder if many of the people who use it have actually read the latter and compared. Trashy romantic novels are quite different if you ask me.
If I were to compare the negative side of them to anything it would be a rom com or otherwise cheesy romantic film, right down to the PG ‘sex’ scenes.
25/03/2011 at 11:42 kikito says:
I demand “no-birds” and “no-yellow-clothes” options implemented in the game immediately. They could be easily implemented and will eliminate yellow clothing, which is awkward, and birds, which I’m afraid of.
25/03/2011 at 11:46 GT3000 says:
Your fear of birds is with merit.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19042_6-terrifying-ways-crows-are-way-smarter-than-you-think.html
25/03/2011 at 12:18 zergrush says:
I think there should be a NO SPIDERS option on every single fucking game that features giant spiders.
There’s that mod to change the models to dogs, but I don’t want to go around killing puppies either.
25/03/2011 at 16:27 bob_d says:
God hates birds.
25/03/2011 at 11:43 Deano2099 says:
I do have some small misgivings about this.
Bisexual and gay companions? A good thing. They probably shouldn’t be in the majority, unless there’s a world-based reason that it’d differ from the sort of proportions we get in the real world. But they should be in there.
It’s these characters that ‘adapt’ that bother me a bit. A character that’s not openly bisexual, but is a lesbian if you’re playing a woman and straight if you’re playing a man. Or vice-versa. With the same lines and ‘plot’ used for each type of relationship.
We’re always talking about having more deep and realistic characters in games. Sexuality is always going to be a huge part of any person’s identity, it goes right to the core of who we are, it influences so much of what we do… I don’t know how you can write a character with a flip-switch on their sexuality depending on the player’s choice of gender.
“The truth is that making a romance available for both genders is far less costly than creating an entirely new one”
That’s a hugely depressing quote to me. Yes it’s easier, but it’s also undermining the identity of characters created in this way. It’s also depressing that because of the ‘numbers’ Bioware have never made any exclusively gay characters.
Again, if the character is openly bisexual, or even a closeted bisexual in a way that makes sense, then that’s fine. But arbitrarily making a character bi just to increase the available romance options, or even worse changing their orientation based on the sex of the PC is ridiculous.
25/03/2011 at 11:48 JackShandy says:
I believe the dark-side cat-lady jedi from knights of the old republic was exlusively homosexual.
Oh my gosh, look at what I found while trying to google her name.
http://swforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=378314&forum=89
25/03/2011 at 11:53 Crimsoneer says:
THAT LINK IS AMAZING.
25/03/2011 at 12:02 SimonHawthorne says:
It’s these characters that ‘adapt’ that bother me a bit.
You’re right, it is part of their identity. But the thing to remember is that when you’re playing an RPG, more often than not, you’re not just playing the one character. You control (or at least influence) the NPCs that form part of your crew in a very real way – and that’s a Very Good Thing. It means that your character isn’t just sat in the middle with everyone pretending to listen. Your central character changes people.
Who your character is, the choices they make, shape your companions including, in this case, their sexuality.
25/03/2011 at 12:19 Latterman says:
they should also reduce the number of elves in the cities. the last time i walked through my local alienage there were definitely less of them.
why does this “the game does it different than the REAL WORLD” argument never die?
25/03/2011 at 12:33 matty_gibbon says:
Dragon Age does not have to represent the same proportions of homosexual, bisexual or straight people in the real-world. Quite apart from any other issues, Dragon Age is not set in the real world! Bioware should be able to create any world they like.
In regards to characters changing their sexuality to suit the player, I understand your view – Regardless of the argument I just made above, it does seem unlikely that a character would change their sexual preference, especially given that it forms so much of a person’s identity.
The simplest solution then is not only to make every one of your potential companions bisexual, but to create a world for your game where every human character is bisexual. Just say, “right, in this game the society is sexually open and everyone in it is open to sex with same or opposite gender”. It’s an elegant solution that still has a place in a believable fantasy setting.
Personally, I would welcome a world in which people can feel free to “make passes” at others without worrying about their gender or that they might be offended because they are not of the same sexual orientation.
25/03/2011 at 12:42 Deano2099 says:
Right, you’ve mis-interpreted me here. I’m find with an all-singing, all-dancing, all-gay fantasy world. But it does have to make sense. Specifically you’d need to establish how reproduction and population growth worked.
In Dragon Age, as the lore goes, reproduction is the same as it is in the real world. Also, it’s a place where huge amounts of the population are wiped out every few decades by the Blight, so there would need to be fairly high population growth.
Now by all means, give me ways around this: people take sexual partners for reproduction reasons but raise kids with same sex partners. It’s done by magical asexual reproduction. Straight couples are rare but have 20 kids each, whatever.
It just has to fit the internal logic of the world.
25/03/2011 at 13:23 somnolentsurfer says:
I agree with pretty much everything David Gaider says here, but I do have a little sympathy for this position. Were I playing a male Champion, I’d probably find it a little odd if absolutely every man in my party appeared to be gay. Of course, playing as a hot female character, it’s only natural that everyone should fancy me.
Oh, and that KotOR link is amazing. Why are Christians such an embarrassment?
25/03/2011 at 13:40 Hidden_7 says:
I never thought of John particularly as an embarrassment. He actually makes me pretty glad of humanity more often than not. Oh wait, you meant the BAD Christians, right?
Bad/embarrassing people are bad/embarrassments pretty much regardless of which tick boxes they are checking and entirely with respect to them being bad/embarrassing, is my take on the matter.
25/03/2011 at 13:46 qrter says:
Yep, that link is surprisingly astounding.
The poor little guy sounds like he’s going to break down crying any second, his world rocked to the very core.
And what’s up with all these people saying they “disagree” with homosexuality, or don’t “believe” in it, my goodness.
25/03/2011 at 14:06 Carra says:
Wow, one strange forum post. Obviously the christian way to deal with homosexuality is to kill the gay characters. Wtf?
25/03/2011 at 14:07 Consumatopia says:
I agree that it’s kind of weird when all potential RPG relationships are “adaptive”–though, I could also be convinced that it’s an acceptable compromise of realism and depth for the sake of making things more epic and entertaining. (I suppose put in those terms that actually makes it sound even more creepy, but ultimately most of these RPG romances are going to be kind fan service-y.)
It’s also unfortunate that that these “adaptive” NPCs are also cluelessly adaptive. In the real world, people have the option of looking at someone’s body language or facial expression to look for clues as to whether their attraction might be mutual. (Or they could ask other people about a potential love interest’s past history.) But, unless the next version of Kinect is impossibly awesome, game characters can’t really look through the screen to see how I react to them. So their mistaken advances will go somewhat further than a reasonable person would go with someone uninterested in them.
I can think of a number of solutions to this. You could do what the Sims does–it keeps track of who your character takes an interest in and forms their orientation appropriately. But Dragon Age is an epic fantasy game, not a relationship simulator–you don’t have time to hit on a whole bunch of people, you’re busy saving the world and fighting monsters.
The game could allow more gradations of responses to NPCs–not only can you respond positively to what someone says, you could decide exactly how positive your response was. There could be a slider here, and if you want someone to know that you’re interested in them even without making an explicit dialog tree selection, you could keep making really positive responses. (Or, if you wanted things to be strictly professional, keep your responses just barely positive.
Or you could just explicitly select an orientation in the character generation screen, and characters will react accordingly. Maybe that’s a “No Homosexuality” checkbox by a different name, but lots of RPGs let you customize aspects of your personality and that seems like a reasonable option to have an interest in.
Or, you know, you could just suck it up and let Hawke always make the first move. It might not be realistic, but nothing about Bioware relationships is realistic. Normal people don’t find it as traumatic to fend off advances from people they aren’t interested in as traumatic as the original forum poster, but they usually find it kind of tedious, and video games aren’t obligated to simulate the most tedious aspects of life.
I suppose it probably is somewhat enlightening to some straight males like myself to be hit on by lots of people they aren’t interested in, so if the game designer is intentionally trying to teach me a lesson in that regard I suppose that’s fair enough, but if they actually want to avoid this weirdness I think I’ve shown there are plenty of reasonable ways to do so.
25/03/2011 at 14:25 DJ Phantoon says:
Carra, the parts you’re looking for are Leviticus 20:13, and Romans 1:26-32.
And the obvious, and just as immature response? The only way to deal with Christian characters is to kill every bigot you encounter.
25/03/2011 at 15:31 Urthman says:
In the real world, people have the option of looking at someone’s body language or facial expression to look for clues as to whether their attraction might be mutual.
Clearly, what Dragon Age 3 needs is an un-voiced option during conversations labeled “Check him out” or “Check her out” and the camera swoops around and gives you a great shot of the dudes ass or the woman’s cleavage like in Metal Gear 4. And after that the character will start hitting on you.
It would be sort of like how Farah complains when you stare at her in Prince of Persia:Sands of Time with the first person camera and then later in the game after you’ve saved her life a few times she gives you a coy grin instead. Except even creepier.
25/03/2011 at 15:42 somnolentsurfer says:
It takes three pages of that thread (and several agreements) before someone comes along and says “I’m a Christian, and I think you’re a fucking moron”. Embarrassment.
Edit: Although, looking at the date of that thread, my own position might have been slightly more, shall we say, conservative, back then too. I shame myself.
25/03/2011 at 16:06 Archonsod says:
“Bisexual and gay companions? A good thing. They probably shouldn’t be in the majority, unless there’s a world-based reason that it’d differ from the sort of proportions we get in the real world. But they should be in there.”
It’s worth noting religion is the main reason for the comparative lack of homo/bi sexuals in the modern age. Go back to ancient Greece on the other hand and bisexuality tended to be the social norm.
25/03/2011 at 18:05 jamesgecko says:
@DJ Phantoon The Bible is extremely anti-homosexual, but you’re pulling that passage out of context. One of the major themes of Romans is that everyone deserves to die. 1:26-32 is followed by a passage saying that wrath belongs to God, not humans.
Leviticus 20:13 is ancient Israelite law which doesn’t directly apply to Christians. It also advocates the death penalty for a ton of other things, including many sexual acts outside of man/woman wedlock, rebellious children, and atheists.
Where were we? Oh yeah, something about Dragon Age 2.
25/03/2011 at 19:17 Oculardissonance says:
Dammit, I was halfway through writing a scientific rebuttal about how general assumptions on sexual preference are ether unproven or wrong when I realized I had been drawn into debating science in another fantasy based game.
Bottom line is we all want the fantasy to be our fantasy and revolve around our world view. We become irrationally offended when it does not. Especially when the fantasy is compelling in all other aspects. I feel for people who have such a homophobia that one virtual character of the same sex hitting on them causes them to cry in a closet for days. I really feel for them because lets face it they are the new minority. I want to say fair dues but all I can do is lightly caress their inner thigh with my slightly androgynous man hand. “There, there it gets better.”
25/03/2011 at 22:45 PanpipeSolo says:
@somnolentsurfer
I don’t understand how you can call Christians embarrassing when you say something like this. Are you joking?
26/03/2011 at 00:43 patstew says:
I think the bigger problem with the gay:straight:bisexual ratio is not that it’s unrealistic, more that every gay and bisexual in the world seems part of your party. Obviously the sexuality of the vast majority of NPCs is unkonwn, but I can’t remember seeing any incidental homosexual relationships in bioware RPGs.
26/03/2011 at 04:52 Grape Flavor says:
@matty_gibbon
Dragon Age does not have to represent the same proportions of homosexual, bisexual or straight people in the real-world. Quite apart from any other issues, Dragon Age is not set in the real world! Bioware should be able to create any world they like.
Although, to play the devil’s advocate here – all the myriad games in which everyone is straight (unrealistic) do tend to come under significant criticism, not least from the RPS community.
So saying “to hell with real world proportions”, while tolerant of creative license, can be quite exclusionary. In practice, exclusionary against bis and gays, that is. Although in theory, I imagine games set in an otherwise realistic setting where everyone is gay could be off-putting to more than just homophobes.
26/03/2011 at 23:54 somnolentsurfer says:
@PanpipeSolo
For clarity: Yes.
Or, at least, attempting to reflect humorously on the sense of male entitlement that leads us to resent being hit on by male pixels, whilst assuming female ones will be submit to our every whim.
28/03/2011 at 19:02 Ragnar says:
Actually, I think it makes more sense this way. Don’t think of every companion as bisexual, think of everyone as sexually open during a stressful time.
This is how I see Dragon Age: There’s no religious or societal structure setting sexual norms. Sure, in peaceful times, most people would form heterosexual relationships for procreation. But in stressful times, when darkspawn threaten to overrun your world, and you’re fighting for your very survival, you’re happy to find love wherever you can. The characters may not consider themselves bisexual, it may never have entered their minds before, but they know the dangers they face. They might die in the next few days, and Hawke is willing to give them love and support, to make this tough period just a little bit more bearable. Hawke may not be their ideal, but their ideal didn’t include fighting the darkspawn either, and with how much they’ve relied on Hawke so far…. Let’s face it, people fighting for their lives can’t be choosers. They get their love wherever they find it.
25/03/2011 at 11:43 Saul says:
It amazes me how much ignorance some people can fit into their heads!
25/03/2011 at 19:25 Earl-Grey says:
Maybe it’s like the TARDIS?
Only perhaps Ignorance And Relative Hatred In Space….the IARHIS (Toyota Yaris?).
25/03/2011 at 11:43 Wizardry says:
BioWare’s implementation of homosexuality has no place in RPGs at all. Homosexuality should not be based on player choice or player preference. It should be based on the sexual preference of your character. In other words, perhaps choosing a sexual preference for the protagonist during character creation would be the best approach in an RPG. A heterosexual character can only pursue romances with characters of the opposite sex, a bisexual character can pursue romances with both male and female characters, while a homosexual character can only pursue romances with the same sex. This would make the whole romance chunk of the game (which is a significant portion of it, sadly) fit in line with what RPGs are all about. It will also stop people bitching about how they were unable to avoid homosexual relationships due to the crappy dialogue wheel.
25/03/2011 at 11:50 Jonathan says:
But I didn’t know at the start of Dragon Age that the only potential romantic partner I liked was female. If I’d been forced to choose a straight partner it would probably have had to be Alistair (*barf*).
If only Sten had been a viable option. Nice, butch, handsome Sten. /swoon
25/03/2011 at 11:56 Deano2099 says:
That doesn’t make sense. Even if I choose to be straight at character creation, my character isn’t wearing a sign on his head saying ‘straight’ is he? So why wouldn’t he still get hit on by male characters until he made that clear to them?
The games do basically have the situation you suggest, just you define your sexuality in the game by the way you react to anyone trying it on. I don’t see why doing it at character creation makes a difference.
Except of course, this allows some flexibility, because who hasn’t met someone and thought “I’m straight but…”
25/03/2011 at 11:59 choconutjoe says:
I suppose that’s analogous to the ‘creating a lawful good character’ vs ‘creating a character, then role-playing them as lawful good’ design choice.
I’m loving the idea of playing through BG2 with a lawful good gay paladin though.
25/03/2011 at 12:02 PatrickSwayze says:
@Johnathon:
You like horn heads? YOU FREAK!
Bioware should never cater to your Qun loving kind!
25/03/2011 at 12:13 Wizardry says:
@Deano2099: You’ve got it all wrong. Your character won’t be wearing a sign on their head or anything like that. NPCs, gay and straight, could very well “hit on” your character. The difference here is that you won’t have the option to choose those lines of dialogue which genuinely encourage them if your character’s sexual preference isn’t in line.
It’s just like [intelligence] dialogue options that appear only if your intelligence is high enough. Or all those dialogue options in the first two Fallout games that require certain skills to be high enough such as doctor, science, speech and first aid. RPGs are defined by the statistics, traits and abilities of your character as you have defined them. Not by options thrown at the player periodically that bypass your character entirely.
25/03/2011 at 12:25 Deano2099 says:
I get what you mean, just don’t see the benefit of it. Plus you’d have to cater for so many different options at character creation, is there going to be an option for “straight, but a few drinks and some flirting and I might dabble slightly”
25/03/2011 at 13:07 Lars Westergren says:
>is there going to be an option for “straight, but a few drinks and some flirting and I might dabble slightly”
Ah, the Oghren option.
25/03/2011 at 13:37 bwion says:
But surely, whether you choose your character’s sexuality at the very start of the game or as you play the game, it’s still down to your choice as a player.
Now, if you’re arguing that all meaningful choices about who your character is should be made separate from playing the actual game, well, fair enough, that’s a valid stylistic choice. I like games that way sometimes, though I’ve also been impressed by the ‘decide who your character is through gameplay’ mechanic when it’s done well (as in Planescape: Torment and, to an extent, in KOTOR 2).
25/03/2011 at 14:04 DJ Phantoon says:
Y’know, the people with a problem with this are the same people that don’t like being hit on by members of the same gender.
Personally, I find it flattering that I turn so many heads. Means I look good.
25/03/2011 at 15:13 qrter says:
This is a really silly discussion.
25/03/2011 at 15:34 Urthman says:
perhaps choosing a sexual preference for the protagonist during character creation would be the best approach
SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A CHOICE, YOU HOMOPHOBIC BIGOT!
(also, wanting to choosing a race for your character in an RPG is racist! )
25/03/2011 at 16:10 Archonsod says:
This makes no sense whatsoever. I can’t decide my charater’s sexual preferences, yet I can decide pretty much any other preference they happen to have?
Furthermore, sexual preference is not fixed, nor is it usually as simple as choosing between three convenient boxes.
25/03/2011 at 20:06 Grape Flavor says:
If such a system was ever implemented I’m simply going to choose “bisexual” every single time so that the game doesn’t artificially restrict my choices.
In fact your whole idea is pretty much useless, no offense. I think Archonsod explained it well.
25/03/2011 at 23:51 Wizardry says:
It’s not useless at all. The only other alternative is to have a hidden or viewable score that determines how heterosexual the character is, but this is a really bad idea unless you put in some initial conversation that sets it to an initial value.
The fact is that you can often choose both race and gender at character creation. Many RPGs let you choose your starting age. Some even let you choose your character’s previous profession and/or background. I’ve seen a few RPGs that even let you choose your starting religion. Of course, the D&D games also let you choose an alignment. These result in various differences in the game, such as specific dialogue options, specific quests and specific abilities.
There has been an RPG that lets you change your religion during the game. This could easily be accompanied by a quest for the temple. Alignment is often changeable by directing your character towards doing an evil act. Gender has been changeable at least as far back as the first Might & Magic (1986) through shrines/altars and girdles of masculinity/femininity in D&D games. Choosing your sexual orientation could easily work exactly like this.
You guys seem to want every possible option to be thrown at the player. This basically means that you don’t want any limitations imposed by the character. You want to be able to blow up a building without being a bomb specialist. You want to be able to charm the leader of an amazonian clan with an ugly character with low charisma. You want to be able to walk into the dwarf underworld as a non-dwarf race. You want to be able to sleep with men and women while having a straight or gay character.
Why not cut character creation and statistics from the game entirely? If every option should be given to every player then strength, dexterity and agility should not play any part on determining available game content. Your skills in firearms, security, stealth, repair and survival should play no part in locking off quests.
Do you guys want to be playing RPGs or just action games with a cut-scenes and player choices?
26/03/2011 at 01:19 Grape Flavor says:
@Wizardry
Nice straw man arguments there. Sexuality is not a skill. (Accepting it might be for some people but I digress.) Please don’t tell me you are actually comparing race, gender, or sexuality to a skill to be leveled.
Race, in many RPGS, is almost analogous with character class in a way. It provides bonuses that are, in lore, based on that race’s background, lifestyle and physiology. It serves a useful gameplay and role-playing purpose by fitting certain statistical attributes and play styles towards a race’s fictional characteristics and vice versa. Sexuality serves no such purpose.
Also, race and gender are visible. This means that there is a logical rationale for how these can effect NPC’s attitude towards you. Sexuality is not visible (not inherently anyway). So gay/bi male NPC’s would magically not hit on you because… why? because they saw the variable in the game files? Pretty immersion breaking.
But even beyond all that, who one wants to form relationships with is a player choice* within the game world. Race is not, gender is not, those are fixed. By predefining your sexuality selection, and eliminating possibilities, you are taking said choices away from the player character, as well as shoehorning them into one of three simplistic sexual archetypes. It strips away player agency for reasons that are not explained by the game world’s rules. After all, a straight person always could choose to have gay sex for whatever reason (money, power, deception). Not likely, but it could happen. Changing one’s race or true biological gender is neither possible within the real world nor the vast majority of fictional worlds.
Think of it this way – Some people are good people. Some people are bad people. Some people have complex or idiosyncratic moral values. Predefining sexuality is, from a gameplay perspective, pretty much like making you choose “Good Guy”, “Bad Guy”, or “Doesn’t Really Give A Shit” at character creation.** And then you are only offered the dialogue choice that matches your moral orientation for the rest of the game.
Tell me, would that make sense? Is that a good gameplay mechanic? Is it realistic? Does it add anything of value to role-playing? Then why include it? If it’s completely arbitrary and detrimental to the game, why would you be so insistent that it be featured?
Really, if it isn’t good from either a gameplay or roleplay perspective, and you demand it anyway, I’d probably assume you have ulterior motives behind your request.
(Sorry for long post.)
*Sexuality is not a choice, but you could argue “sexuality” is really just a construct based on your innate psychological criteria for who you feel driven to pursue sexytime relationships with.
**If you think I’m trying to inject morals into sexuality, you didn’t comprehend the analogy.
26/03/2011 at 02:41 Wizardry says:
You keep talking about stuff that I didn’t even say. I did not say that the sexuality of your character should prevent NPCs from hitting on you. Nor did I say that sexuality is a skill. I meant that you should be unable to make choices that completely contradict the character, such as sleeping with someone of the same sex with a heterosexual character for “fun”. Sleeping with someone of the same sex with a heterosexual character because it could be considered a necessity for completing an objective is completely different, and can very well be player choice.
Race and sex is very much similar to sexual preference in implementation. Similar to background, profession and religion, which you failed to mention in your post. The main differences between race, gender, background, religion, profession and sexual preference is their degree of flexibility. In real life, race can’t be changed. Gender can’t really be changed. Background can’t be changed without time-travel. Religion can be changed through influence or wisdom. Professions can be (relatively) easily changed. Sexual preferences can probably be moved slightly in different directions.
All of those can be easily integrated into a role-playing system. All of those can be given initial values upon character creation.
- If the developer does not want players to be able to change their race (through magic or technology), then they won’t put the ability to do so into the game. Most RPGs follow this. Some exceptions have spells to temporarily make characters appear a particular race. This would make race flexible, yet with an initial option at character creation.
- If the developer does not want players to be able to change their gender mid-way through the game, then they won’t put in the ability to do so. On the other hand, if the developer decided to allow this, such as for a possible solution to a quest, as seen in the first Might & Magic, then gender would also be flexible, yet with an initial option at character creation.
- If the developer wants to allow a player to change religion by converting at the different temples, then religion becomes flexible. However, if the developer decides that the setting dictates that no character can ever change their religion, then perhaps they will not allow religion to change after character creation.
Why is sexual preference any different? If you give a character a certain religion at the start of the game, you may later decide that changing to another particular religion could allow you to reach an objective in a manner better suited to your statistics. You could then head to the temple of that religion and convert. This could include a quest, a permanent negative effect, a significant amount of cash and a change in divine abilities. This attaches role-playing mechanics to the act of changing religion, while the divine abilities would add mechanics to religion even if conversion was made impossible in the game.
Sexual preference could also be chosen at the start of the game. This would most likely be more of a social mechanic than religion. Perhaps the benefits of certain conversational paths could be heightened, or increased, if you and the NPC in question have compatible preferences. Perhaps your ability to charm a particular NPC (using your character’s charisma score) could be improved based on your sexual preference and their sexual preference. Perhaps there could be a very limited number of ways in which your character’s sexuality can be modified, fitting nicely within the setting.
Your analogy to character alignment is a strange one. For example, D&D had an alignment system without forcing players down certain paths. If you take the Baldur’s Gate video games, for instance, there were quite a few uses for alignment. For starters, alignment directly influenced your starting reputation. Many magical items were restricted to characters of a certain alignment. Many spells and abilities worked better or worse on characters of particular alignments. Particular quests even modified your alignment based on player choice. In fact, that last one is perhaps as important as the examples before. Statistical feedback. Alignment affects the player choices. Player choices affects alignment. Introduce a spell that damages creatures the further their alignment is from yours, then add a few ways to modify your alignment.
So no. Sexual preference does not have to rail-road your character down particular paths and lock out every bit of content that is not compatible with your sexuality. However, the fact that any possible character type can pursue every single piece of romance content basically implies that all romance content has no ties into the RPG label. After all, multiple-choice dating sims aren’t RPGs for that exact reason.
26/03/2011 at 04:31 Grape Flavor says:
@Wizardry
OK, I’m starting to get where you’re coming from. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Your gameplay bonuses are explained as thus: “Perhaps the benefits of certain conversational paths could be heightened, or increased, if you and the NPC in question have compatible preferences. Perhaps your ability to charm a particular NPC (using your character’s charisma score) could be improved based on your sexual preference and their sexual preference.” OK, but your character’s sexual preference couldn’t logically be applied in those situations unless it was already revealed through dialogue or actions, could it? (It isn’t simply “visible” like race or gender.) And then you’re already back to the player choice system that renders predetermination moot.
The NPCs could have predetermined sexuality stats, sure, which react differently based on both the player character’s gender and revealed sexual predilections. But again, without in-game player choice, they’d be limited to knowing the player character’s sexuality by magically reading the variable from a data file.
Unless the NPC was a psychic. Or the sexuality was part of a backstory option. But even as a backstory, the complexity is staggering considering the closet/ambiguity factor, if you want to avoid unrealistic simplicities: gay, straight, bi, gay but passing outwardly as straight, gay passing as bi, bi passing as straight, bi passing as gay, straight passing as bi, straight passing as gay, completely enigmatic, x but incorrectly rumored to be y, etc etc.
Because god knows it’s possible, even commonplace, to be attracted to and engage in same-sex activity without wearing a giant rainbow pin on your shirt, or even while flat-out lying about it. And I don’t know of any RPG studio or RPG engine now or in the foreseeable future that can handle that kind of complexity, relegating it to the theoretical level for now.
So basically predetermining sexuality would restrict player choice, with the benefit of psychic NPCs being able to react to the player character more realistically if they’re reading their mind?
I think I’ll pass. It just doesn’t make the game better. Sure, I can envision some kind of purist thinking where “race and gender aren’t chosen in real life, and are predetermined in the game, therefore sexuality (which isn’t chosen in real life) needs to be predetermined in the game too”.
But it just isn’t good game design IMO, from any angle, and I oppose it on those grounds.
25/03/2011 at 11:44 Curvespace says:
That is an epic dose of level-headed smackdown. I have a huge respect for his ability to present that argument in the way he has done.
Me, I’d have gone off the deep-end and air-dropped him into a warzone. Privileged little runt could do with some perspective.
I hope EA block that guys games <– irony (I think)
25/03/2011 at 11:45 Jonathan says:
Maybe in the world of Dragon Age bisexuality is the norm, and dirty heteros are looked down on as a bit queer.
That’s what I’m going to believe now, anyway.
25/03/2011 at 12:24 Latterman says:
i’m not going into detail here but in medieval and pre-enlightenment europe same/bi-sex relationships (in the upper classes mostly) were quite common and not frowned upon. they completely lacked the concept of an indetity solely based on your sexual preferences which first came up in the 19th or maybe late 18th century.
25/03/2011 at 14:16 Starky says:
That isn’t quite true, there is a lot of revisionist history has that floating around as common knowledge about ancient cultures being more accepting, or more homosexual than modern cultures top of which is probably the modern idea that ancient Greece was filled with open homosexuality.
No, the percentage of homosexuality has always been about the same (roughly 10% of the population) – and even in more decadent cultures wasn’t open or encouraged.
It may not have been actively opposed or oppressed, but that isn’t the same thing as socially accepted. though I’ll grant you there is evidence that is was more acceptable in the upper classes.
People like to quote evidence that Ancient Greeks had young boys that they mentored and “often” became sexual – or that it was a bisexual culture.
Which just isn’t true, and has never really been true for any culture – it happened, sure no doubt about it, evidence suggests that it wasn’t persecuted heavily, but nor was it the norm, or encouraged.
Still boils down to about 1 in 10 – and you’ve got to think in places like ancient Greece where man-boy love was the most common, how many of those 12 to 17 year old boys were willing, or would have given consent if they had a choice?
It may have been higher than 10% as it wasn’t just sexual preference but power – like prison sex/rape, otherwise straight men might have has sex with those young boys as a dominance thing, rather than a sexuality thing.
Still homosexuality, or bisexuality has never been anything more than a minority in the general population, and when it was above the normal rate, it tended to be with cultures that encouraged adult male – young boy relationships/mentors, and only among the upper classes.
Still, those cultures may have been a hell of a lot more accepting, tolerant and enlightened than some parts of modern society when it comes to homosexuality, something we as a culture should strive for. But I don’t think we should be looking to decadent aristocrats and adult men dominating, even raping young boys in their care for our moral examples.
25/03/2011 at 16:02 rivalin says:
Bull.
There was no acceptance of homosexuality in medieval or early modern Europe, there may have been a lack of active widespread repression but that’s not the same thing. There is no source base supporting your evidence whatsoever, only highly tendentious readings by historians with an agenda, such as Boswell’s laughable thesis about a gay subculture in medieval monasteries.
I’m not homophobic, but I loathe revisionist crap, this is just the latest in a long line of moves in fantasy that force modern values onto the past. No peasants shouldn’t be becoming great champions, no women are not as strong as men, no homosexuality would not be publicly acceptable.
I can’t stand the fact that people have to force 21st century egalitarian morality onto a setting heavily grounded in medieval western Europe. Take it or leave it, if you like all the knights and lords, kings and warriors, you have to accept that in feudal warrior societies, being sexist, classist, racist and so on, was not only the norm, it was rational, adaptive behaviour.
No doubt someone will break out the “it’s fantasy”, “they have dragons so why can’t they be really politically correct too, argument. Frankly it’s immoral to take from a time period and not respect its values, and it shows the staggering ignorance and arrogance of modern culture (almost everyone for almost all of the last 7,000 years had different beliefs, but the values that have been developed since the sixties are simply right, the unchallengeable truth, never to be disputed again for all time; everyone who ever lived before us was wrong, and anyone who will ever live after us will be wrong unless they agree with us.)
25/03/2011 at 16:22 Archonsod says:
“Frankly it’s immoral to take from a time period and not respect its values, and it shows the staggering ignorance and arrogance of modern culture”
Bollocks. The defining aspect of Europe in the middle ages was the Catholic church. If you don’t have a Catholic church in your setting, you’ll need some pretty damn good explanation at why your society happens to have followed the exact same path Europe did.
Secondly it’s fantasy. Dragon Age is no more set in Medieval Europe than Mass Effect was. It takes influences from it, but that’s all. Furthermore, taking from other time periods and doing what the hell you want with it is neither immoral nor disrespectful. In fact I’m a little confused as to what “the middle ages” has done to be worth respecting in the first place; last I checked it was a concept rather than an entity.
25/03/2011 at 16:25 D3xter says:
@rivalin: Congratulations for winning this news message. Best post of all of em :P
There is a catholic church… it’s called the Chantry, there is a templar oder, there’s the French… they’re called Orlais etc.
25/03/2011 at 16:25 Jumwa says:
I know people love to use the term “revisionist history” as a negative slander, but… revisionist history IS the job of a historian. We are constantly reanalyzing and revising our interpretation of history based upon new facts and points of understanding.
We can’t be afraid of that.
And as for the issue of “how things used to be”, one thing you should always keep in mind is that social norms changed from time to time, place to place. Social “progression” was not a straight line, heck, you couldn’t even plot it on a 2D graph. Different cultures at different times were more or less accepting of various issues–such as homosexuality–following their own trends.
25/03/2011 at 17:54 Starky says:
Jumwa, there is a vast gaping gulf between a historian using new evidence, new research, new facts and points of understanding. And a historian reinterpreting history based on modern beliefs, ideology and political motivations.
It is the second that is the issue, and an issue that has existed for as long as there has been historians.
Vast swaths of current historical teaching is based upon this modern cultural bias, especially in America, but they are not the only ones – England is just as bad in as many ways, but just not so blatant and clearly wrong about it. British history classes bend the truth to suit political motivation (maybe even to breaking point on some issues), American classes (at least at high school level at least – based on my contact with American students) flat out lies.
25/03/2011 at 17:57 Archonsod says:
“There is a catholic church… it’s called the Chantry”
The Chantry is not a Catholic organisation. In fact, it disagrees with some quite fundamental doctrines of Catholicism.
25/03/2011 at 20:06 Droniac says:
@rivalin
Indeed, writers really should completely demolish any work they’ve done on creating an intricate fantasy world by implementing completely incongruous societies, beliefs, and values that have absolutely no place in the world the writer has created. That sounds like an absolutely great idea …
You seem more than a little biased to a very particular, and incorrect, perspective on life during the middle ages and earlier human history. Many of the assumptions you make are definitely wrong:
#1 If it’s based on the middle ages there have to be knights, feudalism, and serfdom.
Not true. Just a little sailing trip across the north sea would’ve brought you to Frisia’s doorstep. An area completely void of feudalism and serfdom from the 10th century until the 16th century. And that’s just a simple trip across a country border, there were even greater cultural differences throughout Europe (let alone Asia, Africa and America) during the middle ages.
#2 Peasants do not become great champions.
Wrong. There are numerous historical accounts of simple folk who rose to great renown.
A great example is Pier Gerlofs Donia. A Frisian farmer whose wife was brutally raped and murdered by Habsburg knights, which lead to him taking up a great sword and starting a brutal rebellion. His band grew to encompass thousands of warriors and in one particular battle he managed to steal 28 ships from the Dutch.
He’s a hero to the Frisians (there’s a statue in his honor), and a monster to the Dutch. His band torched and massacred numerous towns during their rebellion.
#3 Women are not as strong as men.
Not strictly true. Humans are not born exactly alike and there are always exceptions. There are in fact women who are exceptionally strong or exceptionally tall. But you probably meant to imply that the notion of warrior women is foolish, because such things just didn’t happen, right?
Actually, women warriors existed long before the middle ages began. Particularly noteworthy are the Scythian warrior grave sites in Southern Russia, where 20% of the warriors buried are women dressed for battle. These were likely the inspiration for the Amazon myth in Greece.
Similarly there are numerous major historical conflicts that saw women participate very effectively in combat and/or command. The Spartan princess Arachidamia and her female warriors, Princess Pingyang lead an army in her revolt against the Sui Dynasty, Artemisia I of Caria who was praised by her Persian opponents for her skill at naval command, the Icenian queen Boudica who sacked the capital of Roman Britain, etc.
#4 Homosexuality would not be publicly acceptable.
Err… probably true.
It’s also more than a bit silly to equate any specific culture to a time period. Even during the reign of the Roman empire there were hundreds of wildly different cultures across the globe. So it’s impossible for a fictional culture to be ‘immoral’ because it goes ‘against’ a time period. It’s ridiculous to even try to compare the two, a time period is not a culture!
26/03/2011 at 06:13 Jumwa says:
“It’s also more than a bit silly to equate any specific culture to a time period. Even during the reign of the Roman empire there were hundreds of wildly different cultures across the globe. So it’s impossible for a fictional culture to be ‘immoral’ because it goes ‘against’ a time period. It’s ridiculous to even try to compare the two, a time period is not a culture!”
That’s the message I tried to get across in my comment. History is not so simple as to plot these concepts on a trend graph.
If you were to sit down a bunch of historians who specialize in various, differing locales during the same time period (at any point in history really) they would each paint dramatically disparate pictures of what life was like, and what the culture cherished or disliked.
A lot of people fail to realize this as the 19th and 20th century saw rise to a notion that progress was linear, and that things would get better, inevitably, with time. So when we looked back on the past, we applied that same rationale, thinking things must’ve been inherently ‘worse’.
26/03/2011 at 10:00 rivalin says:
@Droniac;
1. I didn’t say, any fantasy had to be based on a feudal society, bu there are clearly most elements of a feudal society in Dragon Age, with other elements taken out. Also It is very clear that it is based on western Europe, the Orlais are the French etc, if you actually want to be original in your setting its fine, but they are using western Europe, so you’re arguing with no one when you try to enlighten me that there were different cultures around the world, there certainly were, but we’re talking about one clearly modelled on western Europe. And as you well know, Frisia is the exception that proves the rule as far as western Europe and Feudalism goes.
2. Frisia again, so as before. In any case of course there have been uprisings of peasants before, from Roman times to the thirty years war, what I am talking about is champions in the medieval sense, which by definition required you to be of knightly rank or greater.
3. Actually not what I meant to be imply, but I’ll respond in any case; you’re reaching for evidence, as everyone with a bit of knowledge knows, grave sites are not always reliable regarding profession. Queen Elizabeth had armour and weapons made for her, but she never did any fighting, it was about her rank not her profession, it’s just as possible that the Scythian grave sites are of high caste women and nothing else. Regarding the Amazon myth, the fact that you’re being forced to mention myths of warrior women says quite a bit don’t you think? What I was actually referring to was the fantasy insistence that women are “exactly” as strong as men, which is preposterous. It’s a fact that the strongest people in the world in all ways are men, and that on average men are much stronger as well, so for fantasy games to insist that women and men are exactly the same just because there is a small number of women who are stronger than a small number of men is ridiculous.
Also I never simply discussed a time period, I am talking about western Europe during a specific time period, which is clearly their almost exclusive inspiration. My points about class aside, what I’ve posited holds true across virtually every pre-modern civilization across the globe and throughout history, you’ve managed to find some very limited, and debatable exceptions, which while very learned, I would argue further reinforce my assertions’ persuasiveness and validity
25/03/2011 at 11:50 Mungrul says:
To be honest, I wish Bioware would step away from portraying sexual relationships in their games. They always feel stilted and embarrassingly juvenile. Let alone which, they are now quite blatantly a part of the Bioware game formula. It’s a bit sad really.
And don’t get me started on the Asari.
Rarely have I seen a more blatant example of male teenage sexual fantasy fulfilment. A race created purely for wank material.
And I say this as a massive Mass Effect fan.
25/03/2011 at 12:54 Jorum says:
As much as I love Mass Effect, oh god yes the Asari are poor.
A whole species who consider spending 200 years as a pole-dancer a standard stage of life. Really?
And despite the assertions they are asexual, they unfailing have playboy figures.
I would have liked someone at Bioware to have the balls to make the Asari properly asexual looking.
That would have made the male-shepard/liara thing much more interesting.
(and made the average X-box player much more uncomfortable!)
25/03/2011 at 13:09 Lars Westergren says:
>I would have liked someone at Bioware to have the balls to make the Asari properly asexual looking.
Actually, perhaps I would have been easier if the Bioware writer had lacked balls?
25/03/2011 at 13:14 Schadenfreude says:
The thing about the Asari is that all the Turians think they look like Turians, the Salarians think they look like Salarians and (I assume) the Krogan think they look like Krogan (I think you overhear that listening in on the Stag party).
Clever little getout clause for them all looking like they do :D
25/03/2011 at 13:43 CMaster says:
The Asari are yet another bit of laziness and weakness in ME.
I just finished ME2 and have described it as “more effort that one could imagine being put into a very lazy game”. It’s a huge game, with staggering amounts of very competent voice acting delivering frequently exceptional lines, with very few bugs. But on top of this brilliant finishing of almost everything is staggering laziness at the key design level for everything. From basic species designs, through what the writing is about, to core gameplay design and world design.
25/03/2011 at 14:17 cjlr says:
Asari look like they do because they`re viviparous mammals, although the suggestion from those guys in the Ilium bar that there are subtle psychic cues as to their appearance is a tempting one…
@CMaster:
Laziness! That’s what I thought too, but I wasn’t sure how to express it. I mean, so much of that game is brilliant, and so much is just so silly.
I absolutely love the parts that are pulp silly – lets’ not kid ourselves, that’s exactly what ME is. But some parts are just stupid silly, and that’s sad.
25/03/2011 at 11:50 RaytraceRat says:
I think that was one of the best devs answers I’ve read.
25/03/2011 at 11:52 Tyashki says:
Doesn’t cater to the straight male gamer? Has this person met Isabela?
Seriously.
25/03/2011 at 12:27 zergrush says:
Isabella’s probably the most annoying DA companion. Pretty much every line she speaks makes me want to punch her. I only romanced her with my female mage, and mostly out of curiosity to see at least one awkward sex scene. It was even awkwarder than expected, probably the most cringe-inducing sex scene ever made by Bioware.
It made me so afraid of seeing something that inhuman again that I practiced celibacy with my rogue on the second playthrough, despite somewhat courting Merrill. I liked her too much to risk losing any interest after seeing an horrible sex scene.
25/03/2011 at 13:02 Keymonk says:
He apparently thinks she’s too ‘exotic’.
26/03/2011 at 05:19 Klaus says:
In my opinion the shy, nerdy, attractive, verbally clumsy, doormat Merrill is more of that than Isabella. Isabella doesn’t really need you at all and she has a life, one filled with sexing up many non-hawke peoples.
25/03/2011 at 11:54 PatrickSwayze says:
I think Bioware Character Creators need some tick boxes:
[ ] Straight
[ ] Gay
[ ] Curious
[ ] Greedy Bisexual
[ ] Furry Freek
[ ] Xeno Loving Heretic
[ ] Etc Etc Etc
But if Gay people are afforded the option of having homosex relations in game, surely straight gamers should be allowed the options of not having them?
That’s fair right? It’s only going to involve snipping some dialogue trees out? It’s probably easier than creating copy pasta dungeons…
25/03/2011 at 11:58 Deano2099 says:
If you are playing as a gay character, you will still get hit on by the opposite sex. More often than a straight character gets hit on by the same sex I’d imagine.
25/03/2011 at 12:03 Neut says:
“But if Gay people are afforded the option of having homosex relations in game, surely straight gamers should be allowed the options of not having them?”
Only if Gay people are afforded the option of not having any heterosexual relations in the game either.
25/03/2011 at 12:06 PatrickSwayze says:
Sounds fair to me? Does that strike you as a problem?
25/03/2011 at 12:37 Neut says:
Yes. Obviously.
25/03/2011 at 12:46 JackShandy says:
Players should be able to take things that make them uncomfortable out of a game. In a perfect world, we’d all lie blind and motionless in stacked coffins filled with pudding. It would be dark and warm and nobody would offend anybody and also the government would pay for the pudding.
25/03/2011 at 12:47 Harlander says:
I haven’t played DA2 but I rather imagine you do have the option not to. I think there’d be rather more media furore if, during play, the player character was raped…
25/03/2011 at 14:08 DJ Phantoon says:
Xeno loving? What, like http://nerfnow.com/comic/452 ?
25/03/2011 at 20:10 Grape Flavor says:
@JackShandy
mmm. Pudding.
25/03/2011 at 11:54 Jorum says:
Good for Bioware to actually address such an idiotic comment.
Now I think about it, why does Bioware have such an obsession with romance sub-plots?
I think all their games have had one (KOTOR 2 maybe not?)
guess it’s a hangover from hollywood.
It would be kinda refreshing (and more realistic) if they just made one game where the hero isn’t a horny sex-magnet.
Actually, what would be really interesting is to make a game where the hero is really unattractive.
Be interesting to see how easy it is still act all heroic and magnanimous while dealing with unrequited love and rejection of advances.
25/03/2011 at 11:56 Wizardry says:
Knights of the Old Republic 2 wasn’t made by BioWare.
And the answer is Baldur’s Gate.
25/03/2011 at 11:58 poop says:
yeah I havent been bothered with a bioware sex plot since the first time i played me1 because they are always really boring, slightly creepy, nerd pandering.
25/03/2011 at 12:40 Jorum says:
Ah, that explains KOTOR2.
Been a while since BG so couldn’t remember properly. In retrospect thank the gods for that as I would have tried to sexy up Imoen something rotten (squick).
Interestingly the story of BG suffered not a jot from lack of romance options.
25/03/2011 at 13:10 Lilliput King says:
Nah, KOTOR2 had romance plots. Several, if memory serves.
edit: On the Bioware front, I think the only RPG without romance options was the original BG
edit2: Ninja’d by over an hour. Oops.
25/03/2011 at 13:12 Lars Westergren says:
>Now I think about it, why does Bioware have such an obsession with romance sub-plots?
I think it’s not so much Bioware who have an obsession, it’s a large contingent of their fans. If you look through the forums from before Dragon Age 2, a large percentage of the threads were speculations about which companions in the game you could romance.
25/03/2011 at 13:18 Deano2099 says:
Re – Imoen romance. There’s a mod for that. Ick.
25/03/2011 at 11:56 Very Real Talker says:
A straight male customer has the right to say what he likes and what he doesn’t like to see in his games. If he is annoyed by a 100% homosexual\bisexual character, that’s his prerogative. No need to throw chairs around or hulking out.
I think it is intuitive that if a game tries to cater to a specific niche, it is very likely to alienate other market targets. If you cater to homosexuals, you are going to alienate heterosexual.
Imagine that, instead of having a gay romance option for every character like dragon age 2, we had the possibility of having a piss fetish sex based romance for every character, in an effort to cater to piss fetishists. This, of course, would result in the alienating a great number of people. Even if you had the option to avoid said piss based romance.
I think it is inevitable that if you cater too much to a certain demographic, you alienate the others.
I think almost nobody would have been annoyed\offended if only a small minority of the characters was gay. But if you make everyone a homo, you alienate the heteros. It is that simple.
I, as a straight gamer, would like to play games that have a low incidence of gay contents. Is that so enraging that you feel the need to throw chairs around?
25/03/2011 at 11:59 poop says:
I dont really feel alienated as a straight dude but “party of adventurers in a fantasy world who are also all bisexual” sounds like the setup to a really boring porno webcomic
25/03/2011 at 12:01 FiveO says:
I, as a white gamer, would like to play games that have a low incidence of other races. Is that so enraging?
25/03/2011 at 12:02 choconutjoe says:
“But if you make everyone a homo, you alienate the
heteroshomophobes”Corrected that for you.
25/03/2011 at 12:06 Deano2099 says:
This is a fair enough comment, but instead of saying “heteros” you mean “homophobes”. I don’t mean that in a pejorative way, am not trying to offend you, but that’s the right word to use for someone who is uncomfortable with gayness being represented in games.
The vast majority of heterosexual people have absolutely no problem with homosexuality being an option in our games. Those that do have a problem are themselves a minority.
So yes, if you cater to gay people, you’re piss off homophobes. They’re both minorities. I’d imagine the second group is actually the smaller minority.
So by your own argument, catering to homophobes by not including any gay content is catering to a small niche that is likely to piss people off.
I’d have no problem with any sort of fetishist in the game either, as long as it was optional.
25/03/2011 at 12:07 TheApologist says:
Sorry, why do gay characters alienate heterosexual players? This makes no sense to me at all.
You aren’t forced to pursue homosexual relationships. You might not think the straight options are particularly great, but then complain that the straight options aren’t so great. Why complain about the presence of options for homosexual relationships?
Respectfully, I’d ask why you are so uncomfortable with the game pointing out to you the option of homosexual romance dialogues?
25/03/2011 at 12:07 JackShandy says:
I’m fairly sure it’s the opposite. If you have only white characters, you’re alienating everyone but white people; if you have no female characters, you’re alienating girls; if you have no gay characters, you’re alienating homosexuals.
The trick here is that these are all options. Forcing a straight man to play a gay character probably would alienate him, simply because it’s not an experience he can connect to- but allowing the option to be gay surely can’t alienate anyone but those who couldn’t stand homosexuality being presented at all.
25/03/2011 at 12:13 MannyCalavera says:
Are you seriously trying to equate homosexuality with a sexual fetish?
25/03/2011 at 12:18 JackShandy says:
Manny Calevera: I love your name, but Homosexuality is a sexually deviant act. Pissing is obviously far less, uh, mainstream than being gay, but they’re both comparable as sexual acts not practised by society at large. I suppose a closer example would be non-child bearing incest? If it helps, even the common lust for breasts is a fetish.
25/03/2011 at 12:27 Neut says:
I’m in the mood for some Godwinnin’!
I, as a [nazi] gamer, would like to play games that have a low incidence (preferably none) of [jewish] content. Is that so enraging that you feel the need to throw chairs around?
25/03/2011 at 12:42 Tom OBedlam says:
What? “sexually deviant”? Really? Fuck this, you’re an idiot. I’m going outside to sit in the sun. I’ll live longer.
25/03/2011 at 12:50 roosten says:
The American Psychiatric Association hasn’t described homosexuality as sexual deviancy since 1973, so give yourself another 2 years and you’ll be a full 4 decades behind the times.
25/03/2011 at 12:51 Deano2099 says:
Tom, don’t get too bothered by words. “deviant” and “abnormal” are words that have been taken and used aggressively in order to attack people.
All they really mean is “different to the norm”. Which does apply to gay people. Straight people are in a huge majority, which does make straight the “norm”, alas.
Being gay is abnormal and deviant, but only in the same way having green eyes is abnormal and being over 6 foot tall is deviant.
Homophobes realise there’s a power in those words as they sound nasty and bad, and so use them to attack gay people knowing that it’s hard to actually fight back because technically they’re right.
But everyone has something deviant and abnormal about them, and being deviant and abnormal is not a bad thing at all.
25/03/2011 at 12:57 JackShandy says:
Woah woah woah! I meant deviant as in “Deviating from the norm”, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with deviating from the norm, sexually or otherwise. Please don’t hate me!
I guess I said that because I’ve just been reading this from Tom Jubert, which makes a convincing argument that those who embrace homosexuality should also accept other socially frowned-upon behaviours like non-child bearing incest:
http://tom-jubert.blogspot.com/2011/02/criticism-of-homes-case-against.html
God, I better go before I dig this hole any deeper. Sorry, everybody – please be assured that any offense was due to poor choice of words and a late night.
25/03/2011 at 13:01 Colthor says:
@TheApologist:
“Sorry, why do gay characters alienate heterosexual players? This makes no sense to me at all.”
Because they all have rays that turn you into a Klingon. Just try it in Dragon Age: I politely turned down Zevran’s advances – sorry mate, not my type – and ZAP! Rest of the game with a pastie on my forehead.
25/03/2011 at 13:02 Tom OBedlam says:
I disagree. Under your definition everyone is abnormal and so no oneis. Fact is ‘deviant’ has taken on an offensive connatation in discussion of sexuality and suggests a conscious deviation from a supposedly _correct path_. As opposed to just being a part of what that person is. You don’t refer to someone who has a naturally high intelligence level ‘intellectually deviant’ or a person who has one leg shorter than the other ‘physically deviant’, or, as per your example, a person with green eyes is not ‘optically deviant’, calling a homosexual a ‘sexual deviant’ is a slur, which ever way you cut it.
25/03/2011 at 13:07 TheApologist says:
@Colthor
Oh, well in that case fair enough.
I always fancied being one of those blue dudes. Do they have a ray for that?
25/03/2011 at 13:09 Deano2099 says:
Tom – yes, everyone is abnormal in some areas. Everyone is deviant in some areas.
No, you don’t call people ‘optically deviant’, but if you did do that then you’d be grammatically correct. It’s odd phrasing that isn’t often used but it’s not wrong.
Yes, sexually deviant has become a pejorative term, but as I say, if you get in to the debate you end up losing as it’s also technically correct.
Personally it’s a word I’d like to see reclaimed as a good thing, rather than being hidden from. I’m straight but I’d still proudly call myself a ‘sexual deviant’ as I’m in to some weird shit…
25/03/2011 at 13:33 Crimsoneer says:
I, for one, want more fetish sex scenes in games.
Sue me, I’d so have tied up Morrigan.
25/03/2011 at 13:34 wsmieszek says:
@JackShandy:
No. Homosexuality is considered a natural variation of sexual orientation in human species. It is NOT a sexual deviation. While some religious groups would want you to believe it is, it really isn’t.
25/03/2011 at 13:43 Colthor says:
@TheApologist:
I don’t think so, but it’s something they should look into for DLC.
25/03/2011 at 13:49 Deano2099 says:
@wsmieszek
I think the problem here is that you and Tom are defining ‘deviant’ sociologically, while Jack and I are defining it mathematically.
25/03/2011 at 13:58 bwion says:
(I try to engage obvious trolls in conversation sometimes. It’s a weakness of mine.)
“A straight male customer has the right to say what he likes and what he doesn’t like to see in his games.”
Well, of course. I don’t see anyone disputing that (though I’m sure you could find someone who would, and has, because this is, after all, the internet, and you can find someone who’ll say stupid thing if you work hard enough.).
Telling someone that they’re wrong, and why they’re wrong, particularly when it’s done as eloquently and even-handedly as Mr. Gaider’s response was, in no way infringes upon anyone’s right to express themselves. What you, and I, and David Gaider, and Dude Who Only Wants Straight Sex In His Games, Thank You Very Much, are not entitled to is uncritical acceptance of what we say.
You don’t, in short, have the right to never be disagreed with.
25/03/2011 at 14:12 Josh04 says:
It’s actually a really good porno comic: http://oglaf.com/
As for the definitions thing, I’m fairly sure linguists agree that you can’t detach the definition of a word from it’s social context. ‘deviant’ has become a slur and therefore it is a slur. You can’t wind back the language clock.
25/03/2011 at 14:34 battles_atlas says:
@ Deano2099
You’re quite right this is a disagreement of how language should be defined, but the problem with your standpoint is that language is used by humans, and humans aren’t all played by Data from Star Trek. Language is inherently contextual. You might be grammatically correct to call someone ‘optically deviant’, but so what? I’d be grammatically correct saying “The best thing about the internet is that it is made of pins”. It doesn’t change the fact that its fucking gibberish.
Language is about far more than the structure of sentences. Its about semantics. Your argument is the same one that in the UK is used to justify using the word ‘Paki’, on the grounds that its simply a shortening of an apparently neutral, factual description. Mathmathically speaking, if ‘Brit’ is ok then ‘Paki’ must be too right?
25/03/2011 at 14:52 Tom OBedlam says:
@battles_atlas Well explained. Especially the pins.
25/03/2011 at 15:06 Deano2099 says:
Well yes, that’s the general current meaning, but if we just give up on words because people start using them pejoratively, then are we going to give up on ‘gay’ next?
My point was two-fold basically:
one) if you bother trying to argue that homosexuality isn’t actually deviant or abnormal with actual homophobes, you automatically lose the argument and any chance of enlightening them, because technically they’re right, even though they’re right in a horrible way, they can turn to a dictionary and say ‘look here.’ By all means say ‘I’d rather you didn’t use those words to describe us, as actually we find them offensive’ but trying to say ‘no, we’re not that’ isn’t helpful at all. To take the ‘Paki’ example again, you generally don’t get people from Pakistan going ‘oi! I’m not a Paki’, they go ‘oi! don’t use that word you insensitive prick’.
Another example we’re familiar with here: telling pirates that piracy is theft. They’ll tell you it’s not, and they can win that argument, and sidetrack you from explaining why piracy is wrong.
two) I think they’re words that we should reclaim, but then, it’s easy for me as a straight man that doesn’t get called deviant as my deviances all take place behind closed doors to say that.
25/03/2011 at 16:37 Archonsod says:
“Imagine that, instead of having a gay romance option for every character like dragon age 2, we had the possibility of having a piss fetish sex based romance for every character, in an effort to cater to piss fetishists. This, of course, would result in the alienating a great number of people. Even if you had the option to avoid said piss based romance.”
Erm no it wouldn’t. A great number of people might never take that option, but simply having the option there is insufficient to upset the majority of people. Generally it’s only a small minority who get offended due to their own issues or agenda’s. While the majority of people might find such content offensive, providing it can be avoided they’re happy to ignore it. The one’s who get offended tend to do so at the fact you’re given a choice in the first place.
25/03/2011 at 16:54 Stijn says:
Gee, and which of these two fields might be more appropriate for discussing homosexuality in this context?
25/03/2011 at 20:25 Grape Flavor says:
I think that if indeed, games were making “all” the characters gay, you would have a valid right to complain. Much in the way that people can complain that games overwhelmingly cater to young straight men.
But that’s not what we’re talking about, is it. We’re talking about how having any homosexuality represented at all makes you uncomfortable for some reason.
25/03/2011 at 21:38 battles_atlas says:
@ Deano2099
“if we just give up on words because people start using them pejoratively, then are we going to give up on ‘gay’ next?”
Well, yes, if gay groups decide to do so. Language evolves, devolves, revolves. “Mixed race” is nolonger cool. So what? We’re not going to be left with a situation where we have no word to refer to a person who likes having sexy relations with someone of the same gender. Another word will replace it.
” if you bother trying to argue that homosexuality isn’t actually deviant or abnormal with actual homophobes, you automatically lose the argument and any chance of enlightening them, because technically they’re right… To take the ‘Paki’ example again, you generally don’t get people from Pakistan going ‘oi! I’m not a Paki’, they go ‘oi! don’t use that word you insensitive prick’.”
I get what you’re trying to say here, but the problem is you’re still wrong. People might indeed say ‘oi! I’m not a Paki’, because ‘Paki’, with its semantic connotations, is not something they recognise as representing them. Its the same problem with your use of deviant. You’re still essentialising a particular meaning of words as the universally correct interpretation. To go back to the start, and whether ‘gay’ is technically deviant, the question is failed from the start. There is no single, ‘technical’ definition. Maybe you could argue there is for scientific concepts, but not for popular language like ‘deviant’. For me, ‘deviant’ signifies both that something is in the minority, and that its wrong. I’m clearly not alone in that interpretation. As a result, in no way is a homophobe’s declaration that homosexuality is deviant technically right, because for it to be so homosexuality would have to be technically wrong.
If you’re still not convinced of this argument, I suggest you read New York Trilogy by Paul Auster. Even if you are, read it anyway. Its properly good.
26/03/2011 at 01:25 Grape Flavor says:
@battles_atlas
“Mixed race” is no longer acceptable? Since when?
26/03/2011 at 03:18 JackShandy says:
Here’s my position, because making everyone on RPS think I’m a homophobe is the lowest point of my internet history.
Like I said, I’d been reading that critique by Tom Jubert, and it made me think that anyone who supports Homosexuality but is against other fetishes/sex acts – say, furries, or even non-child bearing incest, which he uses as an example – is a hypocrite. As long as it’s between two consenting adults, and no harm is done, the difference between the two seems small. So when Manny Calevera specifically got offended to hear homosexuality compared with fetishes, I wanted to speak out – not against homosexuality, but in defense of fetishes.
So, I was trying for a word that grouped all the types of “non-normal” sex together – that is, all types of sex that don’t specifically serve an evolutionary carry-on-the-species purpose, or that society at large doesn’t partake in. Obviously “Deviant” wasn’t the right one, but I’m not sure that any word I could have used would have sounded good. I suppose, what with places like “DeviantArt”, I didn’t think the word would be as offensive as it obviously is.
Edit: Disclaimer: I’m young and stupid, and very far from figuring this stuff out, and this point of view is quite possibly incorrect in a very basic and obvious way. But I have never, ever wanted to demean or insult gay people. I’m sorry if I have.
26/03/2011 at 10:29 battles_atlas says:
@ Grape Flavour
Yeah I *think* ‘dual heritage’ is preferred by some now, but I don’t know if its a done deal. Bit of a mouthful, but ‘mixed race’ with its connotations of racial purity is pretty dislikable.
@ JackShandy
Don’t beat yourself up too much, this is a thorny issue. I think your mistake was making a perfect valid point in the wrong context. I think save the fetishism defence for the DA3 argument about whether all the NPC’s offering to defecate on you is alienating the coprophobics.
25/03/2011 at 11:59 SuperNashwanPower says:
These games should start including a Kinsey Scale in the game options tab. That way you can custom build your romantic experience http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale
25/03/2011 at 12:01 Very Real Talker says:
David Gayder said:
“And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance.”
if you don’t cater to me I’m not going to buy your game, that’s why you should at least consider listening to people like me.
Of course there is the possibility that I’M in the minority, and that most gamers are gaymers… in that case I will simply stop playing them. Still I think that Gayder misses this point: if you don’t cater to a demographic, you will lose them. I think it is a stupid idea to not cater to the majority of gamers, but that’s of course a decision David Gay has to make. And let’s not forget the possibility that gamers like me (straight, not homophilic) are the minority.
That’s what I think
25/03/2011 at 12:04 poop says:
what
25/03/2011 at 12:05 SimonHawthorne says:
You are joking with the misspelling of his name, right?
25/03/2011 at 12:09 FiveO says:
My response to this is: homophobes, welcome to the minority! This is a tiny taste of what it feels like. The degree to which you are going to be catered to is only likely to shrink and shrink. Somehow, I don’t believe you’re going to give up gaming because of homosex options.
25/03/2011 at 12:10 Very Real Talker says:
yes I’m kidding with the spelling of the name. Poop you are right, I was not clear enough in that post of mine.
The point is this: if he doesn’t cater to heteros, heteros will less likely buy the game. Since they are the majority, at least I guess, not catering to them sounds stupid.
of course I can’t rule out the possibility that most gamers today are either gay or gay leaning. In that case it would be smart to have gay content heavy gaymes. But if it is not the case, and white straight gamers are still the majority, it follows that he should cater to them.
They could always do smaller gaymes that target to the specific demogayphic of gay gaymers, though.
25/03/2011 at 12:11 Deano2099 says:
The ‘majority of gamers’ are straight people that have no problem with optional gay content being present in their games.
Gay gamers are a minority.
Straight gamers that have a problem with gay content are an even smaller minority.
So who should we cater for again?
25/03/2011 at 12:13 Simon Hawthorne says:
And by joking I mean
‘Self-satirising because it’s a ridiculous position and nobody would ever seriously misspell his name like this because it’s such a cheap shot that only serves to undermine my position’
rather than
‘Joking because, heh, his name sounds like gay and he’s advocating for his own content in his own writing about gays so, heh, he must be gay and, heh, LETSJUSTCALLHIMDAVIDGAY!’.
Right?
25/03/2011 at 12:13 Very Real Talker says:
FiveO:
why are you so hysteric about it? If they don’t cater to me, yes, I’m just going to give up gaming. I’m not playing da2 for starters. I’m not going to be aggressive about it like the homophiles are being now.
25/03/2011 at 12:16 Very Real Talker says:
Deano, I already said that if homo friendly gamers are the majority, I will accept my minority, not worthy of being cathered to, status.
I just want to express my dislike of having such an high incidence of gayness in my games. Maybe there are others like me, maybe there are not. Why shouldn’t I express my preference again? I’m not demanding anything. Just expressing my preferences and my point of view.
Why do you all feel the need to be so antagonistic about it, like it is a victory if gamers like me are in the minority?
25/03/2011 at 12:17 Selifator says:
I seriously doubt that Bioware will cater the homophobic part of their fanbase. Tough luck for you. And people are glad that gamers like you are a minority because you are probably like this outside of games as well. Which is not a good thing.
25/03/2011 at 12:18 Very Real Talker says:
Simon- cheapshot? frankly I consider it a juvenile and inoffensive joke, I don’t want to insult him or insult him to win an argument.
25/03/2011 at 12:19 kikito says:
Your logic is flawed. Your text can be summed up as follows: “either you are hetero, like me, or you are a gaymer”.
There are several things wrong on that statement, but let me write down the two most important ones.
1. What you are refering to as “heterosexual”, is called “homophobic” by the rest of the world. Sometimes they also prefix it with “ignorant”.
2. Real heteros are not bothered with homosexuality. They are ok with it, and if a gay person makes a pass at them, they do what they would do with a person from the opposite sex they aren’t attracted to – they politely decline.
They are simply sane heteros. That group is the majority.
On a very far second place, there’s the gay gamers.
And then, fortunately, far, far away, there’s the homophobic bunch. Where you are.
25/03/2011 at 12:33 Very Real Talker says:
kikito, I think making every male companion gay is simply catering excessively to the gay demographic
25/03/2011 at 12:34 Deano2099 says:
@Very Real Talker
You are in a minority. Most gamers are gay friendly, I’m afraid you’ll find. Most people are gay friendly, I don’t see why gamers would be any different. I have to admit I have no statistics to back this up, but if you have proof for your side of the argument I’d love to see it. But I just look at the real world and while homophobia certainly exists and is an issue, there’s not that much of it. I mean, look at how many copies Gears of War sold and how much homo-eroticism was in that!
The reason I’m being antagonistic is that I’m a heterosexual. Never really fancied another guy, thought of sleeping with one makes me vaguely queasy. I’m straight. I’m a ‘hetero’. And I’m pretty pissed off that you’re claiming that you talk for me, and that you represent me, because you don’t. Because I have no problem with gay content in games. I can just ignore it. Or I can make two ladies get off with each other.
So please stop talking about what ‘heteros’ think. By all means have your opinion, but don’t try and talk for other people.
25/03/2011 at 12:37 Ajh says:
You DO realize you do NOT have to touch anything remotely homosexual in this game romance wise right? I’m pretty pro gay rights myself but I’m playing a female Hawke and romancing Fenris.
Then again I’m one of those people that don’t count right? I shouldn’t be catered to with any story options. Damn me for being born a woman. Oh the shame huh?
Seriously though, what’s wrong with Merril? She’s got that cute little accent.
25/03/2011 at 13:29 Mana_Garmr says:
As I understand it there are 4 potential love interests in the game. 2 of those are females with whom you can have a male-female relationsip. How exactly are straight-males being ignored?
25/03/2011 at 13:30 CMaster says:
Wait, so providing two women for you male character to be able to romance (and indeed you can play a female character and get it on with women, if you’re one of that (seemingly large proportion) of straight men who like to watch lesbians isn’t catering to you? But providing the same options to gay gamers is catering for them?
I R CONFUZED.
25/03/2011 at 13:32 Lilliput King says:
Ajh: I think what was wrong with Merril was that the accent was the only thing right with Merril. It was very right though, so that counts for something.
25/03/2011 at 14:52 DaFishes says:
Hey, you know what? I’m a hetero, Anders hit on my Hawke, and I wasn’t offended. I wasn’t even uncomfortable. I just said “No thank you,” like an adult, and then proceeded to friend-lock Anders. Life goes on.
These asspuckered homophobes need to take the advice they give women who are tired of eve teasing: “Relax, you’re overreacting. Take it as a compliment, honey.”
25/03/2011 at 16:44 Archonsod says:
“Why do you all feel the need to be so antagonistic about it, like it is a victory if gamers like me are in the minority?”
Because you’re a bigot, and the less we can be associated with your ilk the better we feel? Shoulda thought it was pretty obvious.
25/03/2011 at 12:04 Lobotomist says:
I made a similar “pro Hetero” post for the last Dragon Age game.
Suggested to have option to turn off gay romances in game
Didnt get the star treatment though.
But was attacked by mob of gay friendly gamers. Quite aggressively too.
Their excuse “We have the right to have gay romance in the game”
I said “We have right not to have it”
Only thing that got clear to me. Is that we are heterosexuals are treated as group that has NO RIGHTS.
Group that should “Shut up”
And companies support this trend, because its hip to be pro gay. It sells good.
Not because they necessarily like it.
25/03/2011 at 12:06 poop says:
why did you write this post like a spoken word poem
25/03/2011 at 12:06 Dominic White says:
… Seriously?
There is no moderate response: [While I understand the anger, please try to deal with these sorts of comments without resorting to threats and insults, thanks - John] And I’m saying this as a completely heterosexual male.
25/03/2011 at 12:07 PatrickSwayze says:
@Dominic White:
So, your opinion or no opinion?
25/03/2011 at 12:09 JimRyanor says:
You do have the right not to have it. If you’re not interested in a gay romance don’t play a guy and then pursue the romance options with the male characters. Its hardly forcing you to click on and continue with a specific dialogue chain. Unless you just can’t help yourself…
25/03/2011 at 12:10 Dominic White says:
To beat your chest, declare yourself ‘pro hetero’ and declare that straight people have no rights and are under siege by this gay plague is unconscionably terrible and anyone who even considers holding such views needs to be thrown under a bus.
25/03/2011 at 12:13 Deano2099 says:
Guess what?
No gay gamers ever asked for a button to turn off heterosexual relationships in the game. As they’re able to ignore them.
Why can’t you do the same with homosexual relationships?
25/03/2011 at 12:14 JackShandy says:
I hope more of these people don’t come. I’m terrified of what this thread could soon become.
25/03/2011 at 12:15 TheApologist says:
@Lobotomist
I would really respectfully ask you to think about your view that heterosexual people are a category of people with no rights, in contrast with homosexual people who have lots of rights. Because, truly, honestly, this is divorced from reality. You are entirely free to pursue your sexuality. The idea that homosexual people have that freedom is mad.
But let’s be clear about what you are asking for. You desire the removal of people in the game world who have a different sexuality to you. No one should or could threaten your freedom to pursue your heterosexual desires. But what you cannot ask is for the removal of people who have a different sexuality. You have no right to that whatsoever.
25/03/2011 at 12:15 HopperUK says:
I don’t think homophobes have the right to eliminate gayness in games. I think the very idea is disgraceful. It’s the same old ‘I don’t have anything against them but do they have to shove it in my face?!’ argument and it’s disgusting.
25/03/2011 at 12:16 MannyCalavera says:
“… Seriously?
There is no moderate response: [Deleting this again - sorry - John]. And I’m saying this as a completely heterosexual male.”
I would like to second this.
25/03/2011 at 12:18 choconutjoe says:
@Lobotomist
It’s not about the sexuality of player. It’s about the sexuality of the player character. It’s an RPG remember?
Saying the game discriminates against heterosexuals because it won’t let you turn off gay romance is like saying the game discriminates against people who don’t have magical powers because it won’t let you turn off mages.
25/03/2011 at 12:31 Lobotomist says:
I knew I will get lot of small minded responses.
Same as I got in original post.
My point was simple. You cant ignore homosexual romance in the game.
Character Zevran insists on having homosexual discussions – and you have to go over it, if you want the character approval which is important part of the game.
So, whatever they say – they didnt give you the option to avoid it. It was forced on you.
Now I am no purist. I know gays exist. Some of my best friends are gay. But all to hell if I now have to enjoy my escapist hobby – Medieval Fantasy , where somebody is forcing me to include homosexsual elves.
What is next ? 5th edition of D&D will have all dark elves be leg fetishists ? And gnomes be swingers ?
Note that I never asked to remove this , i know some people like it. And they should be allowed to enjoy it…why not ?
All i ask is to have option not to have it. It doesnt have to be even on default.
Damn you have option to turn of blood. Because some people dont like it.
Should they be attacked too ?
All in all.
Gay is in. Bioware added it because its profitable and enjoys the hubbub its creating.
Dont think its about being right
25/03/2011 at 12:33 Dominic White says:
You’re disturbed by the very idea of having to interact with someone different to you, but call everyone else small-minded? My earlier comment stands, and is redoubled in fury an intensity.
You. Are. Scum.
25/03/2011 at 12:36 Deano2099 says:
You can kill Zevran as soon as you meet him. Try being a better homophobe :P
But yes, you have to flirt with him if you want his approval. So what? If you’re not comfortable with that, that’s your issue.
25/03/2011 at 12:38 TheApologist says:
@Lobotomist
Sorry, you have to do better than that. Why is what I said small minded? You haven’t even responded.
Respond properly or it seems like you can’t defend what you said, and that even though there really are huge ethical problems with how you think, you just want to hold on to your view because it’s easier than admitting you are wrong and challenging yourself to be different.
25/03/2011 at 12:40 choconutjoe says:
“I found this particular disturbing.”
That’s why you’re a homophobe.
That’s why you don’t speak for heterosexuals.
That’s why everyone here thinks you’re a dick.
25/03/2011 at 12:41 Ajh says:
Here’s how to turn off gay romance in Dragon Age 1:
Kill Zevran, or if you have him at your camp already tell him to go away.
Tell Leiliana to go away if you have her already or refuse to take her with you.
It’s that simple.
That’s why you were mocked. Because you were missing the obvious answer and being intolerant and rude about it at the same time.
25/03/2011 at 12:44 MannyCalavera says:
@ lobotomist
1. I can’t believe you are seriously using the “I have friends line…”. That line does not allow one to use bigotry with no comeback
2. You talk of escape, being forced. Are you really that uncomfortable by homosexuality? Are you really that uncomfortable in your own sexuality that you prefer to have alternatives hidden from you?
3. You are the one with a small mind. I think you need to realise that for most of us it doesn’t even occur to us to be bothered by this. There is a reason for this. Try and think what it might be.
25/03/2011 at 12:51 Neut says:
“Saying the game discriminates against heterosexuals because it won’t let you turn off gay romance is like saying the game discriminates against people who don’t have magical powers because it won’t let you turn off mages.”
OT but I for one would’ve liked the option to turn off mages in DA:O. Damn fireballs :D
25/03/2011 at 12:52 Tom OBedlam says:
DING! The second “I know Gay People” in this thread. Fuckin’ A, you prick.
25/03/2011 at 13:03 Lobotomist says:
Haha
I love this fake political correctness.
Most of you I bet never even been around a gay before. LOL
Most of gays dont give a damn what you think. They are gay because they are. And they are not looking for your approval.
So what the f do they care about me not liking gay romance in my game ?
No
The ones that care, and post here are just a straight heterosexuals pretending to be oh so political correct. Trying to reduce their homofobia by roleplaying gay.
I have been there , seen it , experienced it and dont have to pretend anymore.
So please , i will have my sandwich without the sausage. Because i like it that way
ps
There is nothing more Orwellian than political correctness – The mind control is always disguised as something politically right.
Tell me what i think is wrong. But do not force me not to think it.
25/03/2011 at 13:07 FiveO says:
Wait, where did you get this line on the opinions of all gay people? I would really like to know!
(for no particular reason…)
25/03/2011 at 13:11 Tom OBedlam says:
So there’s this homophobe, right? He walks into a forum and tells a bunch of strangers that not only does he dislike gayness, but he also knows more about gayness than anyone else here. Laugh? I nearly did.
I’m amazed you think you know my sexuality just from text on a screen.
25/03/2011 at 13:12 Lobotomist says:
Hehe, not all gay people. Not all people are same.
Some gay people are pricks, some are pussies and whiners, and some are bastards. Just like black, white, chinese and heterosexual. We are all people. Damn homo sapiens. We all have rights to EXPRESS OURSELVES
Nobody is better and MORE RIGHT.
And for those that call me homophobic. You are a hater. You are the seed of hate and discontent. Doing it on purpose. Painting people with colors and hurdling them into groups. So you can point and accuse them easier.
You are the non tolerant one.
Just like that by not believing in god does not make me atheist. Not being gay doesnt make you homofobe
If i dont watch Sunday football match does it make me football hater ?
By what right, mister political correct you paint and categorize me ? What gives you that right , if not the hate that you wish to ensue over me ?
25/03/2011 at 13:20 TheApologist says:
@Lobotomist
Nope. I am more right than you. That’s why I am bothering to interact with you: to demonstrate to you through argument that I am indeed more right than you, and that you should adopt my opinion or some version of it.
If I had failed, and you had demonstrated to me that you were more right than me, I would have done the same. Unsurprisingly, you failed to change my mind. Perhaps more surprisingly, you failed to actually engage in a debate, and just went for weird disconnected half sentences and literary allusions that you’d realise don’t make any sense if you thought about them. Which you clearly won’t.
Sad.
25/03/2011 at 13:37 Lobotomist says:
Point is : there is no victory in this.
You are not really honest in your opinions , because you are not honest with yourself (or others)
Part of you are gay , and are clearly biased – which is completely alright.
But the other part is the ones that dont have their own opinion, but only repeat what they have been told is right. And as they have been told that you should be gay friendly , and they repeat it as mantra. They could have been told , 50 years ago , that gay is bad. And they would act accordingly.
Instead of thinking by their own head, and not being afraid to say their own opinions.
I have no such problem.
I party with gays. Because , hey – we all know who has the nicest girl friends ;) hehe :P
But hell if i want my elf assasin to be gay ! Get out of here !
So , if you are gay. Whatever , who cares.
And if you are political correctness zombified sheeple. Grow a spine and a brain , and do what YOU think is right.
25/03/2011 at 13:42 Wilson says:
@Lobotomist – I’m a little confused by your posts. If it really doesn’t bother you that much, why do you want to have an option to remove it from the game so that you don’t have to be hit on by gay characters? Because in theory that’s all your problem is right, since you don’t have to then have a relationship with them? Surely it’s hardly worth removing? If you aren’t homophobic why do you need to have it completely removed from the game? I think that’s why a lot of people are attacking you, because your position as stated by you doesn’t seem to make sense.
- You aren’t homophobic.
- You want an option to totally remove even the slightest hint of anyone being gay from the game, and obviously it bothers you enough to argue for it.
So why do you want it removed, and why does it bother you so much?
Also, I would have thought optional tick-boxes to remove all reference to certain groups from pieces of media would be far more interesting for an Orwellian style story than political correctness.
25/03/2011 at 13:42 Chalky says:
@Lobotomist
Why does it matter so much to you? You’re just ranting about how everyone else has a problem and you’re fine. Are you sure this doesn’t have more to do with you?
25/03/2011 at 13:44 choconutjoe says:
“You are the non tolerant one.”
Tolerating intolerance does not make the world a more tolerant place.
“Just like that by not believing in god does not make me atheist.”
Yes it does, by definition.
“Not being gay doesnt make you homofobe”
No, making the kind of homophobic comments that you’ve made makes you a homophobe.
“By what right, mister political correct you paint and categorize me ?”
You’re the one who brought up political correctness. Nobody here is arguing for political correctness. Nobody has ‘painted and categorized’ you either. You’ve been criticized entirely on the basis of the things you’ve said.
“What gives you that right , if not the hate that you wish to ensue over me ?”
If you think nobody has the right to criticize your opinions then you’ve fundamentally misunderstood the nature of free speech.
25/03/2011 at 13:50 Ovno says:
I’m not gonna bother getting involved with the other arguement, though if I did I would be on the side of the people who are happy to have other people catered for in games without getting all prissy.
However….
“Just like that by not believing in god does not make me atheist.”
I’m affraid by definition it does…
a·the·ist
/ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist]
–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
25/03/2011 at 13:52 Lobotomist says:
@Wilson
You are right. It does sound strange.
For example – True Blood. I loved Lafayette and Hesus gay romance. Why ?
I felt it fitted the story and the world lore.
Dragon Age.
I felt it was artificially imposed to keep the sales numbers high, by creating controversy that sits well with today political correctness hipness
It had nothing to do with story, with lore, with fantasy world of Dragon Age. It was just put there upon request from accounting.
And by the way. Atheist is a term crafted by contemporary Christians to paint all non believers and group them together. Many todays free thinkers and philosophers are against this term and such narrow (and obviously hostile) categorization
25/03/2011 at 14:04 Lilliput King says:
Atheist is a word crafted by contemporary Christians to group together unbelievers as unbelievers?
I dunno, man.
25/03/2011 at 14:04 Hidden_7 says:
@Lobotomist.
Okay, first off, not believing in any gods absolutely DOES make you an atheist. What do you think that word means? What a bizarre thing to say.
Secondly. I’m not “gay friendly” as you put it because I’ve been told it’s politically correct. I’m “gay friendly” because it’s the right thing to do. Because it’s the clearly rational attitude to have if you take an egalitarian approach toward persons.
Treating like cases alike (egalitarianism) is the cornerstone of just action. In the vast majority (who am I kidding, all) of my interactions with heterosexual people, their sexuality plays no meaningful role in the way I relate to them. Thus, ones sexuality isn’t a relevant factor in my interactions with people, so it didn’t be something I discriminate toward.
Likewise, with regard to simple, non-extreme libertarian virtues (generally freedom of expression should be maximized, so no limits of liberty unless absolutely necessary to protect liberty elsewhere) I recognize that people’s expression of their sexuality, gay, straight, bi or otherwise, doesn’t negatively impact anyone else’s ability to express themselves, so I see absolutely no reason that it should be limited in any way.
This is not a sheep, “political correctness” response. Personally, I don’t care what’s politically correct or not. Political correctness gets its name from what a politician can safely say, so the most bland, least offensive expressions possible. I don’t care about offending people. I do care about doing what’s right. Thus, I’m not a homophobe. I would suspect this is true of most people here expressing similar sentiments.
25/03/2011 at 14:58 DaFishes says:
Dude. I somehow doubt that some of your best friends are gay, with that attitude. Or at least, they’re your best friends, but you’re not their best friends.
Heterosexuals are NOT oppressed. Being hit on by a gay person (or gay PIXELS, FFS) does not oppress you. It makes you uncomfortable. There is a vast difference.
25/03/2011 at 15:01 Wilson says:
@Lobotomist – Ah, then if I read you right what bothers you isn’t the presence of gay characters and them coming on to your character in the game, but that you feel it’s been imposed as a marketing/political correctness kind of decision, rather than it being a fitting part of the game.
Personally I really don’t believe that political correctness is the big deal a lot of people make it out to be, and I certainly don’t think it’s reasonable to brush off the opinions of many people because they happen to be ‘politically correct’. You can’t assume that they’ve all been taken in by some kind of sinister propaganda and have lost the ability to think for themselves. I could just as easily say you’ve been brainwashed by anti-PC groups, and you need to start thinking for yourself, sheepy! But that wouldn’t really help the debate and it’s unlikely to be fair to you.
Still, while I don’t agree with your views that the romantic bits in DA2 have been co-opted by a PC agenda to boost sales, I find that argument far more palatable than when it appeared you were deeply homophobic and wanted an option to remove any reference to gay characters in the game because you didn’t like homosexuality.
25/03/2011 at 16:29 Lobotomist says:
I am not offended by gay romance in Dragon Age.
But I do feel it was added artificially. And I dont like that.
And that seriously affected my immersion in the game.
So if they added it, just to please gay players (and they did just that) – than why not give option to turn it off for heterosexual players ?
It served no story element. It was not essential to the story. It was pure political correctness stunt in my fantasy game. Yuck
(btw heterosexual options were just as bad , lol. Wish they had button to remove them too. )
But than when you ask to have option to close it. You have all this gay defenders voicing up.
I find it hilarious.
Gays dont need your protection. They are fine.
And actually most the gays I know hate all this gay activism crap that is going on.
They dont want to protest their difference. They are no different.
They are just PEOPLE
25/03/2011 at 16:44 rivalin says:
“Tolerating intolerance does not make the world a more tolerant place.”
So you tolerate people who agree with you? Wow, that’s impressive, the ultimate test of tolerance is in your reaction to views with which you disagree vehemently, not those which you deem acceptable.
So I guess you approve of Dominic White’s hate spewing bile, purely because his political views accord with yours, because intolerance is ok when it’s directed at the “bad people”, its okay to say “you are scum” and that you should “be thrown under a bus” to a homophobe, but if you said “we should throw all the fag lovers under a bus” that would be different somehow, because it’s one the “bad people” saying it?
I suggest some of the zealots on this thread read some “On Liberty”, because their attempts to silence dissent through social pressure are no different than any other bigoted group in the past. “but it is different”, they argue, “why’s that?” “because we’re right” they answer. No social opinion is right; past societies valued order, others valued freedom of conscience (clearly not ours), ours values equality above everything else, none of these goals is any more right than the others, but there is always a majority in that society who will viciously attack those with deviant opinions (oh, the irony!)
And before anyone jumps on me, I have no problem with the homosexual relationships in the game aside from their nature being somewhat anachronistic.
25/03/2011 at 16:50 Archonsod says:
“. Atheist is a term crafted by contemporary Christians to paint all non believers and group them together.”
I knew Cicero was smart, but even I didn’t know he had a time machine.
25/03/2011 at 17:38 Lobotomist says:
“In fact, “atheism” is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a “non-astrologer” or a “non-alchemist.” We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”
— Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation)
25/03/2011 at 18:16 Archonsod says:
Sam Harris talks a load of pish at the best of times. His argument is nonsensical too, atheism is not defining you as not being part of a group, it’s defining a belief system which doesn’t include Gods. I’m sure the Buddhist population would be mildly amused at being accused of defining themselves as not-Christian.
25/03/2011 at 18:27 Lobotomist says:
Exactly my point: DEFINING
Why there is a need for defining ? Atheist , Homophobic , Gay , Christian. Labels…
We are individuals.
And we are straying from the topic. What i mean that labeling is not good. And everyone has freedom of choice and opinion.
And just dont wanting something. In this case gay romance option in our fantasy game.
Doesnt make us homophobic – which i find very insulting hateful term.
25/03/2011 at 19:10 noodlecake says:
Does that mean that there should be a “No Heterosexual” option to for gay gamers who have a problem with straight relationships? And “No Bisexual Characters” for gay people and straight people who have a problem with characters in their games who find members of both genders sexually attractive?
There is a straight option in the game just like there is in real life. If someone comes onto you and you’re not interested because you’re gay and they’re the opposite gender or you’re straight and they’re the same gender you just politely (or impolitely) refuse. Which you can do in the game! I don’t get the problem here. :S
25/03/2011 at 19:13 noodlecake says:
And also “homophobic” is a hate group. It’s not like being Christian or Atheist or whatever. It’s like going “I’m gonna shout abuse at this guy because he’s got different coloured skin to me but I’m not a racist because that’s labelling.” Oh okay then. It’s not racist any more because it’s not right to label people.
25/03/2011 at 21:54 Edward F. says:
“Oh no, oppressed minorities are calling me out for making a blatantly ignorant statement about how I can’t shove an important concept into a small corner because it scares me! Whatever will I do!”
Hun, this kind of ignorance is what keeps me and others from being able to marry and enjoying other human rights. You started with how you should be able to get rid of gays in the game and then backtracked about how it was”forced” and a “cash-in”, and then sidelining the whole discussion on some tangent of atheism. Hey, guess what: Some characters are gay in this game, and you can’t use your magical ignorance powers to will them into something that doesn’t scare you.
My friend, you are homophobic. As defined by wikipedia – “Homophobia is a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, and in some cases transgender and intersex people and behaviour. Definitions refer variably to antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear.” You may talk about how “homophobe” is a hateful labeling term, but that is only because you are a prejudiced, discriminatory person. In the real world, you can’t navigate to a little menu and uncheck the “gay” option. By saying that people can be gay but only on your terms, you meet that definition exactly.
25/03/2011 at 12:10 heretic says:
ahah man those born again christians are really funny, they’ll go around killing (you shall not kill) in games but anything homo is no-no!
The reason I play games is to experience things that I wouldn’t usually be able to experience, for example playing as a female character, or even as a bisexual PC. Of course, being straight I have a preference, but I won’t start chundering at the sight of anything which doesn’t float my boat…
Now its a different issue if this isn’t handled properly (like too much in your face for example), but then you can complain about it not being handled properly – developers learn by trying things out, you shouldn’t ask for said content to be removed.
25/03/2011 at 12:50 FiveO says:
+1
DA2 handled romance in general terribly, and both the gay and straight options were cringe-worthy. I think some of the problems that the born again contingent are having are at least partially due to the ridiculous delivery.
25/03/2011 at 12:10 Sunjammer says:
I just wrapped up Alpha Protocol. I remember being worried before that game came out, because it seemed almost obsessed with pointing out that you could bonk every woman in the game. After the game turned out to be fairly subdued and tasteful, much MUCH more so than Bioware has been able to do, I’m prepared to think two things, in parallel:
1. Chris Avellone can write a story about a horse taking a piss and have it resonate
2. Bioware are a bunch of epic nerds.
I think the original poster’s idea of “unrealistic bisexuality” is moon language: Welcome to 2011, motherfuckers, where if you spend a little extra time in front of the mirror before hitting the town, shocker, both men and women may be attracted to you. This is what it means to live in the future; Deal with it.
However I also think Bioware should either work hard on making their romantic relationships subtler, or ditch them altogether. Because as it is they are really, really bad at it, and it comes across as completely forced. Dragon Age Origins to me was absolutely prepostorous in this regard, with a freaking love/hate progress bar you could game to “optimize”. The nerd-dom was perpetually overflowing.
25/03/2011 at 12:39 Teddy Leach says:
This. This. THIS.
25/03/2011 at 12:49 Tom OBedlam says:
We seem to be cut from the same cloth
25/03/2011 at 20:08 Olivaw says:
Hahahaha.
Alpha Protocol. Subdued and tasteful.
Right. SIE was SUPER tasteful.
25/03/2011 at 12:12 HopperUK says:
Maybe we should all have the opportunity to hide what makes us feel uncomfortable and funny in our tummies. Perhaps if they put in a ‘no brown people’ button on every game, those poor ignored racists wouldn’t have to be confronted with the idea that their Fallout NV character could potentially be something they don’t like. Will nobody think of the racists?
25/03/2011 at 12:28 JackShandy says:
I can see it now, a big bunch of checkboxes. A “No Swearing” button. A “No Blood” button. “No Cops”, “No Atheism”, “No Religion”, “No fighting”, “No homosexuals”, “No Races”, “No Magic”, “No Romances”, “No Difficulty”, “No Conflict”, “No Colour”, “No shouting”, “No Running”, “No Shocking Political Commentary”.
Really, in many ways, a bluescreen is the perfect game.
25/03/2011 at 12:34 Spatula says:
“really, in many ways, a bluescreen is the perfect game”
‘cept it’s racist towards smurfs. You b#stard. :-)
25/03/2011 at 13:09 bleeters says:
@ HopperUK
You jest, but it’s depressingly not that far from reality.
It saddens me how popular that one currently is.
25/03/2011 at 19:20 HopperUK says:
@bleeters: Holy cow. I’m not sure why I’m surprised, really.
25/03/2011 at 19:49 Easydog says:
@Bleeters …. That is the most depressing thing I’ve seen in a long time.
25/03/2011 at 23:01 tossrStu says:
You think that’s depressing? You don’t want to see this thread about it then:
http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/307/index/6686736/1
In summary: “There’s nothing wrong with it, and YOU’RE the real racist for caring about her skin colour in the first place.” Ugh.
25/03/2011 at 12:26 vash47 says:
This game is suck a trainwreck.
25/03/2011 at 12:42 Bodminzer says:
This comment made me smile after a couple of minuts of feeling very cross. Thank you.
25/03/2011 at 12:31 Bantros says:
OK OK OK, what I was not happy about was the lack of fine females in the Blooming Rose, I think that should be a topic for discussion.
Yes, you have to have choice and all and I don’t have a problem with that but then where the god damn are the human females?! My Hawke demands a real woman, not a man dwarf or man elf, a man or even girl elf and certainly not the elf that looks like a girl but sounds like man (I felt so ashamed!), a woman!
I demand a patch chop chop
25/03/2011 at 12:44 Teddy Leach says:
Would I be racist if I said that I hate elves? Dwarf Fortress does that to you.
25/03/2011 at 12:53 Mungrul says:
I’m a Dwarf Fortress player, and I LOVE elves. Nothing better than a burning one.
25/03/2011 at 12:34 Stuart Walton says:
As a
Straight MaleGamer myself, whenever presented with unexpected opportunities in a game it’s quite invigorating. It doesn’t matter if it’s an option I wish to choose but the fact that it’s there is a damn good thing. Nobody complains when you’re given good/evil, light/dark, or benevolent/mercenary options. In fact we celebrate them, even if the outcome counts for little or has an outcome that’s binary regardless of the level of choice.So we should celebrate when given these extra options. You don’t have to take them. It’s OK if you don’t get to see everything in a game. In fact, I think not seeing some content because you repulsed from it is better in terms of immersion because the game made you invest emotionally. And that could be a repulsion to anything: drug taking, slavery, cruelty to animals etc. Not just sexuality.
In ME2 I didn’t chose any particular love interest, I had a pretty wide choice but ultimately none of them seemed like something my particular (female) Sheperd would have picked. Chosing one for the sake of it felt wrong too, in fact choosing any felt like a bad idea. It would have been cheap and I would not have enjoyed it. The only comfort I get is the odd visit from Kelly to my quarters but even that feels cheap and hollow since she’s blatanly the ship’s bike. Is the game bad for making me feel this way. No, it’s good because it made me feel something because it gave me a choice.
25/03/2011 at 14:14 heretic says:
+1
25/03/2011 at 12:41 Juicetin says:
It’s intelligent, sensitive articles like this that keep RPS a cut above the vast majority of games journalism. The inclusion of homosexual relationships in games has been a long time coming, and Bioware’s inclusion of them in DA 1 & 2 should be applauded. It’s 2011 for god’s sake, and the games industry must recognise that it cannot shy away from depicting relationships that might displease a small minority of bigots. Keep up the good work John.
25/03/2011 at 12:42 Kai says:
If he gets a “no homosexuality” button, I want a “no heterosexuality” button.
I’m not heterophobic, though. Some of my friends are straight!
In more seriousness, Gaider’s remarks are incredibly well written and I tip my hat to the man.
25/03/2011 at 19:17 noodlecake says:
Spot on! Just what I was thinking. :)
25/03/2011 at 12:42 Teddy Leach says:
I’m a Straight Male Gamer, and I don’t have a problem with homosexuals. Both in games and the real world. Hell, I’ve been hit on by gays in the real world before, but it’s not like you can’t laugh it off or say that you’re not gay.
DA2 has bisexuals. So does life. Get over it.
Although, with that said, it does seem a little statistically unlikely that one would have that many bisexuals in the party.
25/03/2011 at 19:36 Ajh says:
I think it’s easier to just make them bisexual so that no matter whether you play a male or female character you can pursue the romance of your choice.
Basically it makes things simpler for the developers and writers, and isn’t necessarily for realism.
25/03/2011 at 22:12 noodlecake says:
Yeah. they aren’t bisexual. They’re just straight in one universe (where you play, say, a male character) and gay in the other (where you play the female one) ;) Apart from the pirate lady. She is definitely bi.
26/03/2011 at 04:55 Grape Flavor says:
@noodlecake
Ah. That’s an interesting way of looking at it, differing sexuality in parallel universes. That makes sense, after all, every playthrough of an RPG is indeed its own parallel universe!
25/03/2011 at 12:43 Very Real Talker says:
I read an interesting theory that is relevant to this. Basically the gamer lifestyle- days indoor in front of the pc, poor nutrition, no exercise- could have messed up with the hormonal balance of many of them, turning them gay or gay friendly. That’s why there are so many gay romance enthusiasts or gamer that serially play as a female character in rpgs without thinking it’s weird.
An interesting theory indeed in my opinion.
25/03/2011 at 12:49 Urael says:
Hehe, very well said, Very Shit Talker. I read something a while back that claimed that bigots had 30% of their brains damaged by too much repressed homosexuality, and were thus unable to ever fully balance their opinions again.
Doomed forever to be ignorant, inhuman ass-wipes. How sad.
25/03/2011 at 12:55 Deano2099 says:
I read a study that said kids playing videogames, especially more complex ones such as Dragon Age, tended to have a higher than average intelligence.
I read another study that said that people with a higher than average intelligence were more likely to not be homophobes (or to be ‘gay friendly’, to put it your way) or have any other such bigotry.
So maybe that’s why too.
25/03/2011 at 12:55 Tom OBedlam says:
I think you’re making my brain dribble out my ears.
25/03/2011 at 12:56 Very Real Talker says:
such viciousness. Why do you want to dehumanize whoever doesn’t share your enthusiasm for gay sex? Nice to know that the essence of being human is a passion for all thing gay.
25/03/2011 at 13:01 Sunjammer says:
You don’t have to have an interest in gay sex to accept a gay compliment. Contrary to popular belief, being around gay people doesn’t reflect on your own sexuality, much like being around girls doesn’t mean you’re a ladies’ man.
Get over yourselves, homophobes; You’re probably not that hot.
25/03/2011 at 13:03 Deano2099 says:
Dude, seriously. I have no enthusiasm for gay sex whatsover. That doesn’t mean I mind it.
I don’t like Guinness, but I don’t go off on one if my friends drink it down the pub.
I don’t like horror films, but have no problem with them existing.
Put it this way, quick quiz – do you like or dislike the following:
Marmite
The Libyan no-fly zone
Death metal
Jazz
The novels of Iain Banks
Plasma TVs
Basketball
The emotion ‘ennui’
The lyrics of Frank Tuner
25/03/2011 at 13:03 Chris D says:
You can inititiate a conversation by openly insulting a minority and anyone who chooses not to share your prejudice or you can claim the moral high ground.
You don’t get to do both.
25/03/2011 at 13:07 Tom OBedlam says:
The essence of bring a good human is not being a dick, matey
25/03/2011 at 13:10 John Walker says:
Very Real Talker – you are now tipping over into pure troll territory. I’d recommend keeping your delightful eugenics theories to yourself.
25/03/2011 at 13:59 Urael says:
You dehumanize yourself, VRT, by failing to view homosexuality as anything other than a natural part of human existence, by making a distinction in your own mind between what is acceptable human sexual behaviour and what is not, and treating the latter camp differently from the former. And please don’t mistake tolerance for something as ‘enthusiasm’. There’s a world of difference between the two words.
25/03/2011 at 14:36 Lars Westergren says:
>Basically the gamer lifestyle- days indoor in front of the pc, poor nutrition, no exercise- could have messed up with the hormonal balance of many of them, turning them gay or gay friendly.
Fascinating how you are replaying the fears of 19th century Victorians.
25/03/2011 at 20:56 Grape Flavor says:
hahahahahahaha!!!!! oh god I can’t breathe!
“poor nutrition, no exercise” turns you gay? Or, even, “turns” you gay friendly? You are either a master troll or the stupidest person alive. Or both I suppose.
Either way, bravo sir, I am doubled over in amusement. I always did have a sick sense of humor. Try to work in a few more corkers before you get banned.
EDIT: Oh, I’m feeling bad now. Perhaps this fellow means well. All this tearing him down seems rather cruel because he’s put forth his nonsense in such a civil way. Besides, what if he’s borderline retarded or something? Don’t tell me you wouldn’t feel guilty about all this invective then, guys.
26/03/2011 at 06:21 Klaus says:
serially play as a female character in rpgs without thinking it’s weird.
It’s like being on /b/
Is it so hard to understand that games aren’t real life, and what you accomplish in them doesn’t spill into real life. I don’t get why playing as a female makes me less of a male. Does playing as a non-human make me less human?
I had to explain this to my six year old cousin – who had an aversion to playing as female characters – and I believe he got the gist of it. Why grown men can’t… well, I don’t know. I’m not a psychologist.
25/03/2011 at 12:49 ZenArcade says:
Please can we NOT use the term “straight male gamer”? Why are we so insistent on being targets for the marketing guys?
25/03/2011 at 12:56 Stuart Walton says:
OK, I’ll edit my post. I was trying to use it subversively but my edit shall make that clearer.
25/03/2011 at 12:54 Nick Ahlhelm says:
I kinda like the idea of a sliding scale in the character creation screen that would allow you to set your sexuality ahead of time. It would seriously cut down on the weirdness of the “everyone hits on everyone else” that seems to come with Dragon Age 2.
25/03/2011 at 12:58 Very Real Talker says:
but how we would educate the bigots then, if they can skip the gay parts? These inhuman pieces of shit need to get used to being hit on by same sex individuals
25/03/2011 at 13:52 Urael says:
You mock, VRT, but how nice would it be for bigots to be able to handle an approach by a gay character IN A VIDEO GAME, without running to the developer’s boards to complain that their demographic is being ignored/sidelined?
25/03/2011 at 13:57 Lilliput King says:
Only 2 characters in the entire game ever hit on me.
:(
25/03/2011 at 15:14 Urael says:
*hugs Lilliput King*
25/03/2011 at 17:28 Ryuuga says:
Awww, getting ignored even in the CPRGs. That does sound sad.. *pats*
25/03/2011 at 12:55 Chris D says:
I’d quite like to see Bioware make a game for people who don’t necessarily want to be reminded that video game characters have better sex lives than they do.
Not that I mean…I just have friends who might appreciate that….yeah.
25/03/2011 at 13:05 Teddy Leach says:
I don’t want awkward sex scenes of any orientation in any of my games.
The awkwardness makes me cringe unless it’s intentional. And it’s often not intentional.
25/03/2011 at 14:35 drewski says:
Why don’t you just not pursue them? You trying to impose your “don’t want any sex scenes” desire on everyone else isn’t much different from someone trying to impose a “no gay sex scenes” desire on everyone else.
25/03/2011 at 18:26 Temple to Tei says:
I don’t want awkward sex scenes in my game I play games to escape reality.
(Drew you may have missed the joke there)
25/03/2011 at 13:05 Haplo says:
So, all the characters in Dragon Age 2 are effectively bisexual? Uncanny. This reminds me of a story.
I dunno about you guys but that’s basically the result of any pen and paper roleplaying game I’ve been in. You have a party of 5-6, say, and you’re fairly intending to have your PC enter a fulfilling romantic relationship? The sexual attitudes of the party basically approach a… How would I phrase it? A human-to-human approach. Sort of like if there were no genders at all. Obviously, there are, but it’s like it’s hardly considered at all in my games. Just people lovin’ each other.
25/03/2011 at 13:06 FalleN says:
“zOMG, homosexual content, i r offended!”
Seriously? Are we still this closed-minded? Get over it. If you don’t like the fact that you may have a character of a differing orientation… Don’t take them with you!
And since we’re covering absurdities…
I think that there should be a religion slider added to the game, for all the non-believers out there. Maybe some of them don’t want to hear about the maker constantly… /end sarcasm.
Honestly if you don’t like what the developers have done with THEIR, let me repeat that… THEIR story, then don’t play the game.
25/03/2011 at 13:06 Dominic White says:
Well, this whole thread is rather educational. It has brought all the horrific bigots out of the woodwork, so that we might identify them and run them out of town. And no, there’s no such thing as ‘reverse racism/sexism/etc’ if you discriminate against bigots. If you’re against them, you’re a good human being.
25/03/2011 at 13:16 Neut says:
I wonder which of them are bigots and which of them are trolls, though I suspect the overlap might be pretty huge.
25/03/2011 at 21:18 Grape Flavor says:
@Dominic
Exactly, the whole idea of “reverse” whatever is absurd. The reverse of bigotry is non-bigotry. (Label sexism against men as sexism, racism against majority race as racism. No need for nonsense words.) And if you’re bigoted against bigots, well good for you.
I do hope that’s what you were trying to say, and not “minorities/women can’t possibly be bigots, anything goes with them”. (Because if so you are a rationalizing bigot-enabler at best, and the last sentence of my previous paragraph will come into full effect.) :)
25/03/2011 at 13:07 John Walker says:
I want to congratulate folks here for the way this discussion is being handled. While obviously people will be upset by those expressing homophobic opinions, I’m pleased by how even-handed most people are being in response.
Please don’t resort to threats or personal insults, as unpleasant as some people’s opinions may seem to you. Think of this as an opportunity to educate.
25/03/2011 at 14:37 Edgar the Peaceful says:
I was just about to post to say the same thing. The quality of the argument in this thread is precisely why I like to hang out here.
25/03/2011 at 13:08 frenz0rz says:
Christ, whats with all the hating in this thread? Without wanting to go off on a total non-gaming tangent, it seems like even the most reasonable person who argues “I do not want issues of homosexuality to play a big part in my fantasy RPG” is being labeled with all sorts of horrible things. Just because someone is opposed to homosexuality in gaming does not make them an outright homophobe, and certainly does not make them… well, lets pick some words out here:
“Scum”
“Dick”
“Go fuck yourself”
“Die in a fire”
“I hate your kind”
“Ignorant, inhuman asswipes”
Bloody hell people, just tone it down will you? We’re discussing the relevance and/or necessity of presenting homosexuality in a videogame. This is not fucking World War 3 unless you choose to make it that. Besides, you cant stop someone’s hatred or discrimination by throwing it back in their face.
Personally, I think its an important issue to deal with, or at least consider. I hope I am not labeled a heartless, discriminating piece of shit for saying that I have always felt uncomfortable around two men kissing or full-on grinding in public. Thats not to say I think theres anything wrong with that; rather, I simply cannot help how I feel when I witness it. It just makes me uncomfortable. If anything, approaching homosexuality this way in videogames can help people like me become accustomed to such sights as a normal part of human culture.
But please, if you’d rather just call me a monstrosity then go ahead.
25/03/2011 at 13:14 Deano2099 says:
Obviously most of those labels are harsh, but you are a homophobe aren’t you?
I mean, I have cynophobia, it’s a fear of dogs. I get uncomfortable around dogs. That doesn’t mean I hate dogs or think dogs shouldn’t exist, but I’m still a cynophobe.
You’re a homophobe that wishes you weren’t, which is fine, you don’t deserve to die in a fire or anything of the sort, but you do still sort of fit in that category.
25/03/2011 at 13:17 John Walker says:
frenz0rz – you might want to wait until people have called you names before complaining about it. You have expressed honest opinions, and said that you do not wish to have gay content removed from games. I don’t think anyone is going to attack you for that.
Other people have expressed pure homophobia, which is obviously going to rile others. Someone saying that being gay is a fetish, or deviant, for instance, is going to offend a lot of people. Being told they are a “dick” in response doesn’t register as any more insulting to my mind.
Deano – I think you’re being unfair. frenz0rz has admitted that something makes him uncomfortable, and then suggested that exposure to it in games may help him. That doesn’t sound like hate to me.
25/03/2011 at 13:28 TillEulenspiegel says:
I think this S,N! classic about the difference between “civility” and “decency” is quite relevant:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/2710.html
Why the fuck should homophobes be engaged with anything but bile?
“Just because someone is opposed to [black people] in gaming does not make them an outright [racist]”
Fuck off.
25/03/2011 at 13:29 TheApologist says:
@frenz0rz
Personally, I think your honesty about your feelings (and, clearly, with yourself about your feelings) regarding accepting expressions of homosexual desire, is heartening not monstrous because it is the only way I know of that change happens. In that sense you highlight why this debate matters.
25/03/2011 at 13:29 Deano2099 says:
Well apologies to frenz0rz if it has upset him, and you’re quite right it certainly isn’t hate. But the word ‘homophobe’ covers a huge number of attitudes, including fear, which is sort of what I was getting at.
I used to be sort of similar to be fair, seeing gay people made me a bit uncomfortable, but I pretty much got used to it. But I did feel like a bit of a homophobe then.
Again, it’s one of those words with so many meanings that it’s hard to use in a non-pejorative way.
25/03/2011 at 13:33 Hidden_7 says:
Personally I’m uncomfortable around two people kissing in public or “full on grinding,” regardless of the sex/genders involved. What you do in your own homes is cool, but keep your sexuality and affection in less public places eh?
To be clear I’m joking. Well, about that last part. PDAs do bug me, but it’s not like I think I’ve the right to have people not have them.
25/03/2011 at 13:33 Very Real Talker says:
so we are now extending the concept of homophobia to the desire of not witnessing live gay erotic performances, or the desire of not being hit on by you whole male supporting cast.
25/03/2011 at 13:39 TheApologist says:
@Very Real Talker
Nope, that’s you being extremely odd.
It was being extended to the kinds of displays of human affection that one conventionally sees in public spaces between couples whether they be of the same or different gender.
25/03/2011 at 13:52 frenz0rz says:
@John – You’re right, I might have been getting a bit ahead of myself in expecting a torrent of abuse for admitting how I feel. I agree that some people who have expressed intentionally offensive views toward homosexuality should really expected to be insulted in return, but I feel it is very very important to distinguish between the ‘haters’ and those who are simply uncomfortable with the whole homosexual thing. In this case, I dont think the word ‘homophobe’ can be adequately used to label the various different groups of people with very different attitudes toward homosexuality under one banner.
@Deano – Dont worry mate, you’ve not upset me. I think your last sentance hit it perfectly – the word ‘homophobe’ can mean so many things, its hard for people to use it without it sounding derogatory. That said, I still wouldnt describe my feeling when witnessing homosexuality as ‘fear’. I’d much rather call it ‘unease’. Even so, one of my favourite pubs in Reading is a gay club, because the drinks are just so damn cheap. I just occasionally have to look away or busy myself in conversation with a friend to avoid the feelings of unease and awkwardness.
@ TheApologist – Thank you. It feels much better to openly debate this sort of thing than to, as I’m sure many do, hide one’s feelings away completely to avoid causing offense or awkward situations.
25/03/2011 at 14:21 DJ Phantoon says:
But see, this is all okay, because eventually we’ll all die, and the generation after ours will be less prejudiced. I myself hate people that refuse to believe in evolution, and try to get it removed from public schools. As soon as someone says, “I don’t believe in evolution” and they’re under the age of 60, I stop listening to them entirely. Is that realistically fair? Probably not. But like the civil rights movement, and the suffragette movement before it, people will give up their prejudices and they’ll go out of vogue. I mean, for the most part, no one who “is bothered” by homosexuality would loudly admit to also being “bothered” by people who happen to be not white. This is a Good Thing.
The other thing is, you didn’t come in yelling “FAGGOT!” and “QUEER!” at people. Generally, people will respond more or less on the level you begin the conversation at. If you begin it by saying “all gays are going to hell”, people will respond with vitriol in kind, lightning fast. Like, “Bam! Tit job!” Fast.
25/03/2011 at 15:06 battles_atlas says:
@ DJ Phantoon
If it were that simple! Cultural liberalism isn’t some self-perpetuating force, it has to be fought for. If you doubt that just look at your own example of evolution. In the US, evolution is now far less accepted than it was a couple of decades ago, as I suspect is rational enquiry in general. In the UK we have Michael “Scrawny Cunt” Gove setting up ‘Free Schools’ with their own curriculum, several of which already have an open dedication to teaching creationism.
The forces of darkness always put up a fight, and they don’t always lose. “This is a war, sober up!” as a song lyric once went.
25/03/2011 at 15:09 Ovno says:
“As soon as someone says, “I don’t believe in evolution” and they’re under the age of 60, I stop listening to them entirely. Is that realistically fair? ”
Yes, but I find a better, response is…
“That’s fine, evolution unlike religion is a testable scientific theory and doesn’t need to believed in as it is based on facts not the writtings of people who lived thousands of years ago”
Though I am of course a patronising smug git…
25/03/2011 at 15:41 frenz0rz says:
Tried to post this a couple of hours ago but it doesnt seem to have appeared, so lets try again.
@John – You’re right, I might have been getting a bit ahead of myself in expecting a torrent of abuse for admitting how I feel. I agree that some people who have expressed intentionally offensive views toward homosexuality should really expected to be insulted in return, but I feel it is very very important to distinguish between the ‘haters’ and those who are simply uncomfortable with the whole homosexual thing. In this case, I dont think the word ‘homophobe’ can be adequately used to label the various different groups of people with very different attitudes toward homosexuality under one banner.
@Deano – Dont worry mate, you’ve not upset me. I think your last sentance hit it perfectly – the word ‘homophobe’ can mean so many things, its hard for people to use it without it sounding derogatory. That said, I still wouldnt describe my feeling when witnessing homosexuality as ‘fear’. I’d much rather call it ‘unease’. Even so, one of my favourite pubs in Reading is a gay club, because the drinks are just so damn cheap. I just occasionally have to look away or busy myself in conversation with a friend to avoid the feelings of unease and awkwardness.
@ TheApologist – Thank you. It feels much better to openly debate this sort of thing than to, as I’m sure many do, hide one’s feelings away completely to avoid causing offense or awkward situations.
25/03/2011 at 22:39 Grape Flavor says:
@TillEulenspiegel, battles_atlas + others
This is an incredibly dangerous way of thinking. This kind of thought is How Bad Things Happen. And yet people never learn.
The idea is that those who disagree with you, are not misguided, simply wrong, or even flat out morally deficient, they are all “inhuman fucking scumbag pieces of shit”. They are not complex individuals who may have some redeeming qualities. They are not products of their environment or culture. No, they are not even human. And presumably the only thing stopping us from exterminating them like the insects they are is that pesky legal system.
There’s basically a whole movement advocating this position, increasingly so on the American left. That certain principles, or even rote ideology for that matter, are so important that the opposition needs to be be demonized to satanic levels. Not even the opposition, but the middle-grounders, the moderates, and the heretics and unfaithful from within the ranks. No shades of gray are presumed to exist. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WithUsOrAgainstUs Sure it might not be reality, but you gotta “frame the narrative”, right?
This line of thinking isn’t noble, it isn’t principled. It’s totalitarian. I mean really, when you’ve start routinely referring to your opponents as “forces of darkness”, and you need to remind your allies to “sober up” and “get tough”, usually you’re well on your way to being a:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFundamentalist
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ActivistFundamentalistAntics
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist
25/03/2011 at 13:24 Moth Bones says:
Is David Gaider single? His response brought a tear to my eye and made me consider buying Dragon Age, even though I have little interest in computer game romance subplots. Patient, eloquent, polite yet forceful… what a man
“And if there is any doubt why such an opinion might be met with hostility, it has to do with privilege. You can write it off as “political correctness” if you wish, but the truth is that privilege always lies with the majority. They’re so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don’t see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what’s everyone’s fuss all about? That’s the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want.”
This is the essence of it, as exemplified by a few of the posters above – and credit to RPS for not moderating some of the more obnoxious comments. What the complaining gamer fails to grasp is that his feelings of exclusion relating to this game are related, in a pretty watered down and extremely context-specific way, to the feelings of exclusion the dominant culture will tend to engender in people who aren’t male, white, straight, middle class. Hell, some of us even have problems with the gender binary that is so ubiquitous.
To those who’ve posted here about feeling “uncomfortable” with homosexual themes, well, I’d like to point out that your discomfort is the biggest inconvenience you’re likely to experience from being a straight male. You’re not going to be beaten to death, disowned by your parents, discriminated against in employment, forced to flee the country of your birth – all things that can happen to queers that stem from straight male ‘discomfort’ with homosexuality. And yet you moan about a computer game that is attempting to be inclusive! Just try and think a little, use your imagination. I thought that was what computer games were for.
25/03/2011 at 13:30 Neut says:
Your post brought a tear to my eye, well said. :D
25/03/2011 at 14:15 FiveO says:
Very well said.
25/03/2011 at 15:11 TheApologist says:
Beautifully said.
25/03/2011 at 17:21 Vanderdecken says:
Amazing post. The last paragraph is the best argument I think it’s possible to construct for this. Well written.
25/03/2011 at 18:03 Vinraith says:
Exceedingly well said, especially that last paragraph.
25/03/2011 at 18:58 welka says:
Thank you for this comment. I’m queer (bisexual for those of you who believe in the gender binary) and do not fit into the gender binary (I have a beard and wear short shorts and dresses), and gaming culture has always been an especially alienating and hostile place to me. Seeing posts and comments like this appear in (relatively) mainstream gaming media is encouraging and inspiring.
25/03/2011 at 19:56 Cooper says:
Thank you for those words.
25/03/2011 at 13:27 anglocon says:
The Dragon Age designers cite George RR Martins Song Of Ice And Fire novels as one of their influences for the Dragon Age world. Be thankful there is not an option to romance Bethany or Carver … incest is very prevelent in SoIaF …
25/03/2011 at 14:41 drewski says:
Oh come on, there isn’t THAT much incest in ASoIaF, at least in the “present”.
25/03/2011 at 20:00 Easydog says:
There is homosexuality in ‘A Song of Ice and Fire’ as well, between Renly and the ‘Knight of the Flowers’. Which is kinda Bioware blatant.
25/03/2011 at 13:27 Mr_Hands says:
Coming soon! Dragon Age II – No Homo Edition!
Admittedly, there isn’t a change in gameplay. If you do accidentally engage in some homoerotic activities, characters immediately avoid eye contact and mutter “no homo.”
25/03/2011 at 13:35 Nick Ahlhelm says:
Now I just see the whole Team America bit between Gary and Spotswoode.
25/03/2011 at 13:59 Savage Henry says:
‘No Homo’ – Dragon Age 2′s very own ‘No Russian’.
25/03/2011 at 22:49 Outsider says:
Aw, I missed this post earlier. It made me laugh out loud.
26/03/2011 at 10:37 battles_atlas says:
That’s a nice thought experiment Savage Henry. Compared to a level where you machinegun an airport full of tourists, how much controversy would a Modern Warfare level that involved the male avatar seducing another man generate? My money is on more.
Given the series’ increasing desperation for attention we might yet see it happen.
25/03/2011 at 13:29 zergrush says:
Is it really inherently offensive if people show interest in someone who might not feel attracted to them? Why can’t you just turn them down and move on with your life/game? And why do other peoples choices that have no effect on your life bother you enought that you can’t even stand being reminded that they exist during your escapist fantasy of choice? Isn’t this kind of thing worthy of some sort of questioning and self-analysis?
It’s really weird to see those comments because gay people hitting on you is something that happens out there in the real world, if you enjoy going out to places where you can drink, dance and socialize it’s very likely that it’ll happen at some point in your life. Hell, the one time a dude hit on me was on a bikers club party(!).
And you know, backing your opinions with some sort of fact / evidence that go beyond “It’s wrong because I disagree with it!” and having some degree of empathy even for people you disagree with will make everyone think you’re less of a dick.
25/03/2011 at 14:09 Sanglyon says:
Isn’t it ironic (in the real sense, not an Alanis Morissette way) that the guys most likely to feel offended by another man hiiting on them are the same who keep and keep on hitting on girls despite repeatedly being told “not interested”, and call them b**ches for not returning the attention.
25/03/2011 at 17:18 Archonsod says:
“people hitting on you is something that happens out there in the real world”
And you can never have that happen enough …
25/03/2011 at 21:42 Consumatopia says:
Yeah, I was thinking this as well.
I remember a minor controversy over this xkcd comic. People responded with stuff like this. I have a suspicion that DA2 romance critics and critics of that xkcd comic are disjoint sets.
25/03/2011 at 23:06 Grape Flavor says:
@Consumatopia
That response to the xkcd comic is sickening. The strip is perpetuating rape culture? What? Also: “If I were even slightly interested I would have shown it”. So apparently it’s okay for women to show interest, but if a man shows interest, even in the most brief, innocuous way possible, he’s a privileged would-be rapist. And the woman should respond as such.
Ugh. There are very few movements so delusional, so hate-filled, so utterly sanctimonious and totalitarian as ideological gender feminism. Fascists, liars, and bigots.
(If you happen to disagree with my assessment spare me the typical straw man stuff, I don’t need anyone to tell me what I believe or what my values are, ok?)
26/03/2011 at 01:24 Consumatopia says:
@GrapeFlavor, I’m uncertain that this is likely to proceed in good faith.
But I’ll comment on one narrow point.
Also: “If I were even slightly interested I would have shown it”. So apparently it’s okay for women to show interest, but if a man shows interest, even in the most brief, innocuous way possible, he’s a privileged would-be rapist.
By “I would have shown it”, I believe she’s referring to non-verbal, less direct body language. This post on the same site (but by a different author) expands on related concepts. But, really, it shouldn’t be such a foreign concept that there’s usually some exchange of eye contact before most successful romantic approaches.
26/03/2011 at 04:57 Grape Flavor says:
@ Consumatopia
I see what you’re saying, and I agree. However, many men (good men, women-respecting men) are not extremely adept at reading subtle body language cues. Are they to be vilified and verbally abused for not reading correctly?
And of course – no one would ever criticize a woman for making some harmless comment to strike up a conversation with a man. Ever.
I’m sure that site has some absurdist justification of “oh but the big bad man is implying horrific rape and trauma with said tiny, friendly comment because he has a big bad penis and he has collective socioeconomic intimidation as an oppressive patriarchal class entity being put forth surreptitiously in the individual context of master slave-relations which…” or some drivel. (I could pass as a “feminist” myself, being unthinking, robotic creatures, they are easy to ape.)
It’s pure double standards. Plain and simple. (Or you would argue a woman would be similarly condemned for such a comment, and the man would not be labeled a misogynist for being similarly dismissive and rude?)
“oh but theres no such thing as double standards because as the oppressed group womyn have free license to counter the systemic patriarchal dynamics by expressing their valid womynly solidarity of… Ah fuck it you get the idea.
Anyway, this is getting deeply off topic.
26/03/2011 at 11:15 battles_atlas says:
@ Consumatopia
God I wish you hadn’t linked to that xkcd critque. Its actually very hard to read any of that and not agree with Grape Flavour’s comment above. The degree of self-righteous uni-dimensional narcissism is suffocating. I kind of hope that that brand of feminism had fallen into the black hole of its own navel-gazing back in the 70s. Apparently not.
26/03/2011 at 13:41 Consumatopia says:
It probably would have been better if I had linked that “Schrödinger’s Rapist” post rather than the one one mentioning xkcd because I should known that would get everyone’s back up.
26/03/2011 at 13:48 TillEulenspiegel says:
“So if you speak to a woman who is otherwise occupied, you’re sending a subtle message. It is that your desire to interact trumps her right to be left alone.”
Brilliant. The stereotypical XKCD dork and this blogger are both living in their own little worlds where they’re terrified of social interaction and utterly unaware of how other people think and interact and flirt (this was a nice response).
By the by, don’t think for a moment that most (or even many) feminists are like this. There are idiotic extremists in any group you care to name, and they tend to be unfortunately vocal on the internet.
Rape is a huge societal issue. Shit like this doesn’t help; it’s at best a bizarrely distorted representation of the problems women face.
26/03/2011 at 13:57 CMaster says:
@Consumatopia
While the original critique of the comic was based on what I feel is a misreading of the comic pretty dramatically, it’s still based on a reading and you can see where they’re going with it. It’s worth noting perhaps that XKCD is routinely described as a comic that hates men, so seems you really can’t please everyone.
What depressed me however was reading the comments thread, where various posters say how they would only ever talk to women in public, or how male privilege means that everything a man does is evil (drawing out the gist, not the actual words).
That Schrödinger’s Rapist post I’m also far from convinced about. It suggests that women are in much more danger than men – but that’s the opposite of reality. Men are much more likley to be victims of violent crime than women. (Of course, this is normally at the hands of other men – either that or women are a lot better at not getting caught) this includes being murdered
It’s entirely possible that women do worry more – but that blog post implies legitimately, which I’m not entirely convinced is the case.
26/03/2011 at 15:49 CMaster says:
Just to explain a little where I am coming from on this:
I categorically, absolutely believe, that a society where some elements are not allowed to converse with other elements is not something to be strived for, not something to be encouraged. Let’s try changing the roles a little. Let’s suggest that we have a rich person, carrying lots of money and valuable items and hence constantly worried about being robbed. When a poor person attempts to speak to them, they are constantly trying to decide “are they going to mug me? They’re schrodinger’s mugger!” so poor people shouldn’t talk to rich people in public. Does that sound ok?
Of course, I’d suggest it’s pretty inappropriate to start a conversation with a stranger with an attempt to come on to them – there should be some initial contact made first. Equally, any response of “sorry, not interested in talking to you” made during that initial contact should be respected.
26/03/2011 at 17:03 TillEulenspiegel says:
‘Zactly, CMaster. I’ll strike up conversations with anyone on public transit – male, female, canine – because I’m a normal human being. Not because I’m trolling for sex. I lived for a while in southern Italy, where you’re a total fucking weirdo if you’re not constantly chatting with everyone.
Rules like “wait for eye contact first” only apply to social retards and creepy assholes, who aren’t going to listen anyway. I have this vision of some poor guy stealing glances at a girl who’s reading a book, hoping she’ll notice him.
I doubt the people saying this really are so asocial as to expect strict adherence to such rules. All they really mean is “unwanted advances are unwanted”. I really, really get that. It totally sucks that every female past the age of 15 or so is constantly subjected to such advances. It doesn’t mean that the nice guy trying to have a friendly chat is necessarily unwelcome.
26/03/2011 at 17:33 Consumatopia says:
@TillEulenspiegel, if that quote in your first post is all took to set off all that bile, the problem is clearly with you, not the post. “social retards and creepy assholes” indeed. The existence of people like you is another reason why some people don’t like talking to strangers.
@CMaster, it’s not surprising that by the standards of the internet a lot of idiots are going to say that xkcd “hates men”, but consider that the critique goes on at length about how they like 95% of the other xkcd comics, including a number of antisexist comics. It’s not so much a matter of not being able to please everyone as someone who’s right most of the time may also occasionally be wrong.
There is some irony in your “drawing out the gist” of the comments only a few posts after Grape Flavor asked to be spared “the typical straw man stuff”.
It may be true that men are at greater risk of violent crime (apparently from other men), but we men don’t generally approach each other because we’re find the other attractive. If I wanted to steal a man’s property, either by force or by stealth, I would want him to have as little familiarity with my face and voice as possible. That women face a much greater threat of rape by men than vice versa is just something that’s going to color how some women look at men who try to socialize with them–I don’t see how you can avoid that.
The point of the Schroedinger’s Rapist post was not that men should not approach women, but that they should pay attention to how the woman is reacting to their presence before they do so. And I don’t think that runs a foul of your absolute, categorical belief–if the rich guy clearly wants to be left alone, the poor guy ought to leave him alone, and vice versa.
Look, I’m not saying that everyone has to agree with those posts, I only linked it because it seemed like an ironic contrast with the current debate. But their point of view is a lot more reasonable than the misinterpretations some of you are making of them.
26/03/2011 at 18:05 Consumatopia says:
@TillEulenspiegel, if that quote in your first post is all took to set off all that bile, the problem is clearly with you, not the post. “social retards and creepy assholes” indeed. People like you are another reason why some people don’t like talking to strangers.
@CMaster, there is some irony in your “drawing out the gist” of the comments only a few posts after Grape Flavor asked to be spared “the typical straw man stuff”.
The point of the “Schroedinger’s Rapist” post was not that men should not approach women, but that they should pay attention to how the woman is reacting to their presence before they do so. And I don’t think that runs a foul of your absolute, categorical belief–if the rich guy clearly wants to be left alone, the poor guy ought to leave him alone, and vice versa. Nobody’s obligated to talk to you.
26/03/2011 at 20:09 CMaster says:
@Consumatopia
First an acknowledgement of fault: When I first read the Schrodinger post, I seem to have missed a paragraph or two, where it discusses situations where it appropriate to continue the conversation. This rather changes my take on the post. The author is still wrong with her inital premise – that women are more in danger than men. She then manges to take this further by turning all sexual assaults into rape – a lot (probably the majority) in fact of the sexual assaults that the (unsourced) 1 in 6 figure mentioned will be things along the lines of groping, or people getting uncomfortably close up against walls etc – these things are all still wrong but that doesn’t make them rape. Still, the core of the post as a “how to talk to people” still works, although it should :A apply to talking to anybody, not just women and B:hopefully be obvious to most people. The fact that the post exists however suggests perhaps it isn’t so obvious.
Second, a clarification: I was distilling down to one sentence some individual posts in the comments, not all. There were a variety of opinions there, but some I found just as frustrating and disturbing as some of the more objectionable posts on this thread. Some just said a lot about the slightly unnerving pick-up habits of posters. Many were arguing about how to interpret the comic – wish I guess just goes to say there are a lot of ways it could be taken.
Then, I’d just like to add that I did say that: “Equally, any response of “sorry, not interested in talking to you” made during that initial contact should be respected.”. I’m merely objecting to the idea that saying hello to someone you are sitting next to is something that should be looked upon as an intrusion, as harassment, as something to be hounded for.
26/03/2011 at 21:07 Consumatopia says:
@CMaster, clarification appreciated.
But I’d point out that not all violent crime is equally relevant to social interaction. If I’m going to mug someone, I’m probably not going to chat them up first–I’d like them to be as unfamiliar with my face and my voice as possible. (Not that a mugging is remotely comparable to rape–it counts as a “violent crime”, but usually physical injury can be avoided by handing over property.)
I agree that the 1 in 6 number (estimated proportion of women who have been raped in USA, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/210346.pdf ) is an overly simple analysis of the situation–the most relevant number would be the number of women who have been raped by strangers. (And similarly for the violent crimes men face.) But even that only begins to scratch the surface–because when a human being is in a specific situation, they aren’t drawing from a uniformly distributed lottery of all human beings to select their fate. If you start to add some conditionals–what are the odds that a person acting like this man approaching a woman in this situation (e.g. alone on a subway) might be planning rape–then people are basically left with little but their intuition to guide them.
26/03/2011 at 22:43 CMaster says:
@Consumatopia
Oh of course. I was merely correcting the false idea that women are more frequent victims of violence than men. It’s a lot harder to quantify other factors however. and other situations.
I will say that purely anecdotely, my experience of stranger violence has been that is has been preceded with a seemingly everyday interaction to get close without suspicion, followed by the violence. (I’ve had someone on the street ask me for the time, before flooring me with a punch). Equally, reports of people I know who’ve been mugged are about 50/50 split between some initial excuse to distract, approach or separate, and those that jumped straight to attacks (no chance to peacefully hand over items there) or threats.
That report linked is pretty horrifying as these things always are. Does go to show the classic point of the “stranger danger myth” – the people who are dangerous are those that know you, especially as a child :(
Edit: I should perhaps add, I’m not looking for justification to hit on women (or men) in confined spaces with me. Aside from the fact I’d never have the nerve, I also don’t think it’s really appropriate. I do think people should be happy to be friendly to each other – sometimes talking to someone you don’t know can be a really enlightening experience, or perhaps you will meet a new friend.
27/03/2011 at 00:18 Consumatopia says:
@CMaster, I must concede that I’m not very good at mugging people and those seeking to avoid that particular crime should probably seek advice from people other than myself.
And I certainly concur that there is much to be gained by people being friendly to each other.
25/03/2011 at 13:29 MannyCalavera says:
Coincidently whilst we have been having this debate I have had to listen to my Accounts Manager repeatedly use the word faggot to refer to a customer who is gay.
It is a horrible thing.
25/03/2011 at 13:32 Moth Bones says:
Grounds for an official complaint, surely?
25/03/2011 at 13:35 MannyCalavera says:
I have made a previous verbal complaint. This time I may make a written one. I am unionised so I may get them in to explain the finer points of the law.
It won’t change her opinions. But hell I feel complicit if I stay schtum so I got to do something.
25/03/2011 at 13:39 Very Real Talker says:
[One more time and you're banned. Got it? - John]
25/03/2011 at 13:46 Moth Bones says:
Manny, please do. It might be worth mentioning that she was referring to a customer as well. I’d say that customer has every right to know about this too, so they can take their business elsewhere.
25/03/2011 at 13:52 CMaster says:
@VRT
You think that’s clever, do you? You think you’ve put TheApologist in a catch-22 situation.
Hahahaha. That trick might work sometimes, but not when you use what are clearly recognised as derogatory terms.
Ha.
25/03/2011 at 14:05 Very Real Talker says:
listen buddy, don’t ruin that woman life over nothing. One thing is to ban someone from the internet because he offends your sensibilities, the other is ruining someone’s career for petty reasons.
25/03/2011 at 14:29 Urael says:
It’s not “petty” to complain about the non-professional attitude of a professional person to a customer; it’s good business sense, not to mention morally correct in this instance. Nor will doing so ruin this woman’s life or career – by her very actions she’s risked that all by herself, forcing people to the point where official action becomes necessary to deal with her.
25/03/2011 at 14:43 DJ Phantoon says:
A bit like the ass slapping thing, actually.
25/03/2011 at 15:08 Tom OBedlam says:
While this isn’t the time or place for a discussion of work place ethics, I hope to Hell you do something about this.
25/03/2011 at 19:58 sinister agent says:
I agree with Urael on this. There is a time and a place to be a bigoted twat about people. Work isn’t one of them. It’s deeply unprofessional.
I hope you do get something done about this. Even if all it results in is that this person learns not to flap their dumb mouth off without thinking, you’ve done everyone a favour.
28/03/2011 at 19:34 Ragnar says:
Ugh, I’m sorry for you. It’s become something of a pet peeve of mine hearing people use “gay” or “faggot” as derogatory terms. It’s somehow even worse when it comes from otherwise smart and intelligent people. Aside from being obviously insulting to those that are gay, it just shows such lack of effort. If you want to insult someone, dig into your vocabulary and use your imagination. Don’t just settle for the lame insults of an immature 16-year-old.
25/03/2011 at 13:32 Jorum says:
I’ve not played DA2 but my understanding is this:
As a male character one of the male NPCs makes a pass at you, which you can reject with no consequences.
-Given its 2011 it’s depressing if anyone could be particularly worried/offended by that.
Gods know how they’d cope if a guy made a pass at them in real life.
I’m assuming some people are also upset about having homosexual dialogue options presented even though they are not homosexual.
- OK, but isn’t this just an extension of the whole principle of role-playing? I’m playing mass effect 2 and am frequently given the option of acting like a total cock-end to my friends. I don’t take them because that’s not the role I’m playing, but neither do I get annoyed by them (even though someone who acted like that in real life would “offend” me).
I’m being disingenuous here as I realise the whole gay thing puts a different spin on it to some people. But in general – ffs guys it’s just sex.
Stop getting so worked up about which combinations of genitalia other people get involved with in private.
25/03/2011 at 16:34 Vanderdecken says:
“Gods know how they’d cope if a guy made a pass at them in real life.”
Probably stab them, kick them to death or gather a few friends and beat the shit out of them. It happens all the time.
And that’s just in this country (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LGBT_people_in_the_United_Kingdom); it’s unbelievably worse in countries where homosexuality is illegal, punishable by the death penalty etc. (e.g. Iran, Uganda), where the police approve of the murder. Even countries where homosexuality isn’t illegal can still be full of institutionalised homophobia, so attacks pass unnoticed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobic_violence_in_Brazil#Violence).
25/03/2011 at 19:11 Tally says:
That is the case. You can reject him quite nicely too. You can pursue another guy if you actively choose to do so.
26/03/2011 at 08:47 Klaus says:
If you reject him, you get some rivalry points which;
A; People seem to think as punishment. Rivalry is basically a character disagreeing with you.
B; Are very easy to make up.
Also, it is fully possible to have a non-sexual friendship with him.
25/03/2011 at 13:37 katinkabot says:
What an incredibly even-handed response to a laughably ignorant post. Like John said, there are many things to criticize about how relationships are handled in this game but variety is not one of them.
Oh Gaider, you’ve warmed this cold, cold heart of mine.
EDIT: I also love the really great parts of the orginal posters comments about how we women sit around playing ‘The Sims’ all day. I can almost laugh through the blinding, white-hot rage.
25/03/2011 at 19:22 HopperUK says:
I was going to be filled with rage, but then I started thinking about shoes and kittens and everything was all right!
25/03/2011 at 13:40 Tom OBedlam says:
I wish Wulf was here
25/03/2011 at 13:45 CMaster says:
So he can complain that none of the love interests are hairy enough or have pointy enough teeth for him?
25/03/2011 at 14:09 Fwiffo says:
In no less than 5000 words.
25/03/2011 at 14:19 Lilliput King says:
And no less than 10 references in total to Uru, Guild Wars and Mask of the Betrayer.
You may begin.
25/03/2011 at 14:37 Deano2099 says:
Ach, just tried but it was rubbish. You can’t emulate something like that!
25/03/2011 at 14:49 cjlr says:
See, it’s because normal people fear difference, and…
Nah, I can’t do it justice either.
25/03/2011 at 15:03 DJ Phantoon says:
Hurray! Community!
Speaking of which, is the Steam group’s chat very active?
25/03/2011 at 16:49 cjlr says:
Steam chat’s pretty quiet whenever I’m around; maybe people are avoiding me. Or maybe it’s because I’m across an ocean and my time habits aren’t quite the same. Don’t we have voice chat servers, too?
25/03/2011 at 13:41 sexyresults says:
Forza John, always ready to be sane in the face of insanity
25/03/2011 at 13:42 MannyCalavera says:
@VRT Oooh is that bait being hung from a rod by a troll? Nah, sorry, not interested. Move along sunshine.
25/03/2011 at 13:45 Vinraith says:
Actually the relationship handling is one of the few things that sounds like it was fairly well done in DA2. It’s a pity about the rest of the game.
25/03/2011 at 14:45 DJ Phantoon says:
Indeed. Deus Ex still had more depth than Mass Effect 2.
25/03/2011 at 13:49 bwion says:
Oh well. I suppose we straight dudes will have to be content with being catered to by, oh, PRETTY MUCH EVERY OTHER GAME EVER IN THE HISTORY OF THE MEDIUM.
25/03/2011 at 13:53 Vague-rant says:
Anyone remember the racism slider in Ben there Dan that?
I used to think it was a one shot joke, but its kind of turned out like a parody of future events.
25/03/2011 at 13:55 MOKKA says:
On this whole “homosexual romance options make me feel uncomfotable”-issue:
We have games that give you the opportunity to make moral choices, some of them even force you to make a decision between two ore more “grey” decisions, meaning that no matter what you decide something just doesn’t feel right. I felt pretty uncomfortable while I made these decisions (I had a hard time playing the Witcher), but it also made me think about the whole situtation. So why should we accept these situations where we feel uncomfortable in one case and omit them in the other?
Sure always feeling uncomfortable isn’t good thing especially when you’re playing a game. But being it from time to time keeps you thinking and I don’t think that this is a bad thing.
Personally I would love to see a well executed homosexual romance option. Just look at the first Dragon Age (I haven’t played the second one), which is settled in a world where intolerance against everything unusual is an everyday phenomenon. In this scenario, It wouldn’t be very suprisising if the player, if he chooses to be homosexual, would face at least dissaproval if not open hositility by other members of his group or other NPCs in the game. This way you can confront the player with very difficult decisions and conflicts and actually build up a very interesting and engaging story.
25/03/2011 at 13:56 Zwebbie says:
I don’t get the whole love-in-games thing entirely. You’re pretending to love someone, manipulating his/her feelings and picking the right things to say, as opposed to the honest ones, so that you can get him/her into a bed scene and then uninstall them the moment you’ve defeated the final boss. It’s a bit like the movie In the Company of Men, if you’ve seen it. Creeeeeepppyyyyy.
25/03/2011 at 14:46 drewski says:
You’re only playing that particular role if you choose to, though. When I play Bioware games, I pick the most appropriate responses for my character. If that leads to sexy sex, OK. If that leads to a party member leaving, OK.
You can manipulate any game mechanic for your own ends, really – if you want to play a cynical manipulator who’ll tell an NPC anything to get them into bed, that’s just as valid as a straitlaced innocent who barely understands that two humans (or sometimes an elf) might have sexy times.
And that, for me, is the point of Bioware’s games – game the system, roleplay, it’s up to you and your goals.
25/03/2011 at 14:52 cjlr says:
Fair point, but for me, though, most of the time gaming the system IS roleplaying.
Like Dragon Effect et al. If I’m doing some seriously important work, then I don’t care if I have to be a two-faced [ten faced!] duplicitous lying hardass, but if it keeps the posse together, and working reasonably well together, then by god I’ll do it – for the greater good, you see.
The flaw here is that you can be in downright multiple personality territory and nobody will ever call you on it.
25/03/2011 at 15:50 drewski says:
The lack of consequence for your actions may be a valid criticism, but I don’t think it’s the point Zwebbie’s making.
25/03/2011 at 15:55 bleeters says:
The problem with doing that in DA2, Drewski, is that the romantic options, the ones that lead to sexy sex? Aside from lacking the ability to pick what you say before you say iit in favour of the loathsome one word summed up options the conversation wheel offers, they’re all clearly defined as ‘the romantic option’ by a heart symbol next to them. You can’t just, say, pick the supportive and re-assuring options in conversation, and have things develop from there.
25/03/2011 at 16:55 drewski says:
I’m not arguing the romance is particularly (or *at all* realistic) – I’m merely pointing out that choosing to be manipulative is purely at the discretion of the player.
If you feel the “romance” response is the most appropriate to your PC, then by all means select it. If you feel another response is the most appropriate, by all means select it. DA2 gives you the option of just telling them whatever will make them respond romantically – but it doesn’t force you to pick that option.
25/03/2011 at 14:03 CMaster says:
Just as an aside:
I could list you a whole load of games where there is a forced hetrosexual relationship for the main character. Most of these don’t have dialogue options, so it’s as forced on you as the rest of the game, but still, gamers who aren’t male, hetrosexual,(and indeed into humans etc) or indeed just not into that other character have seen their character forced into relationships they have no interest in for years. So a kinda pushy gay character (and guess what, some people are really pushy relationship wise, or hell, the only reason they hang out with you is they want to fuck you, so they will be pissed off if you say no) isn’t that much of note.
25/03/2011 at 14:11 CMaster says:
Extension – Bioware are kinda bad at “being nice – want to fuck” thing though. Far too many of the female NPCs on the Normandy wouldn’t chat with me in ME2 unless I broke off my already-established relationship. They’re all “why are you coming to see me!”. I wanted the response “same reason I go to see Grunt – to check that everything is OK, learn more about what you’ll do when my back is against the wall. Because I’m sure as hell not talking to Grunt after every mission because I want to sex him up…”
Of course, maybe mShep is just so unbelievably sexy that females can’t stand to be near him and yet not ravishing him.
25/03/2011 at 14:47 DJ Phantoon says:
I dunno…
Grunt has those big, strong arms.
25/03/2011 at 16:05 bleeters says:
Krogan also have four testicles. Is that a good thing? I’m not really sure.
25/03/2011 at 16:09 Outsider says:
A large majority of relationships are heterosexual, and a majority of gamers are male (although the gender breakdown seems to be evening out more these days), so the fact that games seem, or seem to have been targeted to heterosexual males isn’t a surprise. It’s not really an injustice as I see it, as not everyone decides to cater to minority veiwpoints, nor should they have to. It’s a business, not a social experiment.
However, adding options is welcome, I think. It’s a good thing to not be forced one way or the other and instead let the player decide what sexual orientation he wants his character to be and to have the appropriate themed romance. I’m not going to complain, however, if most games don’t bother with it. I imagine it could be challenging to implement.
25/03/2011 at 18:26 Deano2099 says:
It’s not like games with forced homosexual relationships are in a minority though is it? They’re entirely non-existent. Unlike every other medium.
25/03/2011 at 18:39 Outsider says:
They probably are non-existent, yes. I don’t know for sure, just guessing.
25/03/2011 at 21:45 CMaster says:
My point wasn’t that seeing your character pushed into a relationship because of the story is necessarily a bad thing (if you’re playing a linear-story driven game then sometimes it is just part of the story). Merely that option gay romance has nothing in terms of awkwardness/uncomfortableness/couldn’t give a fuckness as the countless hordes of compulsory (to continue in the game) heterosexual human romances.
25/03/2011 at 14:07 Fwiffo says:
On the other end of the scale, some people can’t see the wood for the trees.
http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/1792563742
Also re: homophobes – Just do what they can’t and ignore them.
25/03/2011 at 14:10 mowglie says:
As a straight male gamer, I was more offended that Kaiden “gayer-than-a-handbag-full-of-rainbows” Alenko *wasn’t* a romance option for a male shepherd.
25/03/2011 at 14:48 DJ Phantoon says:
Indeed.
Is it wrong I want everyone to hit on my character just so I can turn them all down?
25/03/2011 at 14:11 cjlr says:
Well, I was gonna say that it does indeed feel a little silly for too many people in one small group to be willing to swing both ways (’cause if there’s that many, where the heck are they in my life, am I right?) but then, it is a pseudo-medieval setting. Back in the day such relationships were more or less encouraged, at least for the upper classes, since it was a good way to have fun without any worries about any sort of messy inheritance issues.
Right then: I’m really not seeing how anyone could seriously object here. Sure, you might feel uncomfortable by some of the options presented, but, uh, no means no, last time I checked. You can play pretty darn asexual if you wanna.
Aaanyway, I think the hivemind has done a pretty solid job on this one. Tom, Jack, Deano, never change.
25/03/2011 at 14:34 Deano2099 says:
Yeah the pseudo-medieval setting works for that. Still bothered by the characters that aren’t bi though. The ones that are just whichever sexuality suits your character best.
Would like to look in to this a bit further, ie. see how different the dialogue is if they’re romancing a man rather than a woman. I just struggle to see how you can write a good, complex relationship if it has to work for either sex independently.
But that’s an issue of writing and character development, rather than gay/straight rights/preferences, hence it’s got a bit lost in all this.
25/03/2011 at 14:50 drewski says:
I think the whole “straight or bi, depending on the PC’s gender” is a design shortcut. I agree with you, it’s a bit lazy, but I don’t feel it’s too big a deal. I’d rather they take a design shortcut than not have a romance option, if they want one, for a particular gender and orientation of PC.
Although really I’m not sure why they didn’t just make her bi for both gender PCs.
25/03/2011 at 15:04 cjlr says:
I should add that when I say “more or less encouraged” I mean extremely tacitly. It’s perhaps unusual that NPCs are so open about it, but then, it’s obviously no direct historical period – whether the Roman “doesn’t matter, so long as you’re pitching” to the Victorian “close your eyes and think of England, and if you take longer than thirty seconds it’s deviancy”. Now where was I going with this?
Yeah, it is indeed a lazy option, but barring a hell of a lot more work it seems to be the most workable. I think the best way to do things would be to at least hint at NPCs’ other relationships – perhaps with each other – if you don’t pursue either, isn’t it hinted in ME that Kaidan and Ash have some sparks? Or in Jade Empire, à la Dawn Star and Silk Fox, who are actually cousins, though to be fair they didn’t know that at the time – or maybe just, as some do, by talking about previous experiences. All too often they feel PC-sexual.
25/03/2011 at 15:14 Deano2099 says:
I still think it’s far too core to the nature of a character to just slap sexuality on afterwards. I dunno, I’m not a writer, but I simply can’t imagine coming up with a concept for a character, planning out her backstory, plot arc, development and so forth, without once nailing down her sexual preference (or lack of one).
These are games that claim to want to tell great stories like film or TV or novels… I dunno, find a professional author, ask him to pick one his main characters in the book, and change her sexuality. I’d wager most of them would see that as being a major re-write, rather than just tweaking a few lines.
It feels like they’re box-ticking to get the variety in, and I don’t like it.
25/03/2011 at 14:15 Carra says:
Personally, I was disappointed that there were no longer any lesbian relationships possible in Mass Effect 2.
You can never please everyone.
25/03/2011 at 14:26 CMaster says:
I though FShep could sex up your PA?
25/03/2011 at 14:28 DJ Phantoon says:
And I was disappointed you couldn’t sex up the robot or the ship’s AI.
25/03/2011 at 14:30 Vinraith says:
Yup, both Kelly and the Asari can both be engaged in romance with a female Shepard.
As to EDI, I’m still disappointed I didn’t have the option to rip her core out of the ship and fire it into the sun. Damned AI’s…
25/03/2011 at 14:35 CMaster says:
I was a bit perplexed that the whole civilized galaxy is meant to be terrified of AIs, they’re highly illegal etc, yet nobody seems to mind EDI.
You don’t get to sex EDI however, as that would be to get between her and Joker.
25/03/2011 at 14:41 Vinraith says:
@CMaster
Yeah, it’s strange that there’s no option to do anything about her but complain. My renegade Shep, at least, would never tolerate traveling on a ship with one of those things. It’s one of those things that should be a major character decision, it seems to me, along the same lines as Legion’s loyalty mission.
25/03/2011 at 14:49 DJ Phantoon says:
What about sexing up Joker, then?
25/03/2011 at 15:12 cjlr says:
@Vinraith:
I totally agreed. My renegade Shepard runs toward paranoid at the best of times. Chuck EDI into the sun. Actually the whole ME2 plot would never have happened, had she been free to act; we’d have sailed for Arcturus with the anthem blaring as soon as she was captain, and the aurora chair for Lawson and those other cerberus dogs. Come to think of it, the Normandy glasses the Collector ship at the end, and we were only using more-or-less off the shelf components to upgrade her; two of said upgrades were provided by Tali and Garrus, who would certainly have obliged regardless…
My God I can nitpick that game. Sorry; I’ve just been replaying it. Don’t get me wrong, though. It’s pretty good.
25/03/2011 at 15:36 somnolentsurfer says:
Mass Effect 2 is one of my favourite games of all time, but yes, it is somewhat infuriating my Paragon Shepard wasn’t able to hightail it straight back to Alliance command, have the illegal AI ripped out of his ship and turn over all the racists to the authorities. I’ll investigate disappearing humans, but dammit, I’m a spectre. I’ll do it on my own terms. Also, I fancy Tali, and having rogue AIs sat around isn’t going to make me popular!
Back on topic, I’m glad I uncharacteristically went male in ME. Would have been disappointed if the fixed sexualities had meant I couldn’t sex Tali.
25/03/2011 at 15:59 bleeters says:
Incidentally, Ashley, Kaiden and Tali were initially penned as bi-sexual, to the point where the majority of the dialogue was already recorded. All were canned and made heterosexual at more or less the last minute.
Interpret that as you will.
25/03/2011 at 16:00 Carra says:
Well, those asari’s are sexless so it doesn’t count…
And I must have missed Kelly’s romance options.
25/03/2011 at 16:12 bleeters says:
I can’t say I ever really bought into the idea that a race of smoking hot space ladies aren’t actually ladies purely because the game says so, unfortunately.
25/03/2011 at 17:04 cjlr says:
Well, yeah, but they asari are mammals. Hence the mammary glands and child-bearing hips.
I think that there’s some hand waving about the various precursor races seeding their genetic material about all willy-nilly. And that’s why everybody has different foreheads. Or maybe I’m conflating that with Star Trek.
Salarians lay eggs and have no sex drives; I think krogan are viviparous. Does anyone know how turians get it on? I’m sure there’s, uh – *shudder* – fan fiction which makes some guesses. All Mordin told me was to watch out for chafing. And, er, don’t swallow.
25/03/2011 at 18:41 Temple to Tei says:
Carra got turned down…
25/03/2011 at 14:20 It's not me it's you says:
This has come up a few times in other comments but I wish people would stop using the word ‘heterosexual’ to mean ‘homophobic’. It’s irritating as I am in group A but most definitely not in group B.
25/03/2011 at 14:33 Urael says:
Compromise: From now on let’s type HETEROSEXUAL in capitals. See? Now it has the correct over-emphasis. :)
25/03/2011 at 14:27 DJ Phantoon says:
Gay people existing doesn’t hurt you. Shut up.
-Sincerely, the straight people who don’t care about sexuality.
25/03/2011 at 14:31 Shakermaker says:
I never get people who ‘disagree’ with homosexuality. It is like disagreeing with gravity.
25/03/2011 at 14:35 Tom OBedlam says:
Gravity is way more insistent about pulling you
/coat
25/03/2011 at 14:39 deejayem says:
Can we give Tom some sort of medal for consistently high standard of puns in the face of enemy fire?
25/03/2011 at 14:40 Urael says:
Here’s your answer: God has never been recorded as denouncing gravity. He did say ” The Earth sucks” once, but scholars don’t attribute that to his – sorry, His – personal opinions on the universe’s binding force.
For some people it’s pure ignorance coupled with a fairly standard revulsion that just gets fed, watered and allowed to grow into firm opinion. For the rest, for the sheer perniciousness and righteousness of the bigotry out there today, I blame the book that’s supposed to save us. It’s got a heck of a lot to answer for.
25/03/2011 at 14:51 DJ Phantoon says:
Jesus! Save me!
Save me… from these puns!
25/03/2011 at 20:21 gerbillover says:
Yes, this! And Zoophilia and Necrophilia and Paraphilia too!
Here’s a video of a friend of mine with the love of his life: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/adf0b17f0d/people-sexually-attracted-to-inanimate-objects
25/03/2011 at 20:27 Easydog says:
Damn I should have roleplayed my Hawke to be that in love with her bow.
25/03/2011 at 21:21 Nick says:
I blame the people who wrote parts, or copied it, for being perfectly able to add their own bits in over the many years, personally.
25/03/2011 at 14:35 Olero says:
Just wanted to say that this whole discussion restored my faith in humanity somewhat! And that’s why I love (and my boss probably hates… Sorry boss) RPS. It’s a breath of fresh air in a world wide web full of hatemongers, trolls, perverts and the alike.
On to the topic: People sometimes seem to forget they have absolutely nobody telling them what to do, what to buy, what game to play, who to speak to in that game, what response to click, etc. Nobody forces anybody to do things (well, yes, sadly there are plenty of people that think they can force other people to do whatever they want). If one doesn’t like something, one can avoid it. Bliss!
25/03/2011 at 14:37 Risingson says:
IMHO, I prefer very heterosexual games like Gears of War. Ahem.
25/03/2011 at 23:19 Grape Flavor says:
ahaha
25/03/2011 at 14:37 Daniel Klein says:
Is his name really Gaider? It just seems too appropriate!
On a less childish note, yes. This is how you handle potential trolls and/or heavily confused people. Massive kudos.
25/03/2011 at 14:39 Foosnark says:
The original commenter is just sticking to the Vatican’s recent position statement that preventing homophobic bigots from oppressing gay people is oppressing the homophobic bigots.
Sigh.
25/03/2011 at 14:42 tianqi says:
Hot summer day is about to,Open the wardrobe is not yet found love
another the right clothes? So, also waiting for? Immediate action bar!
Welcome to { http://www.newgoing.com } sure you will find what you need.
Moreover, the company has a good reputation, product quality standards,
at reasonable prices. Over the years, has been well received by overseas
friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase.
welcome to :===== http://www.newgoing.com ====
Air jordan(1-24)shoes
Handbags(Coach l v f e n d i d&g)
Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste)
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi)
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,A r m a i n i)
New era cap
FREE sHIPPING
====== http://www.newgoing.com====
25/03/2011 at 15:17 bwion says:
God help me, I need to start dropping “IMMEDIATE ACTION BAR!” into random conversations, I think.
26/03/2011 at 12:20 JackShandy says:
It’s nice to know there’s some rocks you can always rely on.
Keep feeling like a warm, you crazy diamond. Never stop.
25/03/2011 at 14:53 drewski says:
David Gaider; hero.
25/03/2011 at 15:01 bill says:
Whoa. Comment overload. It’s slightly sad that in this day and age things about sexuality are still guaranteed to make people go into attack mode.
Anyway, I just wanted to say that the sexuality of the characters isn’t connected to the sexuality of the player. Even if every character in the game was exclusively gay, it wouldn’t mean that straight players were excluded.
I’m sure a lot of straight people enjoyed Philadelphia and a lot of gay people enjoyed die hard. (but not #3).
25/03/2011 at 15:10 Alphabet says:
I think, semi-seriously, that many of the people who have a problem with men hitting on your male lead character are those who, in real life, associate passes with rejection and shame. Teenagers, basically. :) Specifically, socially-inept ones who probably have crushes all the time and get rejected all the time and who intuit that their attentions are wrong (because terribly unwelcome) and generalize that to all expressions of interest in another human’s pants-contents. The good news is that most people grow out of this stage! The bad news is that not everyone does. :(
25/03/2011 at 15:21 Deano2099 says:
Hey that’s not fair! You’ve basically described my life but I don’t have a problem with men hitting on my character :D
25/03/2011 at 15:57 drewski says:
I’m not sure your stereotyping is as relevant, funny or clever as you seem to think it is.
25/03/2011 at 15:23 Warfire says:
To all the clear headed and well spoken people who have commented (on both sides of the argument) on this post – thank you! Seeing rational and intelligent debate is rare enough on the internet – and rarer still on gaming related forums (you all know which site I’m referring to) so well done!
As to my comments, well I am currently trying to finish Dragon Age: Origins so I can start playing DA2 and I’m playing my second roll, a human male and I’m considering the romance options of Morrigan – but Zevran seems to be an easier choice for romancing. I don’t see this as Bioware encouraging me to play a homo- or bi-sexual character but an expression of the personality they intended for this character.
No one would think that Bioware were forcing you to be straight if they made a female character pushier (or as others have said if they only gave you an option of a straight relationship like most games, films, books etc). Whilst you could argue that forcing the social norm is acceptable, as it’s the social norm, I disagree. As others have said, that’s the same argument that allows other media to present a picture of the western world as “white only”.
It would be technically quite easy to add a “No non-white characters” checkbox and use a different colour set for the characters but this would be disastrous, Bioware would get massacred by the press and fans alike – I don’t see adding a “No non-hetrosexual relationships” option as being any less technically simple or any less disastrous.
I for one am very glad that Bioware are pioneering alternative lifestyles in our favourite media – they might not have got it perfectly right but it’ll take a good attempt over nothing.
With respect to those people taking about characters who change their sexuality dependant on the player’s gender – think careful about the fact that Bioware has a story to tell. They offer the different genders to appeal to different tastes (I usually play as a female character even though I’m male for example), to provide replay value (since some characters might treat you slightly differently) and probably for other reasons I haven’t thought of/aren’t import to me, not necessarily to tell a different story.
If their story means you should have five romance options then either you have five bi-sexual characters, five characters who “change” sexuality depending on the player character’s gender or five different characters. Of course the last option is too expensive so Bioware have chosen a mix. Character A is not necessarily the exact same Character A when you change the player character’s gender, and the game doesn’t claim they are.
Perhaps you can argue that if the story requires the sexuality changes then the story is bad. I disagree because I appreciate that writing story is hard, and writing a story that works when you change the gender of the protagonist isn’t a problem that any other medium has to solve so Bioware are in a minority of people trying.
I say good on them!
25/03/2011 at 15:33 Laurentius says:
A couple of months ago someone made a nice rant here on RPS about Bioware games, seems still worth quoting :
“…Play a Bioware title if you want cloying, stiflingly politically correct, emasculated RPG for-the-masses video-gaming; EA Canada has got a stranglehold on that garbage: fantasy games made for sexless nerds and ‘romance’ freaks, written by women with technical writing degrees and an ex-hotel manager with a toupee who is a forty-year-old virgin…”
25/03/2011 at 15:37 Alphabet says:
He’s arguably right about all of that except ‘politically correct’.
25/03/2011 at 16:32 Very Real Talker says:
sounds right. I think that’s all there is to it, really. Bioware simply makes gay games for a gay audience of effeminate males and obese women.
Nothing bad with any of it really. It’s just not going to satisfy normal men playing the game. No reason to hulk out over that.
25/03/2011 at 16:33 Lobotomist says:
So true
25/03/2011 at 19:05 Gormongous says:
If “normal” men like you few can be safely ignored by a profit-driven mass media company like Bioware, you should probably be asking yourselves how “normal” you really are. Last time I checked, Bioware’s games still sold stupendously, so someone’s getting satisfied.
26/03/2011 at 05:44 Klaus says:
Normal? Is it normal to get upset that your videogame character got hit on by another male and freak out? Because I know it’s a game and doesn’t really matter either way. No matter who you concluded your romance with or just slept with in a game doesn’t really reaffirm your sexuality. Just like kicking the shit out of the qunari doesn’t make you a champion in real life.
I am sometimes baffled by all of these complaints. I start games as a heterosexual male and that’s how I finish them. Ok, I’m a little gay for Alistair, but he’s pretty cool.
With the way people complained about Anders someone might expect him to be like a mix of Zevran and Isabella. Oh wait, you mean he hits on you once and you can turn him down quickly? You mean he doesn’t try to get Hawke in the bed constantly? You mean it doesn’t dominate every facet of his life and dialogue!? Oh how would you silly fools argue without your hyperbole.
Basically, if normal means being an ineffectual man-child, then count me out. :/
26/03/2011 at 10:40 Hidden_7 says:
@VRT
Ugh. I’m actually going to say it again, to make my point. Ugh.
1) There’s absolutely nothing gay about any of Bioware’s games. They aren’t about gay subculture in the slightest, and there are hardly any gay characters. There’s maybe, at most, a few bi-sexual characters a game, who are very much not defined by their sexuality. Zhevran is the gayest character of any Bioware games. One character. Who was bisexual. And a little bit camp. In a giant game full of other characters. If you’d suggest this makes the game “gay,” I’d say that very much speaks to a homophobic attitude that views homosexuality as some sort of “corrupting” influence that can “ruin” something by coming anywhere near it. Except of course your homophobic attitudes are obvious and explicit so they don’t need to be suggested quite so subtly.
2) Bioware games are teenage male power fantasies. They have you as an uber-competent champion character who saves a world (science fiction or fantasy world) using violence, and you can sex up all the pretty ladies (and there are a LOT of pretty ladies) on your team while you do it. To suggest that the best served audience by these games is anything other than heterosexual males is just openly ignorant. You’d have to be stupid or blind or lying or all three to try to suggest that these games are for a gay audience, a female audience (I have no idea what someone’s physical appearance has to do with anything) or a less ‘masculine’ audience (look at all the blood and shooting and violence).
3) I have no idea what you mean by “normal” male audience. It’s clearly not me, a heterosexual male, because I enjoy Bioware games. Do you mean homophobic heterosexual males who ascribe to an ultra-traditionalist / conservative idea of masculinity? Because if so, I think you’ll find that’s not the norm, so maybe stop using the word “normal” to describe it. It might lead people to believe you are speaking for me, and frankly, there’s very few people who I’d like to speak for me LESS.
I honestly wish that you weren’t so afflicted with the hate that you obviously are. It’s, I’m sure causing you more than a few problems in life, both with the sort of people willing to associate with you (more hateful) and the energy required to carry such hate. To say nothing of the issues it causes people who bump up against your rather distasteful attitudes (see: Ugh). I think you’d find things would be easier for everyone involved if you got over these attitudes that have somehow managed to stick about your person. In addition to being easier, it would also place you on the winning side of the better moral / ethical systems, so that’s a nice bonus.
25/03/2011 at 15:57 Risingson says:
Still, some comments on this. This kind of approach to sexuality reminds me of Torchwood, where it seems that the characters can do anyone, and this feels weird. I mean, they have a lot of pressure, and stress, and they always have sexual urges?
The same thing with Bioware characters, though the most grave thing was in Mass Effect 2, when I found myself trying to just be nice to that fascist brunette and found Shepard over her clothes. It was just disgusting. I mean, this feels so away from my reality: when sex seems so forced that you just don’t want to have sex, or when you do want to get laid but have such a mess in your head that you can’t, or when you wish that you could have sex with anyone but you face your body, your male parts, that say “no can do, sorry”. It’s like a very pre-teen look of sexual life.
And anyway, when you do really have a good date, and good sex, it does not depend on conversation: tha game is won just at the start of the night. The conversations is just warming up, but you really know when all will end up hours before it happens. But to have sex with a witch in Dragon Age you have to be cruel to others, and a bit agressive to her. It’s like the physical attraction does not matter, which is a strange relation between the player and the character you play: you, as the player, see her as very hot, but the character you play is just interested in personality. Weird, really weird.
25/03/2011 at 16:00 drewski says:
Protip: don’t assume everyone is having the same sexual experiences as you are.
25/03/2011 at 16:33 Risingson says:
Oh. Really! Never thought of that.
Read again, and imagine that I have written that with a bit of irony. The kind you notice when the text is so over the top, and when the text features confessions that no one would make in a gaming comment board seriously.
25/03/2011 at 16:59 drewski says:
If you think that’s obviously over the top in a comment thread where someone has, seemingly honestly, said that “Bioware simply makes gay games for a gay audience of effeminate males and obese women”, I fear you have gravely misread the tone of the thread.
25/03/2011 at 17:22 Vanderdecken says:
^ This.
25/03/2011 at 16:04 faceface says:
David Gaider responded politely? I’m genuinely surprised.
25/03/2011 at 16:19 RP says:
I’ll be honest, this is a thoughtful and reasonable response, but the DA2 team’s PR up until now has been so alternately condescending and passive-aggressive that I mostly thought, “Why weren’t they like this all the rest of the time?”
25/03/2011 at 21:17 Lilliput King says:
The obvious answer is that Gaider isn’t PR.
25/03/2011 at 16:20 Hoaxfish says:
It makes things very awkward when your male companions keep making passes at you. The fact that a “No Homosexuality” option, which could have been easily implemented, is omitted just proves my point.
You wouldn’t need a button, just the option within the game via dialogs to say “no thanks, I’m not gay”.
Now, is he the only Gaider in the village?
25/03/2011 at 16:41 Gazanator101 says:
I like being given the freedom to seduce whoever in Dragon Age, as in my first playthrough on Origins I had a little bi-sexual threesome with Zevran and Isabella at the Denerim brothel, and then shagged him at camp. It was like Brokeback Mountain, but with elves. Also had a lesbian romance with Leliana in my second playthrough and it was hot.
It is pathetic how this guy has taken the romance thing so seriously, and how insecure he is about it. This may end up on Fox News under a special SexBox 2 feature. It won’t really, hope not anyway, and if it did, it would be just as ignorant but it’s something to laugh at vigorously because it is Fox News.
Overall, well done David for putting up a good defence. A bi-sexual person like myself has found this ordeal pretty interesting but kind of funny at the same time.
25/03/2011 at 16:43 D3xter says:
I just want to point out that you’re eating up the words of a guy that things Twilight is the epitome of romantic writing:
“Well, I think Twilight is far more effective with its romantic elements than most people give it credit for. Granted, it has little else going for it– but the romance it does well. I find it a fascinating exercise to analyze exactly why that is (which I do for many romances… thankfully Cori is a giant romance movie buff).”
-David Gaider
25/03/2011 at 16:59 Alphabet says:
Gaider’s response was measured and right, so kudos to him for that; but you’re right, the romance elements in the games are pitiful, and based on hyper-commercial and popular fictions of all sorts (books, movies, games). And generally art produced by committee and aiming at mass sales tends to suck. I loved BG1 and 2, but since then Bioware games have always disappointed me. I hope they thrive, though, because in a way they make companies like Obsidian possible.
25/03/2011 at 16:59 Makariel says:
so what?
that just explains why the romance-part of romances in Bioware games is so ham-handed ;-)
25/03/2011 at 17:01 drewski says:
I think you’re putting words in his mouth. Nobody who’s seen a horde of teen (and often a lot older than teen) girls swoon over a Twilight book or movie would ever accuse Twilight of not being effective romantic fodder. Remember, we live in a world where Mills & Boon books are effective portrayals of adult romance.
25/03/2011 at 17:09 Alphabet says:
No they’re not – they’re stylized and artificial and reduce the complexities of both reality and good art to a simple formula that’s easy to consume. Many people want to be entertained without being challenged, and more power to them, but art can do a lot more. It’s fine to criticize something for being reductive or cartoonish, especially when Bioware make a big deal of dealing with morality and character and narrative.
25/03/2011 at 19:39 drewski says:
I’m not really talking about high art; I’m talking about what makes people swoon. You may not like it; you may think it’s juvenile; you may think it’s mass market. You can’t say it’s not effective. It’s a bit like saying a Dan Brown novel isn’t good at thrilling people. Personally, I hate them with a passion but people buy them because they get a thrill. They’re effective. Rubbish, but effective.
What *should* worry you is that a Bioware developer is putting effectiveness ahead of all other considerations.
25/03/2011 at 16:57 Makariel says:
I applaud David Gaider for his response and I’m glad that a Bioware official makes a clear statement that inclusion is on their flag. Something which should be quite obvious if you played any of their games recently. Now I’m actually reconsidering buying Dragon Age 2 after all, and if its just to support this mindset and from a developer and them defending it against criticism.
As a “straight male gamer”, I was never feeling uncomfortable because of a homosexual relationship. Regardless if it’s in a game or in real life. When Zevran made a move in Dragon Age Origins I wasn’t feeling uneasy because of that. Should I tell you about the last time I felt uneasy because of a game? Call of Duty Black Ops. The part where you as player are forced to torture someone by putting glass in his mouth and punching him. Seriously, wtf?
25/03/2011 at 17:03 drewski says:
Reminds me of Penny Arcade’s response to the Duke arse slapping controversy.
“Did you know there’s a game mode in Call of Duty where you kill millions of people? It’s called *Call of Duty*.”
25/03/2011 at 17:11 Makariel says:
We’re so used to killing tons of dudes in games that its not worth mentioning anymore. War apparently only makes heroes and not ex-soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder or difficulties to reintegrate into society.
25/03/2011 at 17:19 Vanderdecken says:
I’m a gamer, and gay, and although I’m never likely to play DA2 (I never played DA:O and neither game particularly appeals to me), I’ve read every single comment so far on this story and the majority of them have given me warm tingly feelings down to my toes. The gaming community (and unfortunately that includes every lifeform down to your average Xbox Live voice chat participant) is not known for its lack of homophobia, but RPS commenters appear to be solidly above that bunch. Well done, and thanks, it’s great to have your support and to see so many well-thought-out arguments from straight gamers strongly defending LGBT people. Particularly stand-out fellows are Crimsoneer, Apologist, Manny, kikito and Deano209. If we ever meet IRL, remind me to give you a hug for your arguments here. Safe in the knowledge you won’t take it the wrong way.
25/03/2011 at 17:45 Gazanator101 says:
Can I have a hug too? I’m a fan of hugging. I hugged Quinns at the last RPS social club meeting and it was a pleasant moment, even though I was slightly drunk. :)
25/03/2011 at 18:58 Tom OBedlam says:
I want hugs too
26/03/2011 at 08:03 TheApologist says:
:)
27/03/2011 at 23:12 Vanderdecken says:
You can all have hugs. :)
25/03/2011 at 17:41 Jimbo says:
“We have a lot of fans, many of whom are neither straight nor male, and they deserve no less attention.”
They should tell that to the marketing department. When I see a Bioware game being advertised using a non-white / female default character, I will accept them lecturing anybody about anything. Fem Shep didn’t even warrant a high quality default face. Black Human Noble in Origins didn’t even warrant a black family iirc. It’s a bit soon for them to be taking the high ground here, though it’s a good thing if they’re serious about no longer giving special attention to the majority demographic. Again, I’ll believe it when I see it.
If every romanceable character is ‘available’ to Hawke regardless of gender, then yeah that is kind of a weird decision (and not how they’ve handled it in the past iirc). Not because zomg bisexuals, but because they are obviously just flipping a character’s character to cater to the player, which feels kind of lame. It’s like Anders deciding he really likes Templars after all, just because you’ve taken the Templar specialization. These are important facets of somebody’s character which should be fixed, unless it it something the player’s character could believably influence.
25/03/2011 at 18:26 Outsider says:
I’d argue that it is not “special attention” if it is the majority demographic. Further, just because Bioware has decided to make some homosexual romance options in their game, does not mean they are now obliged to include an artificially large sampling of every other minority just for some odd sake of fairness or to be granted the “right” to defend their position.
They’re making games, not an actual world, so people’s concerns of whether whichever minority of the week is sufficiently represented in a fantasy world alongside elves and dwarves is a little overwrought.
I think the same can be said from the opposite vantage: that if they want to include an artificially large sampling of whatever minority they choose, boneheads like the one quoted in the story above need to not tear up over it and complain.
25/03/2011 at 19:10 Jimbo says:
I didn’t say they need to fill their game up with minorities, but they can’t really slap some guy down by saying minority groups (of their audience) deserve ‘no less attention’ while at the same time giving those groups far less attention (see above examples). “Weeell, they don’t *deserve* less attention, but we’re gonna give them less attention anyway.”
Is asking for the game to cater more to Straight Male really that much worse than how strongly their previous games have blatantly favoured White Male (see above examples)? It’s a dumb request but they’re in no position to act like it’s something they wouldn’t consider.
The truth of the matter is, this decision has nothing to do with Bioware’s ethics or a stance on RPG character design (consistent characters vs. pandering characters) and everything to do with cost efficiency. They claim the high ground when the cost effective thing to do is make the romance available to every player, and then forget all about it when the cost effective thing is to market their game specifically at one demographic.
25/03/2011 at 19:40 Outsider says:
Alright, that makes sense, and I largely agree.
25/03/2011 at 20:13 Vinraith says:
Black Human Noble in Origins didn’t even warrant a black family iirc.
Good grief, seriously? I’m going to have to go check that.
26/03/2011 at 05:53 Klaus says:
@Vinraith
Yes, it was one of the more humorous parts of the game for me. It’s the same with the other origins as well, except mages/dalish as you never meet their families.
26/03/2011 at 12:37 drewski says:
If he was being truthful he would have said “Whilst female and homosexual gamers are a much smaller proportion of our audience than straight male gamers, and therefore deserve far less attention, because we won’t make as much money from focusing on their interests, that doesn’t mean we’re going to completely ignore their interests just to pander to an even tinier minority of homophobic misogynists.”
25/03/2011 at 17:49 Eschwen says:
“And the person who says that the only way to please them is to restrict options for others is, if you ask me, the one who deserves it least. And that’s my opinion, expressed as politely as possible.”
All other opinions here aside, this final sentence struck me as odd and in many ways diminished the value of what David was saying. From what I can see, the original poster never once asked for anything to be ‘restricted’ for others. He simply asked for either A) an added option to eliminate unsolicited sexual advances that made him uncomfortable or B) an additional hetero option that was more traditional. How do either of those constitute ‘restricting’ options for others?
David was doing so well up until the final sentence. It’s really too bad he couldn’t keep himself from stooping to petty over-exaggeration. When spitting on those beneath you, be careful not to hit your own shoe.
25/03/2011 at 18:04 gerbillover says:
I actually made a thread about this a year ago: http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1038041
I… like animals of all sorts but especially horses and gerbils and tried to voice my opinion and petition for a romance but a Bioware representative closed it as spam and I thought that was not sensitive towards my sexual orientation at all… I think he was being a zoophobe. They included a few in their games lately like the space hamster a few fishes and they were constantly reffering to a Ser-Pounce-A-lot I would have liked to meet but there’s no romance option and it all has to happen in my imagination…
I also have a few other people that support the cause: http://polishtheconsole.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/mass-effect-2-space-hamster/
I demand equal rights and equal representation!
25/03/2011 at 18:32 Deano2099 says:
To be fair, Bioware did give us Minsc and Boo…
25/03/2011 at 18:42 Wulf says:
Humour or not, on the condition that both parties in a sexual encounter have sentient and aware enough minds and both consent to the act in a way that they can both understand, then I’m all for it. I’ll use TNG’s “The Measure of a Man” as a basis for the definition thereof.
At some point in the future there will be morphological freedom, and people will be able to choose whatever sort of body or form they desire. Whether it walks on two legs, four legs, eight legs, no legs at all, or whatever other sort of configuration that one could imagine. And I’d think that we might as well start becoming open-minded enough to accept that now.
If, however, one of the people in the partnering does not consent or one of the partners in the partnership does not receive consent in a way that can be understood, then it amounts to rape. And I can’t support rape. It doesn’t matter what sort of form of life is being raped, it’s unethical, and it will likely cause confusion at best, and torment and/or torture at worst. I have a unique understanding of this for reasons that I don’t particularly want to go into, but like I said. Rape? No. Definitely not. No person with a decent set of ethics would allow that sort of suffering to occur, and certainly wouldn’t be party to it.
25/03/2011 at 18:43 Wulf says:
@Deano2099
Minsc and Boo were awesome. Though I think that there was some implication of either anthro sex or bestiality made here. One of which I can support from an ethical hedonism standpoint, the other I cannot from the same standpoint.
25/03/2011 at 19:45 gerbillover says:
@Wulf: So it’s okay to shoot them, cut them open and eat them or wear them around your neck but you won’t allow or tolerate my sexual orientation because I can’t have consent? Really? Zoophobe!
Also, are you a furry yourself? From your avatar/name and comments you sound like you’re into that. Personally I also prefer animals with a lot of fur.
26/03/2011 at 00:38 Faxmachinen says:
gerbillover:
You might want to try trolling a different site where people are more gullible. You’re not a zoophile, but rather a homophobe trying to lump homosexuality in with bestiality in order to feel justified. As Wulf has already pointed out, your comparison is utterly ridiculous, as sex with animals cannot be consentual and is therefore rape.
26/03/2011 at 12:27 JackShandy says:
If you can prove there’s such a thing as a consenting gerbil, go for it.
25/03/2011 at 18:25 Wulf says:
I’m not sure whether to twitch angrily or sigh soulfully at this, but my experiences with gamers on various forums would reveal that homophobia/xenophobia isn’t at all uncommon in our little subculture, and it’s becoming an increasingly more difficult stereotype to fight that gamers are all, basically, narrow-minded, misogynistic jerks. I think I’ll opt for the sigh.
This is mildly irritating too because I’d sworn that I wouldn’t buy Dragon Age II because it just tends to revisit the same old fantasy location that I’ve visited since my childhood, and that presents its own, unique brand of xenophobia that I’m not entirely fond of. That’s just my position and opinion though, please don’t bust a head vein over it, I just happen to prefer games that explore fantasy via cultures that haven’t been harvested of all material to the point of being completely hollow. I should be allowed to be fed up/bored of that. And it’s not trolling, it’s just me. Look at how much I love Uru. Maybe I’m just weird.
Anyway, back on topic – it’s mildly irritating because I hadn’t intended to buy Dragon Age II for the aforementioned reasons. Though if they’re actually being open-minded about sexuality–if they actually, really, honestly are, to the point where it alienates misogynistic homophobes everywhere–then I’m… I may just pick it up to see this for myself. That’s unusual. That is unusual. I… wasn’t expecting that. I didn’t get that from the demo, either.
Augh… torn. Indecision! I don’t want to support the same old bloody setting over and over and over again, but I do want to support an open-minded attitude toward sexuality. As someone who is fairly keyed in with ethical hedonism (I’ve learned to link these things now when I say them, so that I don’t get mocked by those who don’t have a clue what I’m talking about, which has happened before) on a philosophical level, this is actually somewhat important to me.
Blargh.
Edit #1: I wish developers would do polls with every game sold so that we could tell them why we bought them and why we were tempted not to, on a person-to-developer basis, sot hat they can get that information without it being diluted by having to post it on a forum, where it may get trolled and derailed.
25/03/2011 at 18:31 zergrush says:
They’re open-minded in the scope of available options, but the execution is still terribly awkward. I doubt you’ll find it any good.
25/03/2011 at 18:48 Wulf says:
Yeah. It’s still tempting though on a ‘just to see’ basis, which is a trap that I really, really hate falling into. But either way, even awkward, this is an impressive step in the right direction. It sounds like they just need to get themselves some decent writers, now.
Hear that, Bioware? You’ve inspired a spark of hope in me. I’m hoping that that won’t go to waste. At the very least, it seems like Bioware has the right idea, it’s just that their execution is all out of whack. I mean, they had the right idea with wanting to create a non-standard fantasy setting, but, again, IMHO, their execution was out of whack by setting it in a standard fantasy locale.
Good ideas, bad execution, and perhaps because they just need a few more really good writers.
25/03/2011 at 18:53 Temple to Tei says:
Do not buy it Wulf. They have already sold it to the orignal target audience. Now they are trying for another.
Hmmm, that thought only occurred to me while reading your comment. Anyone know if they pushed/mentioned the freeform sexuality in the lead up to the launch of DAO? I am now wondering if once all the pre-orders and early adopters are in they are now going after those who were put off by the game being a bit shit.
25/03/2011 at 19:42 drewski says:
I don’t recall any particular push on that front in the pre-release material.
26/03/2011 at 00:00 Grape Flavor says:
What is it with “xenophobia”, man? You use the word quite often in posts about games, where I really don’t see any connection. If you would provide some context for how you believe what seems like practically every game is “xenophobic”, it would make it less confusing. I might not agree with you, actually probably won’t agree with you – but I am genuinely curious as to your reasoning.
26/03/2011 at 12:42 drewski says:
I can’t speak for Wulf, but I certainly get a “kill the foreign devils who obviously hate us and everything we believe in” vibe from modern CoD and it’s clones.
27/03/2011 at 09:04 Lars Westergren says:
@Wulf
This is mildly irritating too because I’d sworn that I wouldn’t buy Dragon Age II because it just tends to revisit the same old fantasy location that I’ve visited since my childhood, and that presents its own, unique brand of xenophobia that I’m not entirely fond of. That’s just my position and opinion though, please don’t bust a head vein over it, I just happen to prefer games that explore fantasy via cultures that haven’t been harvested of all material to the point of being completely hollow. I should be allowed to be fed up/bored of that. And it’s not trolling, it’s just me. Look at how much I love Uru. Maybe I’m just weird.
I think you should consider give Dragon Age 2 chance, Wulf. The setting feels more original than the first one (though not new-weird/China Mieville exotic of course). It is mainly a urban setting, unusual in itself, something NWN2:Mysteries of Westgate was praised for. I really like the artwork, Kirkwall was once a major city of the slave-based and mage-ruled Tewinter empire, you see remains of statues and their artwork everywhere. For once you are not a member of an elite organization tasked with saving the universe, it is a more personal story. Your companions and what happen to them is a major part of the game, like in Dragon Age 1, Kotor 2 or Mass Effect 2.
It has lots of flaws – the “second wave of enemies” thing is really starting to annoy me, the level scaling, the repeated locations, they don’t write half as good dialogue as Obsidian…. But even so, it’s a pretty decent RPG, and I’m having fun with it.
25/03/2011 at 18:28 TariqOne says:
I’m pretty sure I’m a straight male. And I tried to ball everything that moved in DA2.
Wound up sad and alone for my efforts. Bed’s too big without you, Fenris. Or Isabela?
Merrill? Anders? Damn.
25/03/2011 at 20:01 Metonymy says:
Why is this obvious trolling topic a newspost? Successful troll is successful.
Morality is not an emotional issue. Morality is ‘societal best practices.’ They are rules that lead to the most stability, and the most happiness for the most number of people. The fact that you have ‘emotions’ about the morality you believe in, just proves that you are questioning it sincerely.
If I were you, I would stop having emotions, and start reading scriptures for yourself. We both know you aren’t going to do that, though. You’re going to continue to rage every time someone states an opinion other than your own. You’re going to rage any time someone points out that their beliefs might be better for society than your own. You’re going to rage any time someone points out that only a handful of people even bother to read what ‘God’ originally wrote or intended. If I were that guy, (God) I’d be pretty ambivalent right about now. After all, you’re getting exactly what you deserve.
25/03/2011 at 20:28 DainIronfoot says:
I am glad you bought this up. People have been completely disregarding the teachings of the Rigveda. Oh wait, which particular cult are you referring to here? Please try and be more specific which scriptures and god you’re referring to.
I’ll let someone else verbally facepalm at this latest development.
25/03/2011 at 20:48 Outsider says:
If it’s so horrifically unacceptable to make fun of someone for their sexual preferences, I think it should be equally unacceptable to make fun of someone’s religious preferences, even if doing the latter is so very trendy these days.
As for the op: well, the story didn’t seem like a “troll” to me. It seemed to be a good foundation for discussion.
25/03/2011 at 21:33 DainIronfoot says:
Didn’t mention their particular religious preferences at all or indeed make fun of them. Because they didn’t tell us what they are.
I will quite cheerfully make fun of someone for dropping the terms “God” and “Scriptures” and expecting us to automatically assume that they’re talking about their particular little religion. I’d say that’s offensive to people of different beliefs if I wanted to be even more pedantic.
The whole “When I refer to the one true god, you will automatically KNOW I am speaking of my particular christian god!” is just something that amuses me in the religious types you see online.
Also, if peoples use belief systems to justify bigotry, that’s a bit rubbish really. But I don’t tend to get involved in these internet debates so as I said, someone else can deal with that.
25/03/2011 at 22:04 DJ Phantoon says:
Morality isn’t Ethics, and we use Ethics here, thanks.
25/03/2011 at 22:40 Outsider says:
I’m not religious myself, but I think referring to someone’s religion as a cult is bound to be considered a slight.
Yet, I’m reasonably certain you know exactly which God and Scriptures to which he was referring and you were instead being coy because you thought it would be witty and amusing. I think knowing what someone is talking about and pretending you don’t just to “teach them a lesson” is petty.
My overall point is that there is too often a double standard applied, and has happened in this thread already several times. Perhaps I read too much into your comment. If so, I apologize … if not, then I hope that makes sense.
25/03/2011 at 23:47 Consumatopia says:
I don’t expect to convince you that this is wrong, but you need to understand that you do not have anything like consensus on this equivalence claim, so don’t go trying to call hypocrisy or inconsistency on those who don’t hold it.
This claim would imply that “homosexuality is immoral” is no more unacceptable than “Scientology is immoral” or even “Consumatopia’s Sexy Death Cult is immoral”. I can assure you that both of those things are deeply immoral and deserve to be made fun of. Religions encompass a set of beliefs about descriptive facts and normative judgments of the world. To the extent that we consider a capacity to determine truthful facts and correct judgments to be laudable, then we will find belief in incorrect facts and bad judgments to be less-than-laudable.
I can’t speak for DainIronfoot, but the only reason I would guess that the original comment referred to the Christian God or Christian Scriptures (though I would still be in the dark as to which denomination’s version of Christian Scriptures it referred to) is the Christian habit of making the very mistake DainIronfoot speaks of–expecting us to automatically assume that they’re talking about Christianity whenever they mention faith. And DainIronfoot is correct–Metonymy shouldn’t do that.
That said, even given this assumption, I’m not sure where Metonymy was going. What would we find if we actually read Christian Scripture? That it opposes homosexuality or not? I’ve read those scriptures, and I’ve seen decent arguments going either way.
26/03/2011 at 00:08 Grape Flavor says:
Is Consumatopia’s Sexy Death Cult like an closed thing with some arcane entry criteria, or is it pretty open to new membership? Because I picture a mashup of consumerism, sex, and violence under a quasi-religious backdrop of intrigue and mystery. In other words, a good time.
pm me.
26/03/2011 at 00:17 DainIronfoot says:
“I can’t speak for DainIronfoot, but the only reason I would guess that the original comment referred to the Christian God or Christian Scriptures (though I would still be in the dark as to which denomination’s version of Christian Scriptures it referred to) is the Christian habit of making the very mistake DainIronfoot speaks of–expecting us to automatically assume that they’re talking about Christianity whenever they mention faith. And DainIronfoot is correct–Metonymy shouldn’t do that.”
You have the jist of it entirely sir, thankee.
“I think knowing what someone is talking about and pretending you don’t just to “teach them a lesson” is petty.”
I don’t think so. I wasn’t aiming to teach a lesson anyway as I’m fairly sure no-one would listen. I think the post quoted above says everything I’d want to say.
26/03/2011 at 00:18 Metonymy says:
Hi, I’m OP.
I didn’t mention any particular religion because it doesn’t matter which religion I, or you, take an interest in. What matters is that you don’t know anything about any religion. You don’t even look for yourself! You just choose what to believe, (which sounds nice, doesn’t it?) and then use reason and endless arguments to justify your preferences.
My point is that bridges, and microwave ovens, and civilizations, are not made out of human preferences. They are made out of rules, consistent choices, and facts. I’m criticizing your unwitting contempt for the realities of our existence. Whether you like it or not, the Bible, the Quran, the Bhavad Gita (feel better?) contain information crucial to our continued existence. If nothing else, we will fail, if we do not learn from our mistakes.
When Krishna says to Arjuna, “Never consider yourself to be the cause of anything,” does it speak to something already in your soul? Or does it enrage you further?
26/03/2011 at 00:43 DainIronfoot says:
OP:
Sorry, not actually Hindu, I reject the idea that my morality has to be defined by any sort of ancient text. But since you’ve grasped the meaning of my message, I’ll say tata. Others can say the important stuff far more eloquently.
26/03/2011 at 02:13 Consumatopia says:
@Grape Flavor, it’s mostly signing Power of Attorney documents and drinking my Enhanced Kool-Aid™. Check your fax machine for the docs–once I get those back I can mail you the flavor powder.
@Metonymy, I can’t speak for everyone in the thread, but I wouldn’t dispute that those three books “contain information crucial to our continued existence.” I’m somewhat ashamed to admit that I’ve only read the majority of two of those–I’m embarrassingly ignorant of the third.
Where the dispute probably lies is a claim that every kind of reasoning outside these documents is nothing but “endless arguments to justify your preferences.”
At the very least, this is an odd position to hold if one is stuck with three contradictory documents–one is forced to choose which of the three one will follow in any given moment. And what is one to use to make this decision except “endless argument”?
And it seems even more odd given your apparent opposition to Moral Realism. You say:
“The rules that lead to the most stability” is a measurable fact about the world. Change the rules, observe the resulting stability. If we define morality as narrowly as you do, we don’t really need faith–all we need to do is study history, economics, and sociology, which all study how people will behave under a given set of rules. Religious belief is only useful as a sub-field of history–we can research how societies functioned under different sets of rules.
Furthermore, the peculiar kind of stability that our current governments have achieved (I’m guess you’re living in the West here, apologies if I’m wrong) is, in part, thanks to their promise to pursue to some higher-order principles–such as liberty and equality.
As it is, I happen to think you’re wrong on the deeper principle–I believe that human intuition, judgment and reasoning, horribly imperfect as they are, can bring us closer to the truth–even introspective truths. And I believe that morality is something deeper than a rule-based utilitarianism, even if we haven’t figured out exactly what that is. But these are arguments one could write many books on–it would be pointless to start hashing it out here.
The old documents should be read for their insights, but unless a Deity handed you one of those documents personally, there’s no way to escape the responsibility of deciding if and when you ought to comply with past teachings.
26/03/2011 at 02:14 Outsider says:
Consumatopia,
You’re correct, I do not have anything like a consensus. I’m not convinced that asking for a little restraint in mocking one legitimate group while raising another in reverence requires any sort of consensus in support.
After that, the rest of the first part of your response didn’t make very much sense to me. Maybe I’m tired, or maybe it was constructed in a needlessly labyrinthine manner to stave off disagreement, I don’t know. I do know that I made a simple statement that you think is wrong. I’m unfortunately still unaware as to why you think it is wrong, but I appreciate that you took time to share your opinion with me.
26/03/2011 at 03:07 Consumatopia says:
Well, Outsider, I can make it slightly simpler, but unfortunately it takes the form of a question.
Do you think someone saying “Scientology is immoral” is just as blameworthy as one saying “Homosexuality is immoral”?
I appreciate you taking the time to read my opinion. But I’m not sure you really understand what your opposition’s actual position is.
25/03/2011 at 20:10 Dante says:
Great response from Gaider.
I do think it comes across a little odd that everyone is bisexual mind, but it’s better than the alternative option.
Note that that applies to the fact that there’s no outright gay characters also, in fact I can’t remember a Bioware game that has that choice. Usually it’s just straight or bisexual.
26/03/2011 at 12:45 drewski says:
One of the female NPCs in Knights of the Old Republic is lesbian, although her romance tree is apparently a bit borked.
25/03/2011 at 20:23 Easydog says:
I was going to make a post about how, as a bisexual man, DA2 didn’t reflect my homosexual experiences. As in it doesn’t feature angry hatesex with the most homophobic bigot in the room. But then I remembered that this is the first bioware game with ‘Rivalmances’ and that it does have reasonably accurate facsimilies of my real life gay romances. For instance at around 1:27 in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrfCixsd2N8
Yep. As far as I’m concerned Bioware got it close to right :)
Edit: Whoops, wrong video. I meant 1:27 of this vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SpJc_32by0&playnext=1&list=PL10E0071F95F7C03B
25/03/2011 at 22:31 Technocrati says:
I, too, am a bisexual male. I totally understand where you’re coming from. However! This isn’t true representation without the gay guys telling you that you’re a fence sitter or that the women lose all interest in you once they find out you’re bi because you’re not “masculine” enough.
Anyway, back on point, I believe that Gaider dealt with the post rather well, and I’m continually impressed by the majority of RPS commenters in relation to their tact in dealing with the subject. Kudos all round.
That aside, my first playthrough has me totally all over Merrill because she’s terribly funny and cute. Fenris has some kind of appeal to me in a gruff kinda way, but it’s like the voice actor totally doesn’t match his physique. Plus he’s predjudiced against magic users, I’m a fighter tank myself, but magic is awesome, c’mon! Anders is just boring as batshit. And Isabella tries too hard, I’ll try out Fenris on the next playthrough and see how that goes :).
P.S. This is my first post, imagine my surprise, that I had to play a Tex Murphy-like puzzle just to register, brilliant!
26/03/2011 at 00:26 Easydog says:
I totally agree with your post. Frankly though, I wanted to push Fenris and Anders together. That would have been awesome. I got them to agree with each other too at one point (over how much they both hated Merril), it was so cute. Now I’ve finished my first playthrough I’m going to be a mage and seduce Fenris. It’s all about the hatesex.
… Damnit. Have I just become a bioware lackey, trying to prompt internet discussions about fake romances? I think bioware is trying to make us all into ‘shippers’. I start out every Bioware game with the full intent of ignoring the boning and just saving the world and I always, always, end up following a romance. It happened with Kaiden, with Thane, it happened with Merril and it’ll probably happen again. When did saving the world not become enough? I need to play more ‘Awakenings’.
25/03/2011 at 21:37 battles_atlas says:
Reply fail
25/03/2011 at 22:15 Dances to Podcasts says:
The reply obviously tries to engage the original poster and reason with him, which is the smart thing to do in terms of PR. But that does also imply something I’m very much against. The whole idea that a game ‘should’ be [X] or [Y]. Who decides what a game ‘should’ be? What it should try to say? The players? The publishers? Or the people or person developing the game? I believe what a game should be like should be determined by the game itself, the idea, the concept, the world. Not anything outside that.
I believe developers should be free to make games that are politically correct or politically incorrect, that are inclusive or exclusive, games of any form, philosophy or culture. If someone wants to make a homophobic game, fine. If someone else wants to make a fabulously gay game, fine. If someone wants to make a game where you can choose the entire spectrum, also fine. It doesn’t matter what subject matter a game is about, it matters how it’s treated. Does it have depth? Does it resonate? Does it impress? Does it inspire?
I consider myself mature enough to appreciate the value or quality of things that I don’t agree with. In fact, I think those are the things that enlighten your life. That teach you to understand other points of view, even if not convincing you of their righteousness.
But then again, I’m the kind of person who, if tasked with making a Bulletstorm or Duke Nukem style game, would make the main character a butch dyke, so what do I know?
26/03/2011 at 12:47 drewski says:
Not how to be a high ranking executive in a major games publisher, apparently.
(And unfortunately.)
25/03/2011 at 22:24 Edward F. says:
The one thing I really don’t like about how developers treat homosexuality in games is that we never get to see how characters react to the dark side of things: homophobia, hatred, discrimination, and hate crimes. Let me explain by pointing to a recent example of this: Fallout: New Vegas.
In Fallout: New Vegas, you character can explore other sexualities, such as homo or bisexuality by selecting a perk. However, this perk only brings positive benefits. Now, let’s step back for a second: We are in a dilapidated wasteland where the absolute worst in humanity gets to come out and play. There are several allegories to real-life hatred, even, such as hatred towards Ghouls. The culture is stuck in that of the 50′s, a time where gays and even other minorities certainly had no respect. However, the game fails to reflect any ounce of homophobia that should be present in this society. Yes, this does promote some form of equality, but it makes it a worthless, token trait of a character. The characters sexuality, normally a big influence on how that character acts and views the world, means nothing. No-one shouts at you for being gay, and no-one slyly shortchanges you a few caps here and there because they think you are one of “them”. Furthermore, it makes the LGBT-friendly characters worthless as well. What does someone’s acceptance for a minority mean when there is no hatred for them? Movies and books can explore these dark themes, so why not games?
25/03/2011 at 22:59 Wulf says:
Potentially veiled homophobia aside, there actually is a case in New Vegas in which homosexuality is treated negatively. I’m terrible with names, but there’s a bloke in the Mojave Outpost (NCR) that you talk with that you can use that perk on, and he gets morbidly terrified, since apparently the NCR is a legion of homophobes and talking about homosexuality is ‘just not done.’ That was one of the things that hugely turned me off the NCR in the beginning, truth be told, and made me look at them as a completely negative and closed-minded fascist regime (which they actually turned out to be!). (Versus the open-minded and largely positive fascist regime of Fallout Tactics. How fascism was handled in FT will never cease to amaze, amuse, and intrigue me, lots of food for thought in that game.)
25/03/2011 at 23:02 Malawi Frontier Guard says:
I for one, don’t want to play an LGBT-oppression simulator. Yeah, sure want to get discriminated in my gaming time.
Who would benefit from something like this?
Those that are accepting won’t have to change their mind, those who are opposed won’t play it, and those who are affected don’t give a damn.
25/03/2011 at 23:47 Qjuad says:
@Wulf
Not to mention Caesar’s Legion, who punish homosexuality with death. And that was the Major Keyes character you were referring to.
26/03/2011 at 00:21 Edward F. says:
@Malawi
What I was trying to say is that games should try and explore these subjects more, especially when they make sense.
26/03/2011 at 00:35 Malawi Frontier Guard says:
@Edward F.
Yes, you did in fact say that.
26/03/2011 at 03:50 JackShandy says:
New Vegas had a really interesting way of doing things. Both Veronica(Was that her name? Brotherhood of steel fist girl?) and arcade Gammon are gay, but you wouldn’t actually know it except for the fact that they use “He” instead of “She” when talking about their love lives, and vise-versa. It seems like an incredibly weird way to do it – they both just assume you’ll accept their sexuality without even a raised eyebrow. Neither of them feel any need to make sure you’d be ok with it, or actually tell you outright as if it’s a big deal.
I think what Obsidian were going for is the idea that this nuclear wasteland future has somehow gotten over all those issues, and it isn’t actually a big deal anymore. A post-gender society, I suppose. A pretty cool way of showing big differences between their culture and ours without trumpeting it from the rooftops, I thought.
26/03/2011 at 12:49 drewski says:
I think they certainly wanted to portray that *some* elements of the wasteland had got over it.
25/03/2011 at 22:44 Owain_Glyndwr says:
Not quite sure if this is still on topic, but as we seem to be heading in that direction anyway- Is it possible to object not to the toleration of homosexuality but the classification of it as morally neutral without being homophobic, which I guess means suffering from an irrational hatred for the unknown, like racism? Not trolling, just genuinely want to know whether people think a non-biased rational case can be put foward.
25/03/2011 at 22:55 Wulf says:
Morality is subjective.
25/03/2011 at 23:36 gerbillover says:
homo”phobia” is not really a very fitting word as it describes irrational fear and outright panic… see claustrophobia, arachnophobia, cynophobia and the likes. You can dislike a certain animal, person, subject or even group of persons (say nazis for instance or gun-nuts) without showing symptoms of irrational fear akin to climbing on a chair and screaming to “kill it” or having panic attacks. In fact I haven’t seen or heard of anyone showing any of these symptoms towards a homosexual in my life, it is largely a made-up word similar to “breeder”, which they can use to denounce anyone that doesn’t agree with them…
On the other hand, zoophobia… that’s a real problem, I’ve seen grown men run away in disgust to grab their shotguns while I was handling a horse.
26/03/2011 at 02:02 Owain_Glyndwr says:
I’m not sure you really believe that, Wulf- from your earlier comments it doesn’t sound like you consider a homophobes or fascists opinion just as valid as your own. In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that practically no one truly considers right and wrong to be subjective.
26/03/2011 at 11:04 Hidden_7 says:
@Owain_Glyndwr
Let me see if I’ve got you right here, because I really don’t want to put words in your mouth. You’re saying that, while you’d agree that being intolerant of homosexuality is homophobic, you wonder if being annoyed at it being classified as morally neutral, that is, neither a bad nor a good thing, would also be homophobic.
Personally I don’t think the rational questioning of things is bigoted. Bigotry is definitionaly irrational.
However, two things. Firstly, I think it’s odd to consider something morally unacceptable but still tolerate it. That is, if you honestly think that homosexuality is morally wrong, it makes no sense to be tolerant of it at all. Which brings me to my second point. I think you’d have to work pretty hard to drum up a way that someone’s sexuality falls under any sort of moral purview.
Of the big classic ethical codes, utilitarianism/consequentialism and rights based deonotology, neither has anything to say about sexuality. Who one prefers sexually is simply nowhere near any sort of rights or respect for autonomy that deonotology would concern itself with, and utilitarianism concerns itself with the maximizing of happiness, which I can’t possibly see being served by denying one’s sexual predilections.
As for the common suggestion that mating needs to happen, or that we’re somehow obligated to propagate our species, that doesn’t really work as well as some people would like it to either. Because, well… there’s six billion of us, and growing, so I think we’re doing okay. And at most people would just be required to breed in ADDITION to being allowed to have sex with whomever they liked for fun times. So that’s a non-starter.
One could of course bring in religious, rule-based moralities. Those aren’t particularly great moral systems though. Legalistic ones rarely are. They tend to lack internal consistency, any sort of meta justification, and have no decision guiding process, so are incredibly restrictive over what they can predicate over.
So, while I don’t think it’s necessarily homophobic to have a think about whether homosexuality is wrong, I think that you’d have to be homophobic to come away with any answer other than “no.” As someone who’s spent a fair amount of time thinking about ethics, I don’t see how you make that rational case.
25/03/2011 at 23:36 sokolov22 says:
The man clearly did not read Leigh Alexander’s Kotaku feature:
http://kotaku.com/#!5770361/how-to-stop-the-anger-about-video-games-from-outside-and-within
“We all play video games. We’re just all different. We’re each a gamer in our own individual way.
Just because something offends your taste doesn’t mean it lacks the right to exist for people who think it’s fun or important. There are caveats to this, of course – no one should ever, ever have to endure slurs, discrimination, threats or hate-speech because of gaming. It should never cross your mind to verbally assault or harass a stranger on the internet because they said something you don’t like about video games or because they approach them differently than you do. That’s just complete madness. Like, stop it. Seriously.”
25/03/2011 at 23:44 Ultra Superior says:
I thought Dragon Age 2 was shit.
Now I see it’s shit on dick, yay!
Here is a bit of healthy heterosexual relief:
http://legalgeekery.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/office-girls.jpg
25/03/2011 at 23:58 Oak says:
Speaking of dicks, it’s appropriate that your avatar looks like one.
26/03/2011 at 02:01 Grape Flavor says:
But it’s an ultra superior dick! (though it seems a bit short and has some weird growths on it)
26/03/2011 at 03:51 Ultra Superior says:
Yes, my Ultra is Superior to your Oak!
25/03/2011 at 23:57 bluebogle says:
A few points:
a. The people at Bioware have MUCH more patience than I do.
b. That was such a thoughtful and intelligent response!
c. This sort of things helps make the case for me that maybe I should buy this game.
Thanks for pointing it out RPS!
26/03/2011 at 00:17 Melf_Himself says:
The problem is not the presentation of gay vs straight characters.
The problem is that modern day Bioware characters are enormous sluts.
Many characters seem to crack onto the PC regardless of gender. You don’t have to work for it anymore.
The homophobe who made the original post could have avoided this if the male characters only crack onto a male PC if you pick certain friendly conversation options. I think that is the real issue – I’ve not played DA2, but it sounds as though you get cracked onto regardless.
The characters are sluts.
26/03/2011 at 12:52 drewski says:
…so?
26/03/2011 at 00:27 Grape Flavor says:
Oh, while we’re on the topic:
Look at this picture: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/11/feb/da2sexy.jpg
Now, without spoiling anything, is or is not this character available for sexy time with a male Hawke?
Yes or no. We don’t need to discuss why I want to know this.
26/03/2011 at 00:44 Easydog says:
Edit: oh wait, no spoilers. Then, Yep. Yes you can.
26/03/2011 at 00:45 Malawi Frontier Guard says:
Yes, and as surely everyone will agree, the scenes are exceptionally well written.
26/03/2011 at 01:52 Grape Flavor says:
@Malawi Frontier Guard
lol im sure.
26/03/2011 at 01:10 edit says:
I’m always against any imposition of cultural values onto narrative. It is a form of censorship. Even the sudden inclusion of gay, lesbian, bi-sexual characters seems forced and caters to certain viewers at the expense of narrative authenticity when there is no exploration of those ideas within the fiction’s culture. There is no way for every demographic, race, orientation, culture to be represented within the scope of a limited narrative and there should be no pressure for it to, lest all groups of fictional characters be artificially forced to contain equal numbers of men and women, at least one black, chinese, etc etc. Instead the narrative of a fictional world should attempt to establish the cultural situation of the world and characters and represent it faithfully… or else what is the point of representing it at all? Any reflection on society should be derived subjectively from analysis of the narrative itself and the culture it presents, rather than superficially, solely from the traits of individuals within the narrative.
26/03/2011 at 01:20 Malawi Frontier Guard says:
So how’s life like as a robot?
26/03/2011 at 01:29 edit says:
Just presenting my viewpoint as clearly as I can. Take it or leave it.
For you “tl dr” folks out there, my gist is that if you want to put bi-sexuality in a story, make it a part of the story rather than a superficial addition to appease player choice. I’m against anyone having a problem with these things being in a game, but I think the game suffers when it is slapped on without deeper reasoning or thematic exploration.
26/03/2011 at 01:39 Malawi Frontier Guard says:
That’s much clearer now, isn’t it? Good boy.
26/03/2011 at 01:58 Grape Flavor says:
@Malawi Frontier Guard
I think he has a very valid point. We’ve all seen fiction where the author’s or contemporary values are shoehorned incongruously onto the setting. I can’t judge on whether DA2 is one of those works, but he’s certainly not being offensive. There’s no need for derisive snark.
26/03/2011 at 01:59 edit says:
It also contains less of my reasoning. Must we encourage brevity and the habit of stating points without justification? It makes for pretty shallow discussion.
Your couple of posts here are exceptionally clear, nice work! However all you’ve contributed is to call me a robot (not that I’m offended) and not to actually comment on a single point I’ve made. But hey, it’s snappy!
Edit: thanks Grape :)
26/03/2011 at 02:50 Malawi Frontier Guard says:
I’m in trouble now, because everything I would write from now on would sound like sarcasm to the casual observer, even if it were sincere.
You see, what triggered my well thought-out responses were your first two sentences, equating “imposition of cultural values on narrative” with censorship, which is nonsense. You know that it is nonsense, but you didn’t explain that censorship would only result as a consequence if no one else were allowed create narrative with different cultural values. Why the bad word when it obviously weakens your argument?
All art is a product of the cultural values of the artist. There can be no separation of the true cultural values of the artist and his art (as much as it pains me to use the word artist in any proximity to David Gaider). The word that would fit your definition would be propaganda, not censorship. They are separate things.
Yes, shoehorning of whatever into media to please a demographic exists, and it’s called tokenism, as you will no doubt know.
Since the rest of your post was just directed against tokenism, which is an argument I agree with anyway, I found it fitting to only mock the style of your explanation in a way that would require the least amount of effort on my part, and the most on yours. See how well that turned out. Fucking hell.
26/03/2011 at 03:05 Oak says:
my gist is that if you want to put bi-sexuality in a story, make it a part of the story
Why?
26/03/2011 at 03:35 edit says:
Now we’re talking. Thanks for taking the time to clarify :)
I stand by the idea that the “imposition of cultural values on narrative” is a form of censorship, although it depends how we define it. To my understanding censorship isn’t just state-imposed, politically motivated stuff. There is self-censorship. A definition of censorship I’ve come across that I don’t have an objection to is:
“The practice of suppressing a text or part of a text that is considered objectionable according to certain standards.”
Apparently to some people, and probably more so in an interactive medium where players are active participants, the exclusion of their orientation or beliefs from representation (when other people’s, probably the more common ones, do get representation) is objectionable. In order to appease those people’s standards, the artist compromises and in a way therefore suppresses the original vision of the narrative. I see that as self-censorship, not far removed from replacing a religious symbol with a generic one to appease religious standards. Whether or not we agree to call it censorship, I’m sure you see where I’m coming from.
All art may be a product of the cultural values of the artist, but it needn’t be a direct representation of them. It may be a fantastical escape from them, a utopian reaction against them, etc etc. We can distinguish between an invented\fantasy culture and the culture from which the artist came. We can absolutely consider how the invented culture derives from the real culture and learn about the artist’s perspective in the process.
In my opinion, though, once elements of the real culture are arbitrarily stitched into the fictional culture for some external reason (political correctness, appeasing a certain demographic, etc), the artistic vision has been compromised, potentially along with the internal logic of the narrative or fictional culture. In my opinion the sexual options in recent Bio-Ware games feel arbitrarily imposed in that way, and stick out like a sore thumb, provoking me think about the developers’ intentions and be acutely aware that I’m playing a game, rather than being immersed in the fantasy.
26/03/2011 at 03:43 edit says:
Oak: Without integration into the story it feels arbitrary. If a character is bi-sexual then that is a significant part of their character, personality, etc. It’s much more interesting and believable to at least partly explore how that aspect of the character fits into their culture and how it has impacted on their lives, than to add it purely so the player can have sex with them. I only hold the game to this kind of standard because Bioware attempts to create believable universes for serious storytelling.
26/03/2011 at 04:11 Easydog says:
Cultural values of society are exceptionally fluid. There have been several suggestions made by people that the inclusion of an accepting attitude toward sexuality is not representative of ancient cultures, (the cultural values this fantasy world is based on especially) yet I fail to see the point where the attitudes of everyone in these worlds is supposed to be set in stone. Even in the medieval periods there will have been individuals who held liberal views on things like sexuality, race and suchlike and there will have been people (and yes, most probably the majority rule and the attitudes of those in power) who held extremely conservative and/or repressive views.
It seems to me that people who speak for the views of those from dead cultures seem to ignore the fact that there has been a wide variety of viewpoints, from all people on all subjects, through-out history. Are you saying that it’s only in modern times that ANY people have ever thought of homosexuality as acceptable or even tolerable? Really?
Hatred or repulsion to homosexuality is not an inevitable state for a society. Such values are not intrinsic to society or individuals.
I remember reading about people complaining about the TV series ‘City of Vice’ because of it’s inclusion of black and homosexual characters in Georgian London before discovering that those representations were based on real people and fisrt hand accounts of the time. It seems to be a similar argument.
So if you choose to represent people from these ‘ancient’ cultures in fiction why should you presume that your characters would have to hold the views you find paltable or un-palatable? In terms of narrative, the sexuality in DA2 is rarely discussed outside of those characters in your party, and I think only at the battle at the end does any homosexual public display happen. It could just be that even if it was the majority view in Kirkwall that homosexuality was an abomination then the characters in your party do not hold that view and that those NPC’s who do are not aware of it. I don’t recall the scene where Hawke was part of a gay pride rally through the city, why would any NPC’s even be more than slightly aware of Hawke’s sexuality? As far as I know the city of Kirkwall has no tabloids.
Who are you to speak of the idea of a story being true to the ‘values’ of the time? Whose values? The cultures? The individuals involved in the story? The artists? Especially in a time and place that are notable for not being real? You’re fine with the dragons but the gays are ‘unrealistic’ in this fantasy universe? Because that sounds silly.
Oh, and to those people decrying ‘Political Correctness’ I present this video, which sums up my attitude to such ‘institutionalised politeness’ quite nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGAOCVwLrXo&feature=related
For those tl;dr Who are you to speak for the values of the people of Kirkwall?
26/03/2011 at 04:34 Easydog says:
“So I threw the massive fireball I had conjured from my fingertips and as the enemy mage’s magical lightning bounced harmlessly off my full plate armour I backflipped out of danger…”
“Pssshh. That is so unrealistic.”
“Well, I know but it’s my fantasy.”
“Yeah, but there’s no way you could backflip in full plate armour.”
This is what you sound like to me when you speak of the cultural values of a magical fantasy land full of elves and dragons and ogres and ponies.
26/03/2011 at 04:36 Ultra Superior says:
@EDIT
Exactly my opinions. Well said!
These currently controversial motives are often portrayed shallowly, used as a shockvalue to increase awareness about the product.
We’re still waiting for a game where these motives will function to create a real drama and believable emotions – rather than to serve as a checklist of fuckable NPC sexes.
A good game with well implemented motives of human relationships would be able to open the eyes of (some) bigots – rather than to -understandably – anger them by throwing something they openly hate in their face -in the most cheap, crude way – look! A group of fe/males just had a SEX! wink wink!
(thats never helping).
26/03/2011 at 05:03 JackShandy says:
“Without integration into the story it feels arbitrary. If a character is bi-sexual then that is a significant part of their character, personality, etc.”
An essential part of the character, sure, but I don’t think that a story should have to be ABOUT being gay to include a gay character. You can make a character a smoker without having the story make any points about smoking, etc etc.
Really, there’s no reason a character has to make a big deal about their sexuality any more than they have to make a big deal about any other part of their personality. It’s nice to see a story focus on it, sure, but it’s fine if it’s just a part of that character.
26/03/2011 at 12:54 edit says:
@Easydog, good points but
“It seems to me that people who speak for the views of those from dead cultures seem to ignore the fact that there has been a wide variety of viewpoints, from all people on all subjects, through-out history. Are you saying that it’s only in modern times that ANY people have ever thought of homosexuality as acceptable or even tolerable? Really?”
That’s not what I’m getting at at all.. I’m absolutely not saying it is unrealistic for an ancient or fantasy culture to have homosexuality etc. Far from it. It is, however, somewhat unrealistic for everyone in your small party to happen to be totally open to screwing you.
Hey, if it’s part of the story that it’s the ‘norm’ for a certain fantasy culture to have widespread bi-sexuality and sexual permissiveness, I’ve got no problem with that at all. However, when the way sexuality is perceived in the various parts of the fictional world is never explored beyond simply letting you have sex with your party, it comes across as tacked-on fan-service. I’m all for games exploring sexuality, but it seems a shallow exploration when all it amounts to is letting your avatar and party members get it on, and it does little to make the games appear more mature.
I guess the issue is that when you boil sexuality and relationships down to a game mechanic, unless it’s an extremely complex game it’s going to be a shallow and unbelievable representation. ‘Storytelling’ provides ample opportunity to counter this with a more believable or mature outlook on those topics, especially when developing the actual relationship between the player character and the NPC in question, but that opportunity appears more or less neglected from what I’ve seen. It seems obvious that these things were added to the game not because they are integral to the story or game world, but because sex sells.
26/03/2011 at 12:56 drewski says:
edit – whilst I agree with your general thesis, I’d rather it there and poorly implemented – if that’s what the designers want – than not there simply to pander to homophobes.
26/03/2011 at 13:15 edit says:
drewski – I certainly have no preference for heterosexual content being in a game over homosexual content.. I’d just rather any sexual content at all be treated in a way that makes sense in a game that is otherwise attempting to convey a believable dramatic story. Maybe it would seem less out of place if it weren’t so damn easy to play the right cards and seduce in these games.
It’s like we have an epic ‘Lord of the Rings’ film with the social scenarios of a tacky romcom. I find it harder to suspend disbelief.
26/03/2011 at 16:16 Easydog says:
@edit. Fair enough. I think we can agree to disagree. I keep forgetting that RPS has a higher class of commentor. I was fully prepping myself for a “Nu-uhhh, you’re a poopy head”, which I’d expect from elsewhere on the web. Well played.
26/03/2011 at 19:30 edit says:
Totally cool to agree to disagree. I know I jump to some pretty strong statements sometimes, but it’s always in the interest of digging deeper into the issue and provoking a revealing response. I’m always open to ideas other than my own and being wrong etc.
I think it’s great that RPS can be the platform for people sharing perspectives and opening each others minds. Especially nice is to see some thoughtful discussion on sexuality when on some gaming-related parts of the internet (certainly in the past, have seen less of it lately) there seems to be a vocal homophobic presence.
27/03/2011 at 15:51 Deano2099 says:
Things is, fireballs and magic and such are all explained as part of DA’s culture in the codex and in game. If there were a single codex entry explaining that Kirkwall was a place of hedonism and sexual freedom where everyone shagged everyone else, then that’d be fine too.
It doesn’t though. Nor does it show any other couples in homosexual relationships outside of you and your companions.
It’s also not a matter of one or the other. I’d much rather have one straight romance, one gay romance and one bi romance for each of the two genders. That’s still only 4-6 romances to write, and caters for everyone.
The idea of adding choice by letting everyone swing both ways is not Bioware making an effort to cater to everyone, it’s them tacking it on.
27/03/2011 at 16:07 bleeters says:
It doesn’t though. Nor does it show any other couples in homosexual relationships outside of you and your companions.
Is that so unexpected? Your companions mention (or engage in) bi-sexual relationships due to being represented as close to your character. I wouldn’t expect strangers in the street to start describing their sexuality.
There’s a few bi/homosexual characters around. That none of them open with “so hey, by the way, I have sex with a man” isn’t something I’d criticise the writing for.
26/03/2011 at 02:17 Commissar says:
This is why you don’t let fat women who write yaoi fanfiction and use the words ‘gigglesquee’ in a sentence anywhere near your script.
26/03/2011 at 02:46 Howard_Roark says:
BioWare, or any other gaming company, can include whatever they want in their games. They certainly have a right to do so. Consumers also have rights. Consumers have the right to decide whether they like the product or not and they will make their opinions known with their wallets when future BioWare releases hit the market. Consumers do not like to be fooled, tricked, blindsided, taken advantage of, insulted, offended, or ambushed and they have very long memories. As for Dragon Age II, there are an awful many reasons to dislike the game and the bisexuality of the character is just another bit of strangeness in a hastily assembled game. Surely there are gay or bisexual people who are pleased to see BioWare incorporate such relationships into their games, but obviously heterosexuals far outnumber the rest. Catering to a small segment of consumers and risk alienating what is the largest group of consumers is not good business practice. I do not for a moment buy the excuses made by the BioWare representative in the article. That is a spin job to cover up a mistake. They are employing CYA tactics.
Certainly if they meant to incorporate bisexuality into Dragon Age 2 from the outset then they are foolish to make such a gamble. I do not believe it was intentional. I believe the awkwardness in the way bisexuality is incorporated in Dragon Age II is a result of a combination of poor development planning and direction, time constraints, and budgetary limitations. Nearly all RPG games ask a series of questions at the start of the game in order to create a customized character according to the gamers preferences. We’ve had to choose hair color, eye color, height, weight, and even had to choose alignment and disposition. That arrogant BioWare representative thinks consumers are idiots. Does he really expect us to think that they intended to incorporate bisexuality but had no ideas on how to prevent it from being heaped upon consumers who might be offended by it? Does he really think we are expected to believe his line of bull that the only way to do such a thing would be to use a “Homosexuality ON/OFF” button? We are asked to customize our characters in dozens of ways at the start of RPG games. Why not ask the gamer for sexual preference at the start of a game when you are intentionally incorporating bisexuality into the game? Is he that stupid to think of only one solution to this or does he think the consumers are that stupid to believe him?
Dragon Age II is a mess from one end to the other and I see the bisexuality thing and their subsequent spin job as just an extension of some terrible direction and leadership with regard the development of Dragon Age II. This article, and the blatant arrogance of condescending attitude of the BioWare representative has convinced me to return my copy immediately. I’m done with BioWare products.
26/03/2011 at 02:53 Josh04 says:
That’s a lot of words when you could have just said “I am a huge bigot”
26/03/2011 at 04:13 Ultra Superior says:
I do agree that DA2 is a crapware.
I also think that bioware is using these “controversial motives” intentionally to create a buzz around its games and to thats ok – people expect it since mass effect (alien lesbians = tons of free broadcasting time on Fox – now look at this thread.)
Thing is – of course it is absolutely OK to put any kinds of relationships into a game – it is an artform just like any other – only stupid people would be still bitching about sexuality in books or movies.
I think the important question is – is it presented in good taste ? Has it any emotional value in the context of the game ? Or are the characters just sluts serving as bioware’s marketing:
“oh no! This NPC has violated my PC ! I was just trying to be nice and he…he violated me!
have to take shower, stare into the mirror and troll about that on the forums to make bioware look oh so shockingly liberal and enlightened!”
“oh yea buy DA2! The game is crap but you can fuck just about anything in there! And it makes bigots cry!”
26/03/2011 at 05:55 bill says:
See. You just repeated the same mistaken points that the original poster made, and ignored the clear and well reasoned response that Mr Gaider already made. What’s the point in taking part if you are going to ignore the initial response?
As for your suggestion. If we can choose sexuality at the start of the game during character generation? WHAT EFFECT WOULD IT HAVE? You are free to choose your relationships on a case-by-case basis throught the game, just like life. And being preset as a particular sexuality doesn’t prevent people of other sexualities being attracted to you or hitting on you IN REAL LIFE.
Would it be like a heterosexual do-not-call list? Would your character wear a “don’t hit on me, i’m straight” badge in the game?
Your system would make no logical sense in real life or in game. As for your other points, read Mr Gaider’s response.
26/03/2011 at 10:07 Hidden_7 says:
I just imagine you living in constant fear that a guy might hit on you at some point, and thus turn you bi-sexual by the very act of being attracted to you. Must be difficult being so grumpy all the time.
26/03/2011 at 08:32 thebigJ_A says:
Fucking bigots.
I’m so glad I live in a liberal part of the US (Boston), but even here there are a significant number of homophobes. (Then there’s the whole thing where bad things are called ‘gay’. I hate that.)
As a straight male, I’d just like to go on record as applauding Bioware for allowing people of all sexualities to have a little sexy sex in their games.
Why are people so threatened when someone is attracted to the same gender? Oh yeah, religion. Friggin’ bible.
26/03/2011 at 09:00 TillEulenspiegel says:
I think 95% of the time, religion is an excuse rather than the actual reason for bigotry.
The vast vast majority of major political and social differences boil down to empathy and selfishness. These are probably fundamental traits that are acquired early in life, not something that can be reasonably taught or discussed.
It’s like there’s an extra switch for instinctive social behavior in our monkey-brain that doesn’t get toggled for everyone.
26/03/2011 at 10:14 Unrein says:
Religion has definitely had a big part in building the social construct part of homophobia.
26/03/2011 at 10:29 Owain_Glyndwr says:
I’ve said this before, but do you think that someone can honestly believe that homosexuality is wrong, not the toleration of it or the inclination but the representation of the lifestyle as morally neutral? I mean, can people reach this conclusion through reason or is there always some kind of phobia lurking beneath the surface?
26/03/2011 at 10:29 Zepposlav says:
Fucking fags?
If you call all people who despise homosexuality bigos I’ll call ya fag. I thought it’s a personal preference to like or not like gays. Alright politically-correct faggot?
26/03/2011 at 10:35 Klaus says:
That doesn’t make any sense. If you’re a bigot, then you’re a bigot. There’s nothing PC about it, the word means what the word means. Ironically, I find you wanting to mask your bigotry under another name to be a form of political correctness.
26/03/2011 at 10:41 Urael says:
@Zeppo: Bigot – noun: “One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ”
Being called a Bigot is correct in the technical sense. Calling people “fags” in response is simple rudeness, makes me laugh due to the implicit assumption that anyone who disagrees with the bigoted view of homosexuality IS themselves a homosexual, and also makes me laugh due to the fact that in Britain “fag” is slang for cigarette.
26/03/2011 at 13:00 drewski says:
Objectively I find the pejorative gay inappropriate, but realistically, it’s probably not any worse in a modern context than, say, lame.
It’s a relic of a past age; one day, it will be gone.
(And replaced by pejoratives derived from whatever other activities are considering socially unfortunate, because humans are asses.)
26/03/2011 at 13:03 Hoaxfish says:
Remember when “gay” didn’t mean homosexual? Well, I guess it doesn’t mean that now either.
26/03/2011 at 13:07 Buttless Boy says:
@Owain: Honesty and bigotry aren’t mutually exclusive. Hell, one can even reach a bigoted conclusion through a rational process if the process is flawed.
We all have prejudices, but the best among us work to overcome them and rebuke them rather than letting them define us.
26/03/2011 at 15:45 Ultra Superior says:
there are so many haters that are not religious at all, and in christian religions there are many people completely tolerant to the sexuality of others.
You can make any claim good or bad about religions and it will always be close to truth, because religion is the fundamental part of any human society.
Judaistic-Christian tradition is also the reason why we live in a “kind of civilized” world and why we have the opportunity to play videogames to bitch about.
Just look at the civilizations with different religions and look how far did it get them.
26/03/2011 at 20:06 Lilliput King says:
Ultra: Incredible.
27/03/2011 at 06:30 thebigJ_A says:
Ultra, I don’t know where you got that idea. It was only when Western society became more secularized that we began to really advance scientifically. Religion has *always* hindered technological advancement. Even the famous medieval advances attributed to Islam happened because there was a period of about 300 years where, in places like Baghdad, there was a much more secular worldview.
Bottom line: Christianity has hindered advancement far more often than helped it.
Also, religion is absolutely NOT “the fundamental part of any human society”. In modern, secular Western countries (the US sadly excluded) religion is no longer the driving force. Believe in whatever god you like, but don’t think religion is necessary for a society to function.
27/03/2011 at 06:32 thebigJ_A says:
The bigot who replied predictably proved his ignorance. I’m not as patient as Mr. Gaider, so I’ll just leave it there.
27/03/2011 at 15:59 Deano2099 says:
@Owain_Glyndwr I think they can, and I see this in a lot of my strongly religious friends. They have gay friends, they don’t have a problem with it, they go out to gay clubs with them, but they do still think that homosexuality is a sin.
The issue is that the only way to ‘rationally’ believe that homosexuality is wrong is to derive that from a belief in a religious text. As there’s no other logical way to get there. And then most people will just tell you that religion is all made up anyway.
Now, if there was some huge catastrophe and the human race was in danger of dying out unless we reproduced quickly, there might be an argument. But not now when we face overcrowding of the earth.
26/03/2011 at 08:48 Very Real Talker says:
thinking more about it, it’s the whole focus on romance that is incredibly childish and effeminate. I doubt twilight loving, effeminate nerd David Gayder has anything interesting to say about romance. Or that ugly woman that writes romance for bioware, I wonder what the hell does she know about the topic.
Dragon age 2 is a fundamentally flawed games. They didn’t care about having a better level design, a less retarded level scaling system, a more challenging and less boring combat system. But they cared enough for the feeling of gay people or lonely nerds that need to experience romance through a video game.
That’s laughably pathetic in my opinion.
26/03/2011 at 09:21 Klaus says:
You’re on a videogame site, arguing about videogames and you have the temerity to call someone else a nerd. I admit, I laughed a bit. Gayder? Personally insulting someone’s appearance? Whatever.
Anyway, what’s wrong with showing consideration to others? The game wasn’t solely designed for you, nor did you or the people who agree with you personally fund it. You want to deny people choices in a game so you don’t have to participate in an optional component. You just make no sense to me and it feels selfish.
And the game doesn’t focus around romance, it’s a side event. You’re free to tell Anders to piss off and display cold indifference to everyone else.
26/03/2011 at 10:04 Hidden_7 says:
I especially love how you use effeminate as an insult. No wait, I don’t, it’s awful. Please stop it.
26/03/2011 at 10:13 Zepposlav says:
Disgusting.
26/03/2011 at 10:28 Chaz says:
I for one appluad this kind of choice in games and frankly would like to see this expaned further with more sexual options available. How about being able to get three in a bed, two guys one girl, two girls one guy etc or indeed even “all” of your companions together for a big orgy, dwarves and all, or how about options to be able to take a sub/dom role in a relationship?
26/03/2011 at 10:31 Zepposlav says:
Totally! I would love to have an option to chose romance style like: soft, hard, gangbang with partymates. If they cater too all sexual groups they should cater to customers who like BDSM.
26/03/2011 at 10:38 Klaus says:
You’re looking for the Sims. There are mods to suit whatever fetish you have, I’m sure. You can also play it alone and spare us all the childish hyperbolic bitching.
26/03/2011 at 13:01 drewski says:
I managed a 3 way in Fable 2. Never got around to proper group shenanigans; was meaning to but I forgot before I finished playing. There’s even an achievement for multi-partner encounters, and the game makes no judgments on the homo or hetero composition of your “party”.
Fun times.
26/03/2011 at 14:07 Buttless Boy says:
For all the ribbing the Fable series gets, Fable 2′s handling of homosexuality was probably the most nuanced and intelligent I’ve ever seen in a mainstream game. The quest where you reconcile (or don’t, depending on your actions) the gay kid with his father was quite moving.
It was a great example of how to get the subject right, in my opinion. It’s a shame the major reason it’s stayed in my memory is that its sensitivity is so unheard of in AAA releases.
27/03/2011 at 16:02 Deano2099 says:
Didn’t the first Dragon age let you have a 4-way with a prostitute, Leiliana and Zevran?
27/03/2011 at 16:09 bleeters says:
She wasn’t a prostitute, but yes. Only under specific circumstances, but yes.
26/03/2011 at 12:22 Iskariot says: