I was probably very generous by not banning anyone, but I'd advise that some of the people who have had their posts deleted avoid the blatant bigotry displayed here in the near future. If I remember you from this topic its likely that your accounts won't last long if I see similar behaviour again.
No, im saying it usually ends up being poor quality when done for the wrong reasons, stop jumping to the homophobe argument ("just because you dont like it").
I agree with that, but im not arguing that gays shouldnt get represented in a game (as i said, i got no problem with zev from DA), my point is that the "equality" argument is not a valid argument to include, or not include, something in a game. The foremost argument is that "we think it will be fun" or "it'll add depth" or whatever, mind you, these arguments can apply to gay romance, and are things i agree with, except based on this thread the overwhelming motivation is "equality", not "make it fun" so it'll probably be disappointing or poorly done and therefore should not be included if that is the case. (hypothetical) Also, another reason I used that asian example, is that if you were to go "why include asians" me responding with "you're just a racist" would be unreasonable, same case here, people ask "why include gay romance" or "i dont like the idea" and the overwhelming response is "what a bunch of homophobes"
So, if i ask you now "why not have more asians in BG1"?, would all the people objecting be racist? no, they could just realise it would be out of place or seem awkard if just included for the sake of "equality"
Originally expressed my opinion of "dont add it, it'll probably be crap or poorly done/out of place" Now i gotta explain "why im not automatically a homophobe 101" should just give up on this thread
The argument he put forward is "if we show equality to one minority, we must show equality to all minorities", which is strictly speaking, true (or atleast, proper equality). That's not a slippery slope, your counter argument doesnt work as what you propose as the reverse slippery slope doesnt satisfy the criteria of "appealing to minority" (ie, the reverse argument removes content for the majority). Mind you, the real flaw in his argument is that pedophillia is illegal and morally reprehensible (ie that not all minorities are justifiable. being part of a minority doesnt automatically mean its legal or right or includable in a game), not that its a slippery slope. Just sayin, what he said isnt correct, but your reasoning as to why wasn't either.
I don't even want to know what that last example means. But to address your larger point: what you're talking about is tokenism. That is, the addition of a character whose racial or sexual "Otherness" is the sole reason for his existence. And I actually agree with you that tokenism is bad, because it compresses characters into stereotypes for easy consumption.
Here's the thing, though: that's not true of Dorn or Rasaad. Just based on the information we've already seen, they have entire backstories and agendas that have nothing to do with the fact that they might be into other dudes. They're not defined by their sexuality except for people who are having kneejerk reactions to the mere possibility of a gay character in "their" games.
In other words, you are viewing these characters as tokenism as a way to justify your discomfort with the concept. That doesn't make it true.
first ill preface by saying im not using tokenism as a way to "justify discomfort", and again i'll like to reiterate that you should stop implying or lean towards "homophobia" as some universal motivating factor or point of argument. Secondly, i'll say yes, you've pretty much summed up quite when what i was trying to get at. Tokenism or something similar in concept. but further than that, it would cheapen baldurs gate to add such a shallow aspect/experience. It's how i felt about ME3 gay romance and it really did not help all the other issues the game had (lets not go into it here). I was expecting something as memorable as the zev romance, but got some really akward, almost cardboard cut out romance, not the only complaint i had about the game, but its the only one ill voice here. Anyway, makesthe game tacky, should be avoided, hence why i dont like the idea for BG either.
As long you don't errase my atomic bomb in page 2, i'm good with that ! But this word war tends only to worse, just saying.
People complain about trollers but argue for the other side is freedom of opinion, if you don't want that make a damn pool with a single option "i support gay romances" and be happy with that.
@serialies don't you think it's possible to have both; a gay or bi-sexual character is added for the sake of equality, but it is done in such a way that it adds depth to the game, and makes sense within the storyline?
Why shouldn't there be more "asians" (you mean Kara-Turans)? I mean sure, there aren't many that managed to find their way to the Sword coast but both Baldur's Gate and Athkatla are massive cosmopolitan trading cities. The idea that having more than one Kara-Turan character per game would somehow be ridiculous doesn't hold water when one looks at the actual lore of the setting. And neither does the idea that gays would be out of place. If you actually knew anything about the Forgotten Realms, you'd know this. How about instead of explaining to everyone how you don't want minorities in your games because it would be "out of place" you actually learn a bit about the "place"?
Well, seeing as you got a bunch of zhents, a barbarian with a (edit: miniture) giant space hampster, a red wizard a drow and elimister all concentrated in the same area, i think "why aren't there more asians" does not seem unreasonable. No need to get agressive at me personally, how bout you learn a bit about being "reasonable"?
Sure, zev worked pretty well. but as i said, if they do it for equality, you will probably end up with something like the ME3 romance. which can be described, at best (and generously) as "akward". Ergo, i think its a bad idea and shouldnt be done. Hey, if you want it, put it in the clean slate of BG3, because then its developed from the ground up and as a part of it, rather than a layer just tacked on. i'd be more optimistic then.
if you really want gay/lesbian romance, then mod the game. i can't stand when i game makes everyone gay/bi. it's unrealistic and some people are offended by gay/lesbian relationships.
if you really want gay/lesbian romance, then mod the game. i can't stand when i game makes everyone gay/bi. it's unrealistic and some people are offended by gay/lesbian relationships.
Cry me a river, all the romances are optional anyway. If it offends you then don't start one.
For starters Forgotten Realms is not a really good setting for something like that. How many openly gay characters have you seen in any of the infinity games? And it so happens that your pc and one of your npcs are the only two across entire Sword Coast. Some meating of fate that is.
There is gay people in FR... For Starter Elminster is bi and his scribe is gay @Bjjorick they won't make every character gay, bi, they put one bi character...
@Talvrae i always play a male and elminster never hit on me, and i don't remember seeing his scribe and when i'm talking about making all of them gay/bi, i'm refering to dragon age 2. Not everyone is gay, not everyone is bi, and the majority of people, 90% + , are straight.
@Bjjorick It don't happen in the game, but it is in the lore of the realm... And i point again that's not what they are doing here... They add one character who they have decided his bi, Viconia for all a sudden won't turn bi, Edwin won't turn gay all of a sudden
@talvrae yeah, i don't mind so long as it's just a small portion of the game, but lol, when every char is gay, i'm done with the game. It annoys me how they pander to people.
Lol, check the article where bioware was going to make tali gay in the 3rd game to appease the LGT community, and the VA said she wouldn't do it. They could replace her before she would. LGT may make a choice to be the way that they are, but i don't have to accept them wanting everyone to accept it as normal.
i'll probably get deleted over this, because if you say anything logical about LGT, you're a hater and intolerant and whatever blah blah blah they're on for the week. I tolerate it just fine, but i don't accept it. There is a difference.
first ill preface by saying im not using tokenism as a way to "justify discomfort", and again i'll like to reiterate that you should stop implying or lean towards "homophobia" as some universal motivating factor or point of argument.
If you don't want to be accused of homophobia, stop making homophobic comments.
To wit: you have no evidence that the gay romance in BG:EE is "awkward", "cardboard cut-out" or "shallow", and yet you're convinced that it's going to cheapen the game anyway. You're asking to avoid content you haven't seen based on non-existent merits that somehow only apply to gay characters/romances (since you don't seem to mind the possibility that Neera's romance could be contrived or awkward - another psychologically damaged elf spellcaster for the male PC). Based on that, the conclusion I'd come to is that your objections have less to do with the game and more to do with your own preconceptions.
As an aside: Steve Cortez is your example? His dialogues are exactly the same whether your Shepard is a straight male, a straight female or a gay male; the difference comes down to one line of dialogue in Purgatory that triggers the romance in a very clear way (by saying "I'm eye candy too" when Steve is checking out the dancers). If you're a male player and you don't pick that option, Shepard and Cortez remain friends (because yes, gay men and straight men can be friends without weirdness) and the game rewards your completion of his storyline by having him survive the shuttle crash. He never hits on you, and he certainly doesn't interfere with other romance options. How exactly does that fall short in comparison to other romances in the ME series?
I tolerate it just fine, but i don't accept it. There is a difference.
Uh... not really. I mean, if you don't accept something, it's because you don't tolerate it. Cause and effect, etc. Which... you're entitled to your mindset, no one's going to change that for you, but here's what I'm wondering: the only way you'd know if certain characters were gay in an RPG like Dragon Age 2 would be if you were romancing them with male characters. I'm assuming you're not doing that, so what's the problem?
Liara in ME is bi, and there are many other examples in mainstream gaming.
And how is putting gay characters in a game considered "to appease the LGT community" and straight characters and their romances aren't there to appease the straight community?
@shawne since people seem to have trouble understanding the difference, here is the definition of both the words 'TOLERATE' and 'ACCEPT'
Tolerate: Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. Endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
Accept: Consent to receive (a thing offered). Agree to undertake (an offered position or responsibility).
just in case, will break it down further with the root words.
Tolerate: endure/allow. I tolerate it like i tolerate a child screaming that gets on my nerves. It exists, and i don't stop it from existing, thus, I TOLERATE IT.
Accept: Consent/agree. I agree to do my job for the money i am paid. I feel that something is wrong with LGT, so I DO NOT ACCEPT IT.
So, tell me how it's possible, in your words, that i can't tolerate something unless i accept it? I would love to hear this one.
@bjjorick Protip: to say something logical your conclusion must follow your premise. Your post is a collection of semi random thought bubbles.
Saying something logical would (generally) follow this framework: Statement. Supporting Evidence. Statement. Supporting Evidence. Because of Statement and Statement: Conclusion.
Your prior post follows this (the one above the now prior one):
Unjustified Generalisation. Personal Belief.
Random Mass Effect Fact. Personal Belief (Unrelated to Mass Effect Fact).
Unjustified Generalisation. Personal Belief.
Your prior posts have similarly offered no logical arguments merely stated your personal feelings about gay people. Also that Elminster never hit on you. So you probably wont be banned for logical statements. You probably wont be banned unless you actually start calling people names and such.
You know, I really don't think that the BG:EE devs are going to risk their treasured project over a controversial issue. Anything "gay" or "bi" going on with one of their new characters is almost surely going to be extremely understated, and will only trigger if the player is actively trying to find it.
I don't like to see us fighting over a hot-button political issue like this one, when we need to be united in our support for BG:EE.
@Bjjorick: As you have shown neither forbearance nor a lack of desire to interfere, you may wish to pause and reevaluate your position. Regardless, I don't engage in conversations with admitted bigots, so my interaction with you will have to stop here.
Before you even start now with Liara is not female and EDI is not female. Right they're are not female humans.
Yet if you insist on the fact that a femShep + Liara is no lesbian romance, because Liara cannot be considered female.
Then think of this: The Asari had a human male body. They would look like they look now with the exception that their body would resemble the human male body.
And now a male shepard would romance such an asari? Would you really say that is not gay?
Furthermore, those of you who dont like gay content in these games. If Edi was trapped inside a robot-shell that would resemble a human male, not a female. And Joker would fall in love with EDI who was inside that male shell.
You would say that is NOT gay? Really? I honestly doubt that.
first, i never mentioned liara. but since you bring up the subject, they don't reproduce sexually. They harvest a portion of the dna through touching the host, and impregnate themselves. Sex requires touching, but touching isn't sex. So that isn't an issue.
second, edi is not human. I kinda think since everything was burned off the body that edi takes over, and it's about as anatomically correct as a barbie doll, i don't think that's a factor. No genitalia, no gender.
@belgarathmth: Unfortunately, that goes to the very heart of the problem - it's not a political issue. Or at least, it shouldn't be. It has been politicized, and that's unfortunate because that association has tainted the entire discourse... but the discourse itself still holds value. And if the presence of a gay character prevents someone from supporting BG:EE, I humbly suggest that they might not be the type of person BG:EE should be associated with.
@Gilad: Consider that a life lesson - blind hatred and intolerance tend to be less popular/accepted than mutual respect and understanding. If all you have to offer is the former, don't be surprised when you don't get the latter.
@Bjjorick: As you have shown neither forbearance nor a lack of desire to interfere, you may wish to pause and reevaluate your position. Regardless, I don't engage in conversations with admitted bigots, so my interaction with you will have to stop here.
Gotta ask, why are people who are against it bigots, but those who are for it not considered bigots?
bigoted: Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
no scientific evidence has been presented that you're 'born' gay, and there is much evidence to the contrary. Many gay/bi scientists/etc have come out saying that you're not born that way, it's a choice. But people go out and demand others accept something that isn't proven, has no evidence for it and alot against it. So why am i the bigot?
People disagree. It's a part of life. but when you resort to calling me a bigot, you make yourself to be a bigot. and around and around she goes. I believe one thing, you believe another. If a gay gene is found, i'll agree with you, and i'll accept it. But no such gene exists. In fact, there is a study that i can show you that proves where it comes from, and it's not by birth, but it might be a bit too graphic for the boards.
no scientific evidence has been presented that you're 'born' gay, and there is much evidence to the contrary.
Again, you are misinformed. Wikipedia: "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors." [references in the article]
You can accept or not people who are born one way or the other though, that is your choice in life of course.
@Bjjorick Oh great i will tell that she have choose to be rejected, and rediculed by everyone at school. Seriously would like to see thouse scientific evidence you mentions... You will tell me that the evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom are choices too?
Comments
I was probably very generous by not banning anyone, but I'd advise that some of the people who have had their posts deleted avoid the blatant bigotry displayed here in the near future. If I remember you from this topic its likely that your accounts won't last long if I see similar behaviour again.
No, im saying it usually ends up being poor quality when done for the wrong reasons, stop jumping to the homophobe argument ("just because you dont like it").
@Tanthalas
I agree with that, but im not arguing that gays shouldnt get represented in a game (as i said, i got no problem with zev from DA), my point is that the "equality" argument is not a valid argument to include, or not include, something in a game. The foremost argument is that "we think it will be fun" or "it'll add depth" or whatever, mind you, these arguments can apply to gay romance, and are things i agree with, except based on this thread the overwhelming motivation is "equality", not "make it fun" so it'll probably be disappointing or poorly done and therefore should not be included if that is the case. (hypothetical)
Also, another reason I used that asian example, is that if you were to go "why include asians" me responding with "you're just a racist" would be unreasonable, same case here, people ask "why include gay romance" or "i dont like the idea" and the overwhelming response is "what a bunch of homophobes"
So, if i ask you now "why not have more asians in BG1"?, would all the people objecting be racist? no, they could just realise it would be out of place or seem awkard if just included for the sake of "equality"
Originally expressed my opinion of "dont add it, it'll probably be crap or poorly done/out of place"
Now i gotta explain "why im not automatically a homophobe 101"
should just give up on this thread
@WonKo
The argument he put forward is "if we show equality to one minority, we must show equality to all minorities", which is strictly speaking, true (or atleast, proper equality).
That's not a slippery slope, your counter argument doesnt work as what you propose as the reverse slippery slope doesnt satisfy the criteria of "appealing to minority" (ie, the reverse argument removes content for the majority).
Mind you, the real flaw in his argument is that pedophillia is illegal and morally reprehensible (ie that not all minorities are justifiable. being part of a minority doesnt automatically mean its legal or right or includable in a game), not that its a slippery slope.
Just sayin, what he said isnt correct, but your reasoning as to why wasn't either.
EDIT: first ill preface by saying im not using tokenism as a way to "justify discomfort", and again i'll like to reiterate that you should stop implying or lean towards "homophobia" as some universal motivating factor or point of argument.
Secondly, i'll say yes, you've pretty much summed up quite when what i was trying to get at. Tokenism or something similar in concept. but further than that, it would cheapen baldurs gate to add such a shallow aspect/experience.
It's how i felt about ME3 gay romance and it really did not help all the other issues the game had (lets not go into it here). I was expecting something as memorable as the zev romance, but got some really akward, almost cardboard cut out romance, not the only complaint i had about the game, but its the only one ill voice here. Anyway, makesthe game tacky, should be avoided, hence why i dont like the idea for BG either.
People complain about trollers but argue for the other side is freedom of opinion, if you don't want that make a damn pool with a single option "i support gay romances" and be happy with that.
Well, seeing as you got a bunch of zhents, a barbarian with a (edit: miniture) giant space hampster, a red wizard a drow and elimister all concentrated in the same area, i think "why aren't there more asians" does not seem unreasonable. No need to get agressive at me personally, how bout you learn a bit about being "reasonable"?
@MachineofLight
Sure, zev worked pretty well.
but as i said, if they do it for equality, you will probably end up with something like the ME3 romance.
which can be described, at best (and generously) as "akward".
Ergo, i think its a bad idea and shouldnt be done.
Hey, if you want it, put it in the clean slate of BG3, because then its developed from the ground up and as a part of it, rather than a layer just tacked on. i'd be more optimistic then.
@WonKo
point taken.
@Bjjorick they won't make every character gay, bi, they put one bi character...
i always play a male and elminster never hit on me, and i don't remember seeing his scribe
and when i'm talking about making all of them gay/bi, i'm refering to dragon age 2. Not everyone is gay, not everyone is bi, and the majority of people, 90% + , are straight.
yeah, i don't mind so long as it's just a small portion of the game, but lol, when every char is gay, i'm done with the game. It annoys me how they pander to people.
Lol, check the article where bioware was going to make tali gay in the 3rd game to appease the LGT community, and the VA said she wouldn't do it. They could replace her before she would. LGT may make a choice to be the way that they are, but i don't have to accept them wanting everyone to accept it as normal.
i'll probably get deleted over this, because if you say anything logical about LGT, you're a hater and intolerant and whatever blah blah blah they're on for the week. I tolerate it just fine, but i don't accept it. There is a difference.
To wit: you have no evidence that the gay romance in BG:EE is "awkward", "cardboard cut-out" or "shallow", and yet you're convinced that it's going to cheapen the game anyway. You're asking to avoid content you haven't seen based on non-existent merits that somehow only apply to gay characters/romances (since you don't seem to mind the possibility that Neera's romance could be contrived or awkward - another psychologically damaged elf spellcaster for the male PC). Based on that, the conclusion I'd come to is that your objections have less to do with the game and more to do with your own preconceptions.
As an aside: Steve Cortez is your example? His dialogues are exactly the same whether your Shepard is a straight male, a straight female or a gay male; the difference comes down to one line of dialogue in Purgatory that triggers the romance in a very clear way (by saying "I'm eye candy too" when Steve is checking out the dancers). If you're a male player and you don't pick that option, Shepard and Cortez remain friends (because yes, gay men and straight men can be friends without weirdness) and the game rewards your completion of his storyline by having him survive the shuttle crash. He never hits on you, and he certainly doesn't interfere with other romance options. How exactly does that fall short in comparison to other romances in the ME series?
And how is putting gay characters in a game considered "to appease the LGT community" and straight characters and their romances aren't there to appease the straight community?
since people seem to have trouble understanding the difference, here is the definition of both the words 'TOLERATE' and 'ACCEPT'
Tolerate: Allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.
Endure (someone or something unpleasant or disliked) with forbearance.
Accept: Consent to receive (a thing offered).
Agree to undertake (an offered position or responsibility).
just in case, will break it down further with the root words.
Tolerate: endure/allow. I tolerate it like i tolerate a child screaming that gets on my nerves. It exists, and i don't stop it from existing, thus, I TOLERATE IT.
Accept: Consent/agree. I agree to do my job for the money i am paid. I feel that something is wrong with LGT, so I DO NOT ACCEPT IT.
So, tell me how it's possible, in your words, that i can't tolerate something unless i accept it? I would love to hear this one.
man, education in the states is getting horrible.
Saying something logical would (generally) follow this framework:
Statement. Supporting Evidence. Statement. Supporting Evidence. Because of Statement and Statement: Conclusion.
Your prior post follows this (the one above the now prior one):
Unjustified Generalisation. Personal Belief.
Random Mass Effect Fact. Personal Belief (Unrelated to Mass Effect Fact).
Unjustified Generalisation. Personal Belief.
Your prior posts have similarly offered no logical arguments merely stated your personal feelings about gay people. Also that Elminster never hit on you. So you probably wont be banned for logical statements. You probably wont be banned unless you actually start calling people names and such.
I don't like to see us fighting over a hot-button political issue like this one, when we need to be united in our support for BG:EE.
"Please, people, can't we all just get along?"
second, edi is not human. I kinda think since everything was burned off the body that edi takes over, and it's about as anatomically correct as a barbie doll, i don't think that's a factor. No genitalia, no gender.
Here is the link:
Yup, nothing sexual about it
bigoted: Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
no scientific evidence has been presented that you're 'born' gay, and there is much evidence to the contrary. Many gay/bi scientists/etc have come out saying that you're not born that way, it's a choice. But people go out and demand others accept something that isn't proven, has no evidence for it and alot against it. So why am i the bigot?
People disagree. It's a part of life. but when you resort to calling me a bigot, you make yourself to be a bigot. and around and around she goes. I believe one thing, you believe another. If a gay gene is found, i'll agree with you, and i'll accept it. But no such gene exists. In fact, there is a study that i can show you that proves where it comes from, and it's not by birth, but it might be a bit too graphic for the boards.
Bigot:
1. A religious hypocrite; (also) a superstitious adherent of religion. Obs.
2.
a. A person considered to adhere unreasonably or obstinately to a particular religious belief, practice, etc.
b. In extended use: a fanatical adherent or believer; a person characterized by obstinate, intolerant, or strongly partisan beliefs.
Wikipedia: "Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors." [references in the article]
You can accept or not people who are born one way or the other though, that is your choice in life of course.
Oh great i will tell that she have choose to be rejected, and rediculed by everyone at school.
Seriously would like to see thouse scientific evidence you mentions... You will tell me that the evidence of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom are choices too?