The point that you are missing is: This is about not judging before knowing something for sure. That was my point all along.
You didn't even want to wait for a developers' reaction nor did Ami.
ami's response was based on information that has been released to the public. We can't read the developers' minds, and they haven't made any concrete statements about the issue - yet you're blaming her for not guessing their intentions? What exactly was she supposed to be "waiting" for? The game, as marketed, has a male romance option for male characters and no female option for female characters. That's what we know to be true now, and that's the information ami was commenting upon. Anything more than that is speculation because - once more with feeling - the developers haven't made any definitive comments about this.
You defended Ami's behaviour because of a long list of games and TV shows that neglect homosexual people.
While this does explain her feelings this is in no way a justification for accusing the developers of this game of discrimination.
They are not to blame for heteronormative video game and movie industry.
I honestly don't know why I have to keep repeating myself - are you reading my posts at all or just hitting the reply button automatically? Because as I've already said, Beamdog isn't responsible for what other people do in the game and film industries, but the sort of oversight ami referred to contributes to the trend, whether it's intentional or not. That's not discrimination, it's omission. And yes, Virginia, there is a difference.
Yes, there is a lot of discrimination out there, not only restricted to homosexuality. To me you seem to have suffered so much of it, that you see it everywhere even when it is not there.
Lucky for me that you're here, then, since you apparently see with perfect clarity where discrimination does and does not exist. Well done.
1) You take @kamuizin's post out of context to make him appear like a homophobe.
Kamuizin and I have a history - I suggest you read some of his older comments to get a clearer idea of who he is and what ideas he's espoused. You might not be so quick to jump to his defense then. On the other hand, you do seem much more willing to let certain things slide, but that's your business: I don't presume to tell you what you should or should not support.
2) When I speak of disagreeing with the way Ami's expresses herself. You turn my message upside down and speak of me blaming Ami for her feelings. I would never do so.
ami's comment was emotional to its core. Your reaction was to scold her for the way she brought it up, as if she didn't have a right to the feelings she was expressing. She didn't use profanity, she didn't break any forum rules, she didn't even make demands of Beamdog - and yet, rather than address what she was saying, you invalidated her opinion because of how she said it.
3) And a few pages back I remember there were people who felt attacked by you and trinit and they didn't even know why.
If you actually read those pages, you'll see that neither trinit nor myself named anyone in our posts - certain people took it upon themselves to be offended as though we were speaking about them specifically. I even repeated that I wasn't referring to anyone specific and those same people still took offense. Which, I suppose, indicates that they felt the shoe fit anyway.
4) And when there is no confirmation on a lesbian romance you can only see one reason: discrimination! You do not even want to wait until a developer responds.
You know, putting words in my mouth isn't the smartest thing to do on a forum. People can just read up and see exactly what I said. And that's exactly why, if we are going to continue this conversation, we're going to do so right here in the open where anyone can see. But I don't think there'd be any point in that - you're committed to either intentionally misrepresenting what I'm saying (which, again, it's written in black and white just a few posts up so I don't know who you think you're fooling) or you just don't understand me. Either way, why bother?
Are people still arguing over this? This really is a non-issue. No one should go into a game with a predisposed outlook on what they expect from the characters (Straight, gay, bisexual, and everything in between and beyond.) If the story and characters are well written then I want to play them regardless. Let the characters be what they are and enjoy them for that. Nothing more, nothing less. They are not there to emulate the player. They are just there to be enjoyed.
Someone mentioned homosexuals adopting children earlier in this thread and that got me thinking. Was it ever confirmed anywhere in the story that Gorion had a spouse? I mean, I know in his letter in BG1 he says he was in love with the PC's mother, but that seems like it was probably a lie since in ToB his spirit says that the PC's mother was really this crazy woman he killed to prevent her from sacrificing her infant child.
My point is, maybe Gorion could be gay or bisexual and there could be an NPC somewhere in the game that would be the PC's other adopted parent. They wouldn't be in a romance with the PC for obvious reasons, but they could still have dialogue indicating that they were homosexual and they could possibly end up in romance with some other NPC. This could create a possible love triangle with the other NPC and the PC just like can happen in BG2 between Haer'Dalis, Aerie, and the PC in the existing game. Gorion's husband/boyfriend could also react to Gorion's spirit in ToB and that shade in the Forest of Mir that pretends to be him.
@Det: In principle, I agree. Characterization is a crucial part of any story, and there should indeed be much more to any given character than sexuality.
The reason this is such a hot topic now, IMO, is because for a long time the video game industry tended to err on the more conservative side when it came to representing minorities of any kind. We're only now starting to see a growing movement that's conscious of the need for diversity, and is pushing for fairer treatment of women, of African-Americans, of homosexuals, etc. For people who are literally living the struggle to be heard and seen and included, the question of whether a video game character is gay may perhaps be more important than it would be for someone else.
Someone mentioned homosexuals adopting children earlier in this thread and that got me thinking. Was it ever confirmed anywhere in the story that Gorion had a spouse? I mean, I know in his letter in BG1 he says he was in love with the PC's mother, but that seems like it was probably a lie since in ToB his spirit says that the PC's mother was really this crazy woman he killed to prevent her from sacrificing her infant child.
Eh, to be honest, I never thought there was a contradiction there - he could have been in love with her despite the fact that she was evil and intended to kill her own child. The heart wants what it wants, etc.
@Shandyr, you say it like it's the bad thing. people that actively seek to be offended are welcome to be my guest. i also have no intention whatsoever to accept somebody's (IMO) misguided and/or arbitrary interpretations of sexuality, society etc., just for the sake of harmony. besides, i find arguments in such situations more constructive and productive than (a bit opressive) pacifism.
my opinions are more or less compatible with shawne, so i will not add more than "agree" and "like", but let it be known that i do appreciate your strong tendency to some kind of equal treatment and compassion, even if i (mostly) don't share it.
@Det: Finally someone who can look at the characters themselves instead of reducing them to their sexuality. Thanks.
*sigh*
Okay. I'm going to try this one more time, from the top, in bullet points:
* This is not about reduction.
* This is not about sexuality being the most important thing for a character, ever, always, in all things.
* This is not about whether gays are natural, whether gays should have kids, whether gays should be in video games, or whether romance should be in video games.
* This is about people who are not you being able to play the game the way you do.
* This is about a dominant trend in mainstream entertainment that Beamdog did not create, but to which it may be inadvertently contributing, in which certain minorities are either stereotyped, pushed aside or ignored altogether. If you're straight, or comfortable role-playing straight characters, congratulations: BG is and has always been for you. Yay.
* If you are not straight, or comfortable role-playing straight characters, congratulations: Beamdog has taken a step towards undoing that trend, and BG:EE has a bisexual character as a romance option. Yay. This does not mean that all gay players will automatically play the gay romance just because it's gay, but you know what? At least they have the option now.
* However, this bisexual character - the only one out of twenty-eight possible party members - is male. Excellent news for gay players who, not too long ago, would have to RP female characters to play out that kind of romantic storyline.
* But lesbian players such as ami, whose posts kicked off this new round of discussions, are somewhat less enthusiastic, claiming - rightly so - that BG has had a problematic relationship with female players and female characters from the very beginning, and that the absence of a female counterpart to the male bisexual feels like more of the same.
* I'll say it again: Beamdog is not responsible for the trend I mentioned earlier. But this omission - and I do believe it is an omission and not deliberate discrimination - is still problematic for players who are being made to feel, yet again, that they have no place in video games, or in stories of any kind.
* This is clearly something many of the participants in this conversation don't seem to understand, so I'll put it plainly: when you are made to feel invisible and inferior because of what you are (rather than anything you've done), every. representation. matters. Every time a game developer creates a same-sex romance in a game, it matters. Every time a comic book writer decides not to kill off the only gay character in his series, it matters.
* You don't see the importance of this issue because it doesn't affect you. It has nothing to do with you. You are in a position of entitlement and privilege, because you're not lacking in characters that can give you affirmation, that can serve as positive expressions of who you are.
* And that's fine, because you're not being asked to do anything. That bisexual character wasn't put in the game for you, and you don't have to play that storyline if you don't want to.
* But if the issue doesn't matter to you, show some basic decency and empathy, and refrain from complaining when other people - to whom the issue is important - get involved.
* However, this bisexual character - the only one out of twenty-eight possible party members - is male. Excellent news for gay players who, not too long ago, would have to RP female characters to play out that kind of romantic storyline.
Okay, here is my biggest problem with your reasoning.
It's *not* 1 out of 28 characters. It's 1 out of 3 characters. For the most part, the twenty five remaining characters could very well be gay or bisexual (It's unlikely that Eldoth, Skie, Viconia, Jaheira, or Khalid are homosexual, but bisexual is a possibility). Regardless of the sexuality of the other 25, Beamdog has very limited control over what they can change or add to original characters, so they cannot be blamed whatsoever for contributing to any perceived heteronormativity in media due to the actions of those characters in the original Baldur's Gate.
So with that out of the way, we have a grand sample size of three. In fact, if we say 10% of romances are non-heteronormative (this is obviously debatable, but this is typically the most repeated statistic), then Beamdog has actually heavily scewed the available characters toward nonheteronormative relationships.
There isn't any possible way to take three characters, and represent every single type of sexuality/gender identity possible.
Beamdog isn't contributing to any pro-heteronormativity from the data we have (which is 3 people), whether intentional or not. They have even hinted at including a lesbian or bisexual woman in future content. Getting upset at them over the single female character we know of not being a lesbian/bisexual (about a 10% chance) is just utterly ridiculous in my opinion.
@Mechalibur, be careful, there's no words in your post that say:
"i love gay stuff", "i support gay stuff", "The devs are bad for only give one bi character OR no woman bi character" "gay people are always 2º classed ciztens" or any other radical phrase.
Therefore the homossexual revolutions fighters here would probally aknowledge you as an enemy, specially because your post is a lot coherent and just show how childish are their complains (when only 3 characters can have romanceable content at all in BG EE, for copyright reasons).
Ps: just to aknowledge, after @Ami 's complain, i was the first to enforce and support an lesbian romance (for selfish interests in fact), also i was one of the the firsts to raise the better apply of an Dorn bissexual NPC instead of an Rasaad bissexual NPC (so i evaluated which one would fit better that role). Yes, in June, when i had only one month of forum, i was totally against gay romances in BG for a serious of coherence content arguments and almost all of them where reevaluated with time (@Lady Rhian is here to keep me from lying if anyone care or need a witness for this), i also made fun of some extremist sexists and some religious zealots that come with the bullshit of homossexualism being a sin.
So, with all this pointed, we conclude that i must be an disgusting sexist homo hater, no?
@kamuizin, be careful--you're edging from debate to trolling. @Mechalibur made some excellent points, which were rather undercut by your antagonism.
I will grant you that things have gotten a lot out of hand (as they've done rather frequently in this thread), between people who actually agree with one another misreading each others' posts, and people who disagree with each other intentionally pulling the wool over their own eyes. But we should try not to actively contribute to it, eh?
It isn't antagonism it's reaction, as it's somehow evident from any other thread or even by the begin of this one that i don't have the costume of start posts that way. Sometimes i don't lose the joke, but my "re"action now is surelly motivated.
Besides, it's sad when an possible troll interpreted comment mirror reality.
I will take it easy... for now, the discussion where going pretty well 1 or 2 pages ago before this page 34.
Okay, here is my biggest problem with your reasoning.
It's *not* 1 out of 28 characters. It's 1 out of 3 characters. For the most part, the twenty five remaining characters could very well be gay or bisexual (It's unlikely that Eldoth, Skie, Viconia, Jaheira, or Khalid are homosexual, but bisexual is a possibility).
Not within the context of the games themselves - there isn't a single indicator that the cast of BG is anything but universally heterosexual. (Which, as I've said, is simply the way things were done at the time, so I can't fault BioWare for toeing the line, especially when they've come so far since.) If you want to RP a same-sex romance in BG:EE, only one of the twenty-eight possible party members can accommodate you.
Regardless of the sexuality of the other 25, Beamdog has very limited control over what they can change or add to original characters, so they cannot be blamed whatsoever for contributing to any perceived heteronormativity in media due to the actions of those characters in the original Baldur's Gate.
Agreed. And to be clear here: I don't hold Beamdog accountable in any way for standard practices in the '90s, nor would I expect them to rewrite established characters in order to increase diversity.
There isn't any possible way to take three characters, and represent every single type of sexuality/gender identity possible.
On the contrary: it would have been very easy to avoid this problem by making Neera available to female players as well. Then you'd have a straight male character, a bisexual male character and a bisexual female character (with the latter two functioning as straight romance options if your PC is opposite-sex).
Beamdog isn't contributing to any pro-heteronormativity from the data we have (which is 3 people), whether intentional or not. They have even hinted at including a lesbian or bisexual woman in future content. Getting upset at them over the single female character we know of not being a lesbian/bisexual (about a 10% chance) is just utterly ridiculous in my opinion.
Except that as I've said so many times already, this is not about one female character. This is about a trend, and how unintentional oversights can contribute to that trend, and how hints about what the future may hold are less compelling when you have concrete information staring you in the face. If a lesbian or bisexual female NPC pops up in future content, more power to Beamdog, problem solved. But at the moment, this is where we are and this is what we know for certain.
yes, we appear to be opposite, but that's why you cannot claim you are "grey". you are "extremist" in the same way i am; you go to extreme lengths to offer understanding and helping hand, which can be counterproductive exactly the same way you describe my "methods" are. and i do not consider my posts black/white, but more darker or lighter shade of grey, for that matter. -.- also, please refrain from presumptions such as "hate, accusations, and insults" when referring to my comments. you cannot know my state of mind and experience, and i didn't made a hate speech, i just took a firm stance on the matter.
besides, kamuizin&co seem to have support in you and that's ok. but i have no interest in gentle persuasion when someone presents us with thoughts that are nonsense in my opinion, and that is my right. or if someone starts to subvert the discourse and behave like they are wronged and oppressed, not the minority discussed. laughable.
besides, am i only spewing hate and instigating wars? do i consider all people rotten and undeserving? have i suggested all perceived bigots should be torched to death? no. but i wont jump to accept YOUR interpretations of what and where the grey, black and white are. we agreed to disagree on this matter a few pages back. let's leave it at that.
@shawne: And yet even after @Dave's post you keep on going on and on about Ami and how 'wronged' she is just because there isn't a lesbian character RIGHT NOW. Would you have had the same reaction if a heterosexual female character was delayed? I think not, as you would have been satisfied. The point is that neither you, nor Ami even gave the devs time to respond, to give feedback concerning this issue. You just see something's lacking and turn a mosquito into an elephant. Was this outcry really necessary? Is it really necessary to put fire under the heels of the dev team? Also, please consider that people might not always agree with you, as you seem to keep on going turning and twisting until the other discussion partner gets fed up, as happened with @kamuizin and @Shandyr, unfortunately. Sometimes it's better to agree to disagree.
* This is about a dominant trend in mainstream entertainment that Beamdog did not create, but to which it may be inadvertently contributing, in which certain minorities are either stereotyped, pushed aside or ignored altogether. If you're straight, or comfortable role-playing straight characters, congratulations: BG is and has always been for you. Yay.
I think its simply ridiculous to expect every single minority to be represented in every single game.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud: If you want to continue this discussion, please be accurate. Neither I nor ami have asked anything of Beamdog. She pointed out that she felt something was missing in BG:EE, something that affected her personally. She was then castigated for not "waiting" until the developers responded (to what? She was the one who brought the issue up) and for expressing her feelings so directly.
I disagreed with that criticism, and defended her position by pointing out that whatever plans the devs may or may not have in the near or far future, BG:EE will be shipping with a certain number of features that will not include what ami was hoping for.
The discussion then spiraled into meaningless rhetoric and condescending personal attacks courtesy of Shandyr, and kamuizin's usual trolling (because when you say things like "I'd prefer Dorn being the gay romance as i feel him more inclined to force his will over others", you forfeit the right to be taken seriously in an intelligent conversation).
But to echo trinit's statement: I have very little patience for nonsense born of privilege and entitlement. It's one thing to have a civilized discussion, it's another to mitigate ignorant and inaccurate statements just so people can get along. I have not used profanity, I have not made demands, and I have repeatedly praised Beamdog for the good work they've already done. If after all that, the most you can do is dig your heels in and accuse me of flaming, then walk away from this discussion because neither of us will contribute to the other.
I think its simply ridiculous to expect every single minority to be represented in every single game.
To repeat a point I've already made in this thread, "every single minority" in "every single game" is not something that's even remotely proportionate to what's been discussed on this thread. And in a game that has black characters (Dynaheir, Valygar), Native American analogues (Cernd), Asians (Yoshimo, Tamoko) and gay men (Dorn or Rasaad), why does the prospect of adding one more minority character draw the kind of reaction you're having? Where's the logic in that?
Oh, so if you're not advocating for every single minority to be represented, then what exactly are you advocating for? That only some "privileged" minorities should be represented?
I think its ridiculous that although Dave has already confirmed that a lesbian character will be introduced later on in BGEE or BG2EE, that you still continue to rant on this, more so when you're using BG2 characters to try and argument that the lesbian minority is being treated unfairly because other minorities get a character.
Minorities getting representation in a game is all well for me, but I don't think that developers are obligated to go down a "minority checklist" to be sure that everyone gets representation.
@Tanthalas: With all due respect, you're derailing the discussion. This dialogue has not been about "all minorities in all games that will ever exist", it's about gay and lesbian characters in BG:EE. Simple and specific. Whether I'm using BG1 or BG2 characters seems, to me, beside the point.
Let's keep the facts straight - Dave Gross didn't confirm anything. His exact words were "certain gay, lesbian, or other non-straight characters might appear later (or, in some cases, possibly earlier) than I'd expected when I dropped that tease a while back." And, as an afterword, "Don't expect that to be very soon."
Might, possibly, maybe someday. I accept that statement, but I don't think I'm out of line to say that it's ambiguous at best. There is no guarantee, no certainty, though I understand Dave's reluctance to make any "official" statement at this point. That's fair.
But this discussion (and it is a discussion, not a rant, thank you) has never been about "forcing" developers to incorporate every single minority group, or even a specific number of minority characters, in any given game. There are no gay characters in Bastion, and that's fine. There are no gay characters in Final Fantasy VI, it's still a brilliant game. There is no "obligation", nor should there be.
However, when a developer makes a gesture of inclusion, and states that this gesture is meant to provide exactly the diversity that underrepresented minority groups could never take for granted, I think it's somewhat unfair to summarily dismiss the concerns of a member of that minority. That's what started this whole flare-up in the first place, and that - in my opinion - is what needs to be looked at.
You using BG2 characters is not besides the point. You can't defend that the inclusion of native americans and oriental characters in BG2 (without BG2 there really isn't much to support Tamoko is an oriental character in BG1, she doesn't even get a portrait) is somehow "unfair" to the lesbian community when Dave has already mentioned that there are plans for a lesbian character in the future.
Its ok for a player to be disappointed by there not being a lesbian character in BGEE, but that's not what's happening here. What we have here is someone accusing the developers of discrimination because a lesbian character was not included, that's what I cannot accept. More so when they're not actually advocating for minorities to be represented, what they're advocating is for their personal minority to be represented.
besides, kamuizin&co seem to have support in you and that's ok. but i have no interest in gentle persuasion when someone presents us with thoughts that are nonsense in my opinion, and that is my right. or if someone starts to subvert the discourse and behave like they are wronged and oppressed, not the minority discussed. laughable.
I didn't had a huge problem with @Trinit until now, some sociable misunderstands at all but i know he solely disagree with me by his own way to show that (agrees on every post that counter something i say) and i'm ok with that, a very polite way to disagree.
But:
1° - Isn't a question of persuasion, i'm not here to see the truth or learn the right way, i'm here to work the idea. I reached some concepts about homossexuality that have been worked through all these threads and discussions (natural/unnatural and economic interest in develop games x social quotas), it's what i think and i have my reasons to think that.
2° - A minority can opress also, just to you know, specially if it's not that much minority in an specific event (in this thread, probally most of the active people actually posting here is bi or homo), if a group of people twist my comments and when i complain i'm subverting the discussion, a huge problem in lack of self-criticism is detected. the last word "Laughable" just show how closed to outside ideas the radical base of this thread is.
Now relative to his comments, not to me but about this issue in general and also to other people that take a radical position:
Among all minorities, homossexual and bissexual minority unlike most of the other has "time" at their side on our actual timeline, if you want to go radical, well ok, but if you fight me because i'm no radical, i have no option than fight back, just be ready cos in fights people win and lose, and a lose here can have a side effect of harm what was already achieved. I didn't choose this fight but i'm not used to be passively attacked.
The only stupidy i see about this radical pro-active homossexual fight, is that was elected as enemies not only people whom hostile homossexual community or options, but even neutral people that has reservations in some matters or even the ones that support the homossexualism content but not in the way it's being sought in this thread.
@Tanthalas: I'm not drawing that connection, though - you are. The topic of racial minorities didn't come up until you stated that allowing every minority to be represented in every game was impossible (as if once you open the door to one, you must immediately open the door to all). And while there's a conversation to be had on that topic, I don't think it can or should be folded into this one.
We also need to recognize that there are some very different interpretations of intent at work here: you've clearly taken Dave's comment as a statement of fact (ie: there will be a lesbian character in the future) whereas I read it as sincere but noncommittal (ie: there might be a lesbian character in the future).
Beamdog has not been accused of discrimination - what I said was that they may have committed an inadvertent oversight, and that omission can be problematic whether it's intentional or not.
And finally, your theory regarding motivations for advocacy is blatantly untrue: I am not a lesbian, and my position is not one of self-interest.
Comments
My point is, maybe Gorion could be gay or bisexual and there could be an NPC somewhere in the game that would be the PC's other adopted parent. They wouldn't be in a romance with the PC for obvious reasons, but they could still have dialogue indicating that they were homosexual and they could possibly end up in romance with some other NPC. This could create a possible love triangle with the other NPC and the PC just like can happen in BG2 between Haer'Dalis, Aerie, and the PC in the existing game. Gorion's husband/boyfriend could also react to Gorion's spirit in ToB and that shade in the Forest of Mir that pretends to be him.
The reason this is such a hot topic now, IMO, is because for a long time the video game industry tended to err on the more conservative side when it came to representing minorities of any kind. We're only now starting to see a growing movement that's conscious of the need for diversity, and is pushing for fairer treatment of women, of African-Americans, of homosexuals, etc. For people who are literally living the struggle to be heard and seen and included, the question of whether a video game character is gay may perhaps be more important than it would be for someone else.
besides, i find arguments in such situations more constructive and productive than (a bit opressive) pacifism.
my opinions are more or less compatible with shawne, so i will not add more than "agree" and "like",
but let it be known that i do appreciate your strong tendency to some kind of equal treatment and compassion, even if i (mostly) don't share it.
Okay. I'm going to try this one more time, from the top, in bullet points:
* This is not about reduction.
* This is not about sexuality being the most important thing for a character, ever, always, in all things.
* This is not about whether gays are natural, whether gays should have kids, whether gays should be in video games, or whether romance should be in video games.
* This is about people who are not you being able to play the game the way you do.
* This is about a dominant trend in mainstream entertainment that Beamdog did not create, but to which it may be inadvertently contributing, in which certain minorities are either stereotyped, pushed aside or ignored altogether. If you're straight, or comfortable role-playing straight characters, congratulations: BG is and has always been for you. Yay.
* If you are not straight, or comfortable role-playing straight characters, congratulations: Beamdog has taken a step towards undoing that trend, and BG:EE has a bisexual character as a romance option. Yay. This does not mean that all gay players will automatically play the gay romance just because it's gay, but you know what? At least they have the option now.
* However, this bisexual character - the only one out of twenty-eight possible party members - is male. Excellent news for gay players who, not too long ago, would have to RP female characters to play out that kind of romantic storyline.
* But lesbian players such as ami, whose posts kicked off this new round of discussions, are somewhat less enthusiastic, claiming - rightly so - that BG has had a problematic relationship with female players and female characters from the very beginning, and that the absence of a female counterpart to the male bisexual feels like more of the same.
* I'll say it again: Beamdog is not responsible for the trend I mentioned earlier. But this omission - and I do believe it is an omission and not deliberate discrimination - is still problematic for players who are being made to feel, yet again, that they have no place in video games, or in stories of any kind.
* This is clearly something many of the participants in this conversation don't seem to understand, so I'll put it plainly: when you are made to feel invisible and inferior because of what you are (rather than anything you've done), every. representation. matters. Every time a game developer creates a same-sex romance in a game, it matters. Every time a comic book writer decides not to kill off the only gay character in his series, it matters.
* You don't see the importance of this issue because it doesn't affect you. It has nothing to do with you. You are in a position of entitlement and privilege, because you're not lacking in characters that can give you affirmation, that can serve as positive expressions of who you are.
* And that's fine, because you're not being asked to do anything. That bisexual character wasn't put in the game for you, and you don't have to play that storyline if you don't want to.
* But if the issue doesn't matter to you, show some basic decency and empathy, and refrain from complaining when other people - to whom the issue is important - get involved.
* Because it's not just about you.
* That is all.
"Hey gays aren't respected here!!"
"it's not like that"
"You hater!!!"
"Ok..."
Scocia'tel x Order of the Flaming rose... Neutral is just an mutual enemy... anyone?!
It's *not* 1 out of 28 characters. It's 1 out of 3 characters. For the most part, the twenty five remaining characters could very well be gay or bisexual (It's unlikely that Eldoth, Skie, Viconia, Jaheira, or Khalid are homosexual, but bisexual is a possibility). Regardless of the sexuality of the other 25, Beamdog has very limited control over what they can change or add to original characters, so they cannot be blamed whatsoever for contributing to any perceived heteronormativity in media due to the actions of those characters in the original Baldur's Gate.
So with that out of the way, we have a grand sample size of three. In fact, if we say 10% of romances are non-heteronormative (this is obviously debatable, but this is typically the most repeated statistic), then Beamdog has actually heavily scewed the available characters toward nonheteronormative relationships.
There isn't any possible way to take three characters, and represent every single type of sexuality/gender identity possible.
Beamdog isn't contributing to any pro-heteronormativity from the data we have (which is 3 people), whether intentional or not. They have even hinted at including a lesbian or bisexual woman in future content. Getting upset at them over the single female character we know of not being a lesbian/bisexual (about a 10% chance) is just utterly ridiculous in my opinion.
"i love gay stuff", "i support gay stuff", "The devs are bad for only give one bi character OR no woman bi character" "gay people are always 2º classed ciztens" or any other radical phrase.
Therefore the homossexual revolutions fighters here would probally aknowledge you as an enemy, specially because your post is a lot coherent and just show how childish are their complains (when only 3 characters can have romanceable content at all in BG EE, for copyright reasons).
Ps: just to aknowledge, after @Ami 's complain, i was the first to enforce and support an lesbian romance (for selfish interests in fact), also i was one of the the firsts to raise the better apply of an Dorn bissexual NPC instead of an Rasaad bissexual NPC (so i evaluated which one would fit better that role). Yes, in June, when i had only one month of forum, i was totally against gay romances in BG for a serious of coherence content arguments and almost all of them where reevaluated with time (@Lady Rhian is here to keep me from lying if anyone care or need a witness for this), i also made fun of some extremist sexists and some religious zealots that come with the bullshit of homossexualism being a sin.
So, with all this pointed, we conclude that i must be an disgusting sexist homo hater, no?
I will grant you that things have gotten a lot out of hand (as they've done rather frequently in this thread), between people who actually agree with one another misreading each others' posts, and people who disagree with each other intentionally pulling the wool over their own eyes. But we should try not to actively contribute to it, eh?
Besides, it's sad when an possible troll interpreted comment mirror reality.
I will take it easy... for now, the discussion where going pretty well 1 or 2 pages ago before this page 34.
yes, we appear to be opposite, but that's why you cannot claim you are "grey". you are "extremist" in the same way i am; you go to extreme lengths to offer understanding and helping hand, which can be counterproductive exactly the same way you describe my "methods" are.
and i do not consider my posts black/white, but more darker or lighter shade of grey, for that matter. -.-
also, please refrain from presumptions such as "hate, accusations, and insults" when referring to my comments. you cannot know my state of mind and experience, and i didn't made a hate speech, i just took a firm stance on the matter.
besides, kamuizin&co seem to have support in you and that's ok. but i have no interest in gentle persuasion when someone presents us with thoughts that are nonsense in my opinion, and that is my right. or if someone starts to subvert the discourse and behave like they are wronged and oppressed, not the minority discussed. laughable.
besides, am i only spewing hate and instigating wars? do i consider all people rotten and undeserving? have i suggested all perceived bigots should be torched to death? no. but i wont jump to accept YOUR interpretations of what and where the grey, black and white are.
we agreed to disagree on this matter a few pages back. let's leave it at that.
I disagreed with that criticism, and defended her position by pointing out that whatever plans the devs may or may not have in the near or far future, BG:EE will be shipping with a certain number of features that will not include what ami was hoping for.
The discussion then spiraled into meaningless rhetoric and condescending personal attacks courtesy of Shandyr, and kamuizin's usual trolling (because when you say things like "I'd prefer Dorn being the gay romance as i feel him more inclined to force his will over others", you forfeit the right to be taken seriously in an intelligent conversation).
But to echo trinit's statement: I have very little patience for nonsense born of privilege and entitlement. It's one thing to have a civilized discussion, it's another to mitigate ignorant and inaccurate statements just so people can get along. I have not used profanity, I have not made demands, and I have repeatedly praised Beamdog for the good work they've already done. If after all that, the most you can do is dig your heels in and accuse me of flaming, then walk away from this discussion because neither of us will contribute to the other.
Oh, so if you're not advocating for every single minority to be represented, then what exactly are you advocating for? That only some "privileged" minorities should be represented?
I think its ridiculous that although Dave has already confirmed that a lesbian character will be introduced later on in BGEE or BG2EE, that you still continue to rant on this, more so when you're using BG2 characters to try and argument that the lesbian minority is being treated unfairly because other minorities get a character.
Minorities getting representation in a game is all well for me, but I don't think that developers are obligated to go down a "minority checklist" to be sure that everyone gets representation.
Let's keep the facts straight - Dave Gross didn't confirm anything. His exact words were "certain gay, lesbian, or other non-straight characters might appear later (or, in some cases, possibly earlier) than I'd expected when I dropped that tease a while back." And, as an afterword, "Don't expect that to be very soon."
Might, possibly, maybe someday. I accept that statement, but I don't think I'm out of line to say that it's ambiguous at best. There is no guarantee, no certainty, though I understand Dave's reluctance to make any "official" statement at this point. That's fair.
But this discussion (and it is a discussion, not a rant, thank you) has never been about "forcing" developers to incorporate every single minority group, or even a specific number of minority characters, in any given game. There are no gay characters in Bastion, and that's fine. There are no gay characters in Final Fantasy VI, it's still a brilliant game. There is no "obligation", nor should there be.
However, when a developer makes a gesture of inclusion, and states that this gesture is meant to provide exactly the diversity that underrepresented minority groups could never take for granted, I think it's somewhat unfair to summarily dismiss the concerns of a member of that minority. That's what started this whole flare-up in the first place, and that - in my opinion - is what needs to be looked at.
You using BG2 characters is not besides the point. You can't defend that the inclusion of native americans and oriental characters in BG2 (without BG2 there really isn't much to support Tamoko is an oriental character in BG1, she doesn't even get a portrait) is somehow "unfair" to the lesbian community when Dave has already mentioned that there are plans for a lesbian character in the future.
Its ok for a player to be disappointed by there not being a lesbian character in BGEE, but that's not what's happening here. What we have here is someone accusing the developers of discrimination because a lesbian character was not included, that's what I cannot accept. More so when they're not actually advocating for minorities to be represented, what they're advocating is for their personal minority to be represented.
But:
1° - Isn't a question of persuasion, i'm not here to see the truth or learn the right way, i'm here to work the idea. I reached some concepts about homossexuality that have been worked through all these threads and discussions (natural/unnatural and economic interest in develop games x social quotas), it's what i think and i have my reasons to think that.
2° - A minority can opress also, just to you know, specially if it's not that much minority in an specific event (in this thread, probally most of the active people actually posting here is bi or homo), if a group of people twist my comments and when i complain i'm subverting the discussion, a huge problem in lack of self-criticism is detected. the last word "Laughable" just show how closed to outside ideas the radical base of this thread is.
Now relative to his comments, not to me but about this issue in general and also to other people that take a radical position:
Among all minorities, homossexual and bissexual minority unlike most of the other has "time" at their side on our actual timeline, if you want to go radical, well ok, but if you fight me because i'm no radical, i have no option than fight back, just be ready cos in fights people win and lose, and a lose here can have a side effect of harm what was already achieved. I didn't choose this fight but i'm not used to be passively attacked.
The only stupidy i see about this radical pro-active homossexual fight, is that was elected as enemies not only people whom hostile homossexual community or options, but even neutral people that has reservations in some matters or even the ones that support the homossexualism content but not in the way it's being sought in this thread.
We also need to recognize that there are some very different interpretations of intent at work here: you've clearly taken Dave's comment as a statement of fact (ie: there will be a lesbian character in the future) whereas I read it as sincere but noncommittal (ie: there might be a lesbian character in the future).
Beamdog has not been accused of discrimination - what I said was that they may have committed an inadvertent oversight, and that omission can be problematic whether it's intentional or not.
And finally, your theory regarding motivations for advocacy is blatantly untrue: I am not a lesbian, and my position is not one of self-interest.