The objections and all the hoopla about "political agendas", "campaigners" and all your other buzzwords, only comes up when there is a divergence from the cozy (Edited) "Conservative Status Quo".
Please don't use buzzwords while complaining about people using buzzwords......its not very objective.
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
If you objected just as strongly to the "insistence by others that there must not be" you would have a point. A point that you object to anyone who rocks the boat, but at least it would be semi-unbiased. But only "semi" because the boat itself is inherently biased.
The thing you and others seem to be missing is that there is no objection to white male controlled, heterosexual-exclusive universes in fantasy or scifi games. No one writes articles about those political statements.
The objections and all the hoopla about "political agendas", "campaigners" and all your other buzzwords, only comes up when there is a divergence from the cozy conservative status quo.
And no there is no more merit in Gene Roddenberry having Kirk kiss a black woman on TV in the 60s "because no one was campaigning for it ahead of time." Perhaps no one was campaigning specifically for a Kirk-Uhura kiss but you have heard of the civil rights movement of the 60s haven't you? A time where "others" were "insisting" that they be treated equally? You object to those "campaigners" as well?
Or how about before that, the "no taxation without representation" campaigners? Bunch of troublemakers? And when representation happened, were those people just caving to the campaigners?
If we had threads from players insisting that it is way past time a Laura Croft game allowed you to play as a man, that it was demeaning to men and was helping women take over the world. Then I would do the same and say, we don't care. But as posters do not feel a need to demand that as their right I don't get an opportunity to point out the fallacy of their arguments. If you know of any such threads, do point the way to them.
You say that no one writes articles about the white male controlled world of games. What was this thread then? It is certainly not he first one on here or on other forums I frequent. In fact I would say that there are quite a lot of such threads and articles. Obviously not enough to your liking, but then I think your view on this may explain why you would want more.
When people are campaigning for change, what do you want me to call them, apart from campaigners?
There is a clear distinction between trail blazing, which is what Roddenberry did and the social media mob clamming for its version of reality. They want to define a code within which writers must obey the rules, that is Big Brother via social media. They will be watching you.
Do you think that people who start campaigns on a weekly basis on social media have the same standing as those who fought for their freedoms in the Civil Rights movement or American Independence? Their followers click a like button without thinking, they support policies because a pop star does. Your attempt to conflate these questions about gaming with the great social movements of the past is questionable at best.
But I think many of them do see themselves as the successors to such giants of the past. I would say look at yourself, look at how you are living and look at the issues you think need addressing. Then think about what happened in those historical eras and learn some humility.
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
If you objected just as strongly to the "insistence by others that there must not be" you would have a point. A point that you object to anyone who rocks the boat, but at least it would be semi-unbiased. But only "semi" because the boat itself is inherently biased.
The thing you and others seem to be missing is that there is no objection to white male controlled, heterosexual-exclusive universes in fantasy or scifi games. No one writes articles about those political statements.
The objections and all the hoopla about "political agendas", "campaigners" and all your other buzzwords, only comes up when there is a divergence from the cozy conservative status quo.
And no there is no more merit in Gene Roddenberry having Kirk kiss a black woman on TV in the 60s "because no one was campaigning for it ahead of time." Perhaps no one was campaigning specifically for a Kirk-Uhura kiss but you have heard of the civil rights movement of the 60s haven't you? A time where "others" were "insisting" that they be treated equally? You object to those "campaigners" as well?
Or how about before that, the "no taxation without representation" campaigners? Bunch of troublemakers? And when representation happened, were those people just caving to the campaigners?
If we had threads from players insisting that it is way past time a Laura Croft game allowed you to play as a man, that it was demeaning to men and was helping women take over the world. Then I would do the same and say, we don't care. But as posters do not feel a need to demand that as their right I don't get an opportunity to point out the fallacy of their arguments. If you know of any such threads, do point the way to them.
You say that no one writes articles about the white male controlled world of games. What was this thread then? It is certainly not he first one on here or on other forums I frequent. In fact I would say that there are quite a lot of such threads and articles. Obviously not enough to your liking, but then I think your view on this may explain why you would want more.
When people are campaigning for change, what do you want me to call them, apart from campaigners?
There is a clear distinction between trail blazing, which is what Roddenberry did and the social media mob clamming for its version of reality. They want to define a code within which writers must obey the rules, that is Big Brother via social media. They will be watching you.
Do you think that people who start campaigns on a weekly basis on social media have the same standing as those who fought for their freedoms in the Civil Rights movement or American Independence? Their followers click a like button without thinking, they support policies because a pop star does. Your attempt to conflate these questions about gaming with the great social movements of the past is questionable at best.
But I think many of them do see themselves as the successors to such giants of the past. I would say look at yourself, look at how you are living and look at the issues you think need addressing. Then think about what happened in those historical eras and learn some humility.
The only distinction is that social media didn't exist back then - we had rotary telephones and 3 TV channels and if you wanted to discuss issues, you did it in person. People just expressed and communicated their opinions in slower ways using the technology of the time, but if they'd had cell phones with cameras and IM, those who wanted change would have also pushed "like" buttons... and, btw, they were also cast as dilettante mobs back then by those who didn't want the changes.
All that Roddenberry did was reflect social issues of the day using an artistic medium of the day and took a progressive stand that also rubbed many the wrong way back then... exactly the same thing that Bioware has done with DA-I and same sex relationships.
The hypocrisy is all in singling out women's or LGBT issues as being less worthy than issues from the past and trying to minimize them simply because now, the issues play out instantly in our current form of communication, i.e. social media.
But come on, eh? We all know what is really being said here. No one with half a brain is confused by the extraneous issues about "social media campaigners" being introduced to hide the bias and intolerance.
And like I already said, I'm neither gay nor a woman. But I'm not going to pretend that this discussion is about anything other than whether you support or don't support their rights.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Many of us don't care if there are gay characters in a game or not. What we are objecting to is the insistence by others that there must be. The content of games, books and so on should not be decided by the mob that lives in social media.
If you objected just as strongly to the "insistence by others that there must not be" you would have a point. A point that you object to anyone who rocks the boat, but at least it would be semi-unbiased. But only "semi" because the boat itself is inherently biased.
The thing you and others seem to be missing is that there is no objection to white male controlled, heterosexual-exclusive universes in fantasy or scifi games. No one writes articles about those political statements.
The objections and all the hoopla about "political agendas", "campaigners" and all your other buzzwords, only comes up when there is a divergence from the cozy conservative status quo.
And no there is no more merit in Gene Roddenberry having Kirk kiss a black woman on TV in the 60s "because no one was campaigning for it ahead of time." Perhaps no one was campaigning specifically for a Kirk-Uhura kiss but you have heard of the civil rights movement of the 60s haven't you? A time where "others" were "insisting" that they be treated equally? You object to those "campaigners" as well?
Or how about before that, the "no taxation without representation" campaigners? Bunch of troublemakers? And when representation happened, were those people just caving to the campaigners?
If we had threads from players insisting that it is way past time a Laura Croft game allowed you to play as a man, that it was demeaning to men and was helping women take over the world. Then I would do the same and say, we don't care. But as posters do not feel a need to demand that as their right I don't get an opportunity to point out the fallacy of their arguments. If you know of any such threads, do point the way to them.
You say that no one writes articles about the white male controlled world of games. What was this thread then? It is certainly not he first one on here or on other forums I frequent. In fact I would say that there are quite a lot of such threads and articles. Obviously not enough to your liking, but then I think your view on this may explain why you would want more.
When people are campaigning for change, what do you want me to call them, apart from campaigners?
There is a clear distinction between trail blazing, which is what Roddenberry did and the social media mob clamming for its version of reality. They want to define a code within which writers must obey the rules, that is Big Brother via social media. They will be watching you.
Do you think that people who start campaigns on a weekly basis on social media have the same standing as those who fought for their freedoms in the Civil Rights movement or American Independence? Their followers click a like button without thinking, they support policies because a pop star does. Your attempt to conflate these questions about gaming with the great social movements of the past is questionable at best.
But I think many of them do see themselves as the successors to such giants of the past. I would say look at yourself, look at how you are living and look at the issues you think need addressing. Then think about what happened in those historical eras and learn some humility.
The only distinction is that social media didn't exist back then - we had rotary telephones and 3 TV channels and if you wanted to discuss issues, you did it in person. People just expressed and communicated their opinions in slower ways using the technology of the time, but if they'd had cell phones with cameras and IM, those who wanted change would have also pushed "like" buttons... and, btw, they were also cast as dilettante mobs back then by those who didn't want the changes.
All that Roddenberry did was reflect social issues of the day using an artistic medium of the day and took a progressive stand that also rubbed many the wrong way back then... exactly the same thing that Bioware has done with DA-I and same sex relationships.
The hypocrisy is all in singling out women's or LGBT issues as being less worthy than issues from the past and trying to minimize them simply because now, the issues play out instantly in our current form of communication, i.e. social media.
But come on, eh? We all know what is really being said here. No one with half a brain is confused by the extraneous issues about "social media campaigners" being introduced to hide the bias and intolerance.
And like I already said, I'm neither gay nor a woman. But I'm not going to pretend that this discussion is about anything other than whether you support or don't support their rights.
Clearly we are trying to hide our 'bias and intolerance' while you stand on morally superior ground, I guess no one learnt a lesson in humility from the past then?
Your depiction of people in the 60's having phones as being the equivalent of social media is frankly laughable. Where and when were people with telephones called a 'dilettante mob'? Social media has allowed a new way of communicating sound bite issues phrased like adverts to attract endorsement. You seem like someone who can analysis issues, do you actually think all the people who support an issue because a popstar put their endorsement to it actually analysed what was being said? I call them a mob because they are often uniformed, follow the flow and kick up a hue and cry in the search of this weeks Frankenstein monster.
Social media has allowed mob rule into politics, but this is not realised, instead people fall over themselves with idolising how democratic it all is. It is about as democratic as the mobs that would put their thumbs down in the gladiator arena to signify they wanted an execution. I don't think you need 'half a brain' to see the problems with it and my stance on social media is the same no matter what is discussed. Years ago I spoke on here against the adding of Facebook links to MMO's. There it was mob rule of a game, here it is mob rule of society.
I am not saying social media has no redeeming features, we are in fact using a form of it now which I have respect for. To you this is not an issue, so anyone who brings it up must be hiding an agenda, to me it is very real. You only have to see who has been made to apologise this week because of Twitter to see this is about public humiliation for not conforming, not democracy.
Are you seriously suggesting that not being able to ride on an all whites bus or declare yourself as gay without facing a horrible reaction are on a par with what we are talking about? How many gay relationships feature in a new game is on a par with that? Come on that's ridiculous.
I can't accept your parallel with Bioware, we live in a different world now. But what I do accept is that an original game does not have as many of these issues as a subsequent title. There is not as much pressure for it to have a proscribed set of characters as decided by the social mob. I do not expect writers to write without reference to the society they are in, but neither do I want them to have to write as people expect them to.
Sure if there is no option at all then it's irrelevent, be it female or male.
That's why I implied character options, you avoided the question. If Diablo had only 4 male character option wouldn't that be a political statement to you ?
Not only would I not see that as a political statement in itself, but I find it bizarre that someone else would see it as a political statement. The same applies if all four playable characters were female, or if there was a 3/1 split, regardless of whether the three were male or female.
It could perhaps be made into a political statement if a common sentiment among NPCs in game is that it's good that the hero is male because women are weak and useless, or something ridiculous like that. Or switch male with female and it's equivalently political. But it would take some doing to turn it into a political statement.
-----
Suppose that you're designing a game and have to choose A or B. Some of your players strongly prefer A to B and will be offended if you choose B. The rest of your players don't care. There isn't any obvious other advantage to choosing B over A (e.g., this isn't a "B is charge money for something and A is give it away for free" thing). Which do you choose? This isn't a trick question.
Of course you're going to choose A. If some of your players will see it as an offensive political statement if all of the playable characters are male and the rest don't care, then of course you make some male characters and some female. This isn't a hotly contested political issue where any statement on either side is going to get you burned. It's more akin to some players wanting it to be easier to pick up loot off the ground and the rest not caring: you give the players who care what they want because it costs you nothing and makes some of your players happier.
The problem is that there are some issues where if you touch it, you're almost certain to offend a good chunk of people on one side or the other. If a game had something that was an obvious reference to Obamacare, for example, that would very much be playing with fire. If you portray it as being a good thing, you offend people who want it repealed. If you portray it as a bad thing, you offend people who like the law. Either way, you're likely to offend people who want such contentious issues kept out of their entertainment.
And furthermore, it would be completely gratuitous. Even if a game needs to have some sort of health care for whatever reason, there's no reason why it needs to make any obvious references to a particular real-life law. That's precisely the sort of political issue that I don't want in my games. If Fox News or MSNBC want to go on about Obamacare at length, that's fine; someone who watches a political news channel knows what he's getting. But I also want to be able to get away from having to deal with it.
At this point, I really just have to say "get over it". So what. There's characters in Biowares games that are blatantly gay. Get over it. There's also characters that are blatantly straight. Get over it. If you don't like it, then don't follow that storyline. Yes, it is that simple. Bioware games are all about choices.
This is 2014, not 1980. Things have changed. Oh, and btw, Bioware games have always had it as as part of the game, it just hasn't been as blatant as it is in DAI where the character says he likes to get it on only with guys. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and SWTOR have all included it.
Once again, so what. Bioware has always been a trailblazer and unafraid to try things that others find taboo. It's what makes them so incredibly good. They usually make you think about what you do and the consequences of such actions, even if the consequences mean no effect on you whatsoever. I celebrate their awesomeness in being willing to take chances, not bash them because I don't like what they did.
The point is that you don't have to follow the story if you don't want to.
What I don't get is how this thread is still open due to what it addresses.
Clearly we are trying to hide our 'bias and intolerance' while you stand on morally superior ground, I guess no one learnt a lesson in humility from the past then?
Your depiction of people in the 60's having phones as being the equivalent of social media is frankly laughable. Where and when were people with telephones called a 'dilettante mob'? Social media has allowed a new way of communicating sound bite issues phrased like adverts to attract endorsement. You seem like someone who can analysis issues, do you actually think all the people who support an issue because a popstar put their endorsement to it actually analysed what was being said? I call them a mob because they are often uniformed, follow the flow and kick up a hue and cry in the search of this weeks Frankenstein monster.
Social media has allowed mob rule into politics, but this is not realised, instead people fall over themselves with idolising how democratic it all is. It is about as democratic as the mobs that would put their thumbs down in the gladiator arena to signify they wanted an execution. I don't think you need 'half a brain' to see the problems with it and my stance on social media is the same no matter what is discussed. Years ago I spoke on here against the adding of Facebook links to MMO's. There it was mob rule of a game, here it is mob rule of society.
I am not saying social media has no redeeming features, we are in fact using a form of it now which I have respect for. To you this is not an issue, so anyone who brings it up must be hiding an agenda, to me it is very real. You only have to see who has been made to apologise this week because of Twitter to see this is about public humiliation for not conforming, not democracy.
Are you seriously suggesting that not being able to ride on an all whites bus or declare yourself as gay without facing a horrible reaction are on a par with what we are talking about? How many gay relationships feature in a new game is on a par with that? Come on that's ridiculous.
I can't accept your parallel with Bioware, we live in a different world now. But what I do accept is that an original game does not have as many of these issues as a subsequent title. There is not as much pressure for it to have a proscribed set of characters as decided by the social mob. I do not expect writers to write without reference to the society they are in, but neither do I want them to have to write as people expect them to.
You seem to have some notion that writers write what the mobs tell them to write or that someone forced Bioware to include gay relationships. I don't think they're that shallow or simple minded. There are hacks out there who do indeed try to cash in on pop trends but they usually write for tabloids and fanzines or these days, they write edgy blogs, especially if they get paid by the number of hits like many do.
Other than those obvious hacks, I tend to give writers the benefit of doubt. They write stories in certain ways and have their characters behave in ways that are reflective of their own personal moral code - heroes and villains both.
So when Kirk kisses Uhura in Star Treck or Bioware includes a same sex romance story line in DA-I, public pressure to include those things in their fiction is the last thing that comes to my mind. What comes to my mind is that they're original decisions made by the writers who are fully aware, in the context of the times they live in, of what they're doing it and why they're doing it. And in both cases they are doing something that they believe should be acceptable but isn't accepted by some.
So why is it that you think that the Uhura / Kirk kiss was motivated by artistic integrity but Bioware's same sex romances are just a result of the twitter mob insisting that they do that? I'm frankly having a hard time following your logic... Are you saying that ALL progressive ideas in 2014 are suspect because of social media and the ones in the 60s were immune to the effect of public opinion?
Or could it just be that you don't like the inclusion of same sex relationships in games, can't quite bring yourself to just say that, and instead decided to be dismissive about what Bioware did on the basis that twitter is exerting some form mind control on their writers?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
These arguments are going in circles..... Person A: feels he is having an opinion forced on him, while Person B: feels his opinion is being silenced by Person A. This could continue ad infinitum. I think some people just need to realize that, " Those convinced against their will, are of the same opinion still". And I have yet to see an objective reason for the original question under debate anyway.
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
You seem to have some notion that writers write what the mobs tell them to write or that someone forced Bioware to include gay relationships. I don't think they're that shallow or simple minded. There are hacks out there who do indeed try to cash in on pop trends but they usually write for tabloids and fanzines or these days, they write edgy blogs, especially if they get paid by the number of hits like many do.
Other than those obvious hacks, I tend to give writers the benefit of doubt. They write stories in certain ways and have their characters behave in ways that are reflective of their own personal moral code - heroes and villains both.
So when Kirk kisses Uhura in Star Treck or Bioware includes a same sex romance story line in DA-I, public pressure to include those things in their fiction is the last thing that comes to my mind. What comes to my mind is that they're original decisions made by the writers who are fully aware, in the context of the times they live in, of what they're doing it and why they're doing it. And in both cases they are doing something that they believe should be acceptable but isn't accepted by some.
So why is it that you think that the Uhura / Kirk kiss was motivated by artistic integrity but Bioware's same sex romances are just a result of the twitter mob insisting that they do that? I'm frankly having a hard time following your logic... Are you saying that ALL progressive ideas in 2014 are suspect because of social media and the ones in the 60s were immune to the effect of public opinion?
Or could it just be that you don't like the inclusion of same sex relationships in games, can't quite bring yourself to just say that, and instead decided to be dismissive about what Bioware did on the basis that twitter is exerting some form mind control on their writers?
You keep coming back to that, you can't accept that someone has a different opinion to you, perhaps they subconsciously think that there is something wrong with gay relationships. You want others to affirm you point of view, not inform it, but then we all do to a certain extent.
I was speaking in broader terms than Bioware, this thread was not specifically about Bioware, perhaps you have got me confused for someone who was talking about them? For me they are just a side note to issues far wider. When it comes to them I think they have done fine work and don't know what the fuss is all about. Lets face it relationships in most games are very 2 dimensional and you hardly notice them. They did a good job of whatever type of relationship they were portraying.
It is the demands of the social media mob that I find unacceptable. To them if there are going to be relationships there must now always be a gay one as well, and so on. If the writer wants to portray that then fine and many do, but do we want writing to be turned into a social contact enforced by Twitter?
You use the term 'mind control' to make what I am saying seem strange. But if you mount campaigns, write articles and do hashtags to get your version of reality enforced on everything everyone else does, then that's not a bad term for it.
Sure if there is no option at all then it's irrelevent, be it female or male.
That's why I implied character options, you avoided the question. If Diablo had only 4 male character option wouldn't that be a political statement to you ?
Not only would I not see that as a political statement in itself, but I find it bizarre that someone else would see it as a political statement. The same applies if all four playable characters were female, or if there was a 3/1 split, regardless of whether the three were male or female.
It could perhaps be made into a political statement if a common sentiment among NPCs in game is that it's good that the hero is male because women are weak and useless, or something ridiculous like that. Or switch male with female and it's equivalently political. But it would take some doing to turn it into a political statement.
-----
Suppose that you're designing a game and have to choose A or B. Some of your players strongly prefer A to B and will be offended if you choose B. The rest of your players don't care. There isn't any obvious other advantage to choosing B over A (e.g., this isn't a "B is charge money for something and A is give it away for free" thing). Which do you choose? This isn't a trick question.
Of course you're going to choose A. If some of your players will see it as an offensive political statement if all of the playable characters are male and the rest don't care, then of course you make some male characters and some female. This isn't a hotly contested political issue where any statement on either side is going to get you burned. It's more akin to some players wanting it to be easier to pick up loot off the ground and the rest not caring: you give the players who care what they want because it costs you nothing and makes some of your players happier.
The problem is that there are some issues where if you touch it, you're almost certain to offend a good chunk of people on one side or the other. If a game had something that was an obvious reference to Obamacare, for example, that would very much be playing with fire. If you portray it as being a good thing, you offend people who want it repealed. If you portray it as a bad thing, you offend people who like the law. Either way, you're likely to offend people who want such contentious issues kept out of their entertainment.
And furthermore, it would be completely gratuitous. Even if a game needs to have some sort of health care for whatever reason, there's no reason why it needs to make any obvious references to a particular real-life law. That's precisely the sort of political issue that I don't want in my games. If Fox News or MSNBC want to go on about Obamacare at length, that's fine; someone who watches a political news channel knows what he's getting. But I also want to be able to get away from having to deal with it.
I guess I just read deeper between the lines than you then. Or maybe I over analyse the situation, I am just trying to imagine myself as a feminist seeing a game coming out in 2014 with multiple options for a hero character in a rpg game but for some unknown reason no female possibilities. The first thing that would come to mind is that for the devs, a strong and powerfull hero can only be a male.
-------
The thing is that it's rarely only A and B. Let's stick with DA-I for example, you have A who don't want homosexual interaction in their game, B don't really care if it's there but won't pursue the option themselves and C they want to have an option for homosexual interaction.
Group A and C are in opposition, so there is a choice to make but it is not as easy as you seem to imply. The decision will come from the top, it could be a personal choice to push a belief or it could simply be about money. Which group is bigger, A or C, that is different by regions. Bioware's Montreal devs are most likely influenced by the place they live in, and it happens that Montreal is really LGBT friendly. So let's say they decided to go for that because it's simply in line with their beliefs. To them, it is not necessarily an agenda or even a political statement, it's simply the way things are for them, but for some people it certainly will feel like it is since it's the opposite of what they want.
--------
I don't know what type of game could plug in Obamacare without looking totally stupid, but let's say a Sim game that is really going for realism. A universal healthcare option would be well received in Canada and most european country as it's what they are used to. Some American might take offense in it, especially if it try to emulate every aspect of the bill but then I would question why someone so agaisnt controversy or political statement loaded game, would buy this type of game to begin with.
Anyway, no one would ever make a game like that, so you don't have to worry about that one.
I like RPG type games that have their own internal culture, history, religion, and politics. An entire virtual world full of political factions, religious factions, different races each with their own prejudices, is preferred.
Games that try to push me in one direction or another IRL will probably get discarded quickly.
I like RPG type games that have their own internal culture, history, religion, and politics. An entire virtual world full of political factions, religious factions, different races each with their own prejudices, is preferred.
Games that try to push me in one direction or another IRL will probably get discarded quickly.
So you didn't like GTA V, but really liked Mass effect 3 ?
It is the same thing, is it not? You say that anyone that does not like homosexual content is a bigot. And since you made no attempt to inform otherwise, I'd say it is safe to assume you personally hold this view as well. Therefore if anyone disagrees with you on this subject, they are a bigot (or at least they are in your eyes). Honestly just like the word "Tolerence", bigot is just a word used by people who believe their opinion is in the majority (and maybe it is.....but that does not change how subjective it is). I try to stay away from those words because they mean nothing to me.
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
Reeally?, your gonna say that? So everyone that disagrees with you is a bigot.....sigh, I give up.
No I said people that have a problem with homosexual content are bigots.
It is the same thing, is it not? You say that anyone that does not like homosexual content is a bigot. And since you made no attempt to inform otherwise, I'd say it is safe to assume you personally hold this view as well. Therefore if anyone disagrees with you on this subject, they are a bigot (or at least they are in your eyes). Honestly just like the word "Tolerence", bigot is just a word used by people who believe their opinion is in the majority (and maybe it is.....but that does not change how subjective it is). I try to stay away from those words because they mean nothing to me.
It is not the same thing, you can disagree with his opinion and still not have a problem with homosexual content.
It is the same thing, is it not? You say that anyone that does not like homosexual content is a bigot. And since you made no attempt to inform otherwise, I'd say it is safe to assume you personally hold this view as well. Therefore if anyone disagrees with you on this subject, they are a bigot (or at least they are in your eyes). Honestly just like the word "Tolerence", bigot is just a word used by people who believe their opinion is in the majority (and maybe it is.....but that does not change how subjective it is). I try to stay away from those words because they mean nothing to me.
It is not the same thing, you can disagree with his opinion and still not have a problem with homosexual content.
If your saying that you have no stance on the issue (live and let live), well then that's cool. I was just responding to his blatant bashing of people that hold a certain point of view that happens to be different than his. I could care less what they put in games. Since we are talking about this particular issue. I did play Borderlands The Pre Sequel, and there was plenty of homos in that game ( I'll admit I rolled my eyes a few times) but I still enjoyed it. Just because you disagree with something does not mean you have to hate it. Besides as many have said before me, "Don't like it? Don't buy it" (its just as simple as that).
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
I think the point is that only one of those sides is trying to force the industry to change the way they make games and it needs to be made the way THEY like it and anyone that disagrees is a woman hating, rape loving misogynist...
You forget the side that wants to remove all homosexual encounter in games and anyone disagreeing is a satan worshiper, kid brainwasher.
Like I said, both side have their extremist.
Umm, there isn't a single Gamergater that thinks games shouldn't have gay characters or people are going to go to hell.
Those that think that are radical fundamentalists, just like 3rd wave feminists and thus are on one side...also, can you please name me the radical Christian that was invited to a GDC to talk to game makers about the importance of saving gamers souls by not making games with gay characters...oops.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
It is the same thing, is it not? You say that anyone that does not like homosexual content is a bigot. And since you made no attempt to inform otherwise, I'd say it is safe to assume you personally hold this view as well. Therefore if anyone disagrees with you on this subject, they are a bigot (or at least they are in your eyes). Honestly just like the word "Tolerence", bigot is just a word used by people who believe their opinion is in the majority (and maybe it is.....but that does not change how subjective it is). I try to stay away from those words because they mean nothing to me.
It is not the same thing, you can disagree with his opinion and still not have a problem with homosexual content.
If your saying that you have no stance on the issue (live and let live), well then that's cool. I was just responding to his blatant bashing of people that hold a certain point of view that happens to be different than his. I could care less what they put in games. Since we are talking about this particular issue. I did play Borderlands The Pre Sequel, and there was plenty of homos in that game ( I'll admit I rolled my eyes a few times) but I still enjoyed it. Just because you disagree with something does not mean you have to hate it. Besides as many have said before me, "Don't like it? Don't buy it" (its just as simple as that).
What point are you trying to make? That you are a homophobe and still play games with homosexual content? Congrats
A homophobe is a bigot. Is there any other way of saying that?
I think the point is that only one of those sides is trying to force the industry to change the way they make games and it needs to be made the way THEY like it and anyone that disagrees is a woman hating, rape loving misogynist...
You forget the side that wants to remove all homosexual encounter in games and anyone disagreeing is a satan worshiper, kid brainwasher.
Like I said, both side have their extremist.
Umm, there isn't a single Gamergater that thinks games shouldn't have gay characters or people are going to go to hell.
Those that think that are radical fundamentalists, just like 3rd wave feminists and thus are on one side...also, can you please name me the radical Christian that was invited to a GDC to talk to game makers about the importance of saving gamers souls by not making games with gay characters...oops.
There is not a single one but the ones that are, are radicals... which one is it ? How would a radical fundamentalist and a third wave feminist be on one side ? They are both extremes of the scale.
BTW my comment had nothing to do with gamergate, I am simply talking about general political statement in games. You say that only feminist are pushing to have political statement in game and that the other side isn't pushing for the status quo ? Isn't the gamergate about paying journalist to boost reviews anyway ? I admit I didn't read much about it. But why would one of those fundamentalist be invited to a GDC anyway ? It's not like they would ever come up with any good idea ...
Originally posted by iridescence There probably is political stuff in all those settings. I don't know them well enough or really feel like taking the time to analyse them but everything has some politics in the loosest sense of the word in it People find political messages in things like children's fairy tales all the time.
Also I wasn't arguing that "it's already political so just put a bunch of propaganda in it!" I was actually saying the exact opposite. "Politics" isn't bad but blatant propaganda is.
Really? What political statement did the original Legend of Zelda game have? How about Donkey Kong? What possible political statement did you find?
What do you think "propaganda" is? Do I need a link here? OK, dictionary.com defines "propaganda"
Games can certainly take on political issues. They will be divisive, though.
As I already said a couple of times, I don't think non-strategy games without narrative stories really have political content (certain people such as Anita Sarkeesian would disagree but that's another topic).
I'm using the term propaganda as the second meaning in the definition you linked. Deliberately trying to advocate for or discredit a specific political position or ideology in a game. Most games don't and shouldn't do that. But politics is just relations of power within society. Every game with a narrative is going to have some politics in it.
Label me a bigot, I am ok with that being no one here pays my bills or lives my life. Nor do I need to answer to them for anything what so ever.
They should leave out the homosexual and heterosexual stuff, it sends a wrong message to those families that plan to raise their kids the way they want. This guy I know bought this frozen movie and found out the hidden message it had about being homosexual in it. He took the video and destroyed it because that wasn't what he believed in and it really upset him that social media and society would FORCE that nonsense on him .
Either way it should always include the option or you can be like me and just not buy it.
Are you seriously suggesting that Frozen is a "gay agenda" movie. I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh at such a silly statement. Also, children aren't dumb. They will eventually choose for themselves what they like/dislike. Teaching your children hate is wrong in my opinion, but hey my family tried to teach me to be racist and it certainly didn't work.
Honestly I think it should be illegal to influence your children religiously or to hate certain groups of people. That should be a choice for them when they are of age (18), not a choice made by the adult for the child.
The thing I see as completely ass-backwards from some of these comments is that I know a lot of you wouldn't even think about it if a game depicted your hero as having a straight sex relationship, yet as soon as there is anything related to a same sex relationship it instantly turns into "I go to games to escape reality" (apparently your ideal reality is no gays?) or "The publishers are trying to push their political views into this game" (because apparently a publisher can't just treat people like the human beings that they are without it being about politics).
Yet I know for a fact, that some of you who spout this nonsense wouldn't care two sh*ts if it was a straight relationship being depicted in a game. You know why? Because a large percentage of games have a straight relationship, have you saving the girl from the bad guy (Zelda), have you building relationships with girls (Persona), and etc.
So I call bull on all of those excuses. You just don't want your games to show the reality that everyone is getting their fair share of the pie now. Because you don't want everyone to get their fair share of the pie. You're a little piggy, and you want all that pie for yourself.
No, i don't care about that. In fact, i think games shouldn't add romantic relationships as a gameplay mechanic, in principle. They usually are akwark and are a hastily coded addon.
I do thinkt Bioware trying to suck up to the LGBT crowd as a publicity stunt, to excuse their decreasing quality of games, is stupid.
I do think trying to make everyone bi just because is overdoing it.
So please, cut the ad hominem "you are actually selfish" crap.
You clearly haven't played Dragon Age: Inquisition because it does not try to make everybody in it bi. You never even have to experience the relationship part of the game if you don't want to, which is another reason why I find it hilarious when people complain about Bioware games having these choices. Because that's what they are: Choices. And you can play the game without choosing those choices.
The thing I see as completely ass-backwards from some of these comments is that I know a lot of you wouldn't even think about it if a game depicted your hero as having a straight sex relationship, yet as soon as there is anything related to a same sex relationship it instantly turns into "I go to games to escape reality" (apparently your ideal reality is no gays?) or "The publishers are trying to push their political views into this game" (because apparently a publisher can't just treat people like the human beings that they are without it being about politics).
Most games I've played haven't explicitly mentioned any sexual relationships at all. In some games, there may be marriages or children or some such, and I suppose that you could read something into that if you really wanted to--but you can also ignore it if you prefer. Characters don't tell you that they're gay, but they also don't tell you that they're not, precisely because it has nothing to do with what the game is about. Why should the way that fictional species in a fictional universe reproduce have anything to do with real life?
What are you talking about? A ton of games usually have a male hero saving some helpless female and they in-turn fall in love (because video game logic).
Also, your excuse for having no gays and lesbians in games is by far one of the worst I've seen so far. I mean, if that's how you think, why should there be any straight couples in games at all? Why not just have them all be gay and lesbian since it is a fictional world and they could reproduce in ways we aren't aware of.
You see what I just did there? That's how you basically sound accept yours is the 100% straight population version. Both versions are obviously ridiculous and on either ends of extremes is my point, and so your "fictional species in a fictional world" excuse isn't even remotely decent.
You seem to have some notion that writers write what the mobs tell them to write or that someone forced Bioware to include gay relationships. I don't think they're that shallow or simple minded. There are hacks out there who do indeed try to cash in on pop trends but they usually write for tabloids and fanzines or these days, they write edgy blogs, especially if they get paid by the number of hits like many do.
Other than those obvious hacks, I tend to give writers the benefit of doubt. They write stories in certain ways and have their characters behave in ways that are reflective of their own personal moral code - heroes and villains both.
So when Kirk kisses Uhura in Star Treck or Bioware includes a same sex romance story line in DA-I, public pressure to include those things in their fiction is the last thing that comes to my mind. What comes to my mind is that they're original decisions made by the writers who are fully aware, in the context of the times they live in, of what they're doing it and why they're doing it. And in both cases they are doing something that they believe should be acceptable but isn't accepted by some.
So why is it that you think that the Uhura / Kirk kiss was motivated by artistic integrity but Bioware's same sex romances are just a result of the twitter mob insisting that they do that? I'm frankly having a hard time following your logic... Are you saying that ALL progressive ideas in 2014 are suspect because of social media and the ones in the 60s were immune to the effect of public opinion?
Or could it just be that you don't like the inclusion of same sex relationships in games, can't quite bring yourself to just say that, and instead decided to be dismissive about what Bioware did on the basis that twitter is exerting some form mind control on their writers?
You keep coming back to that, you can't accept that someone has a different opinion to you, perhaps they subconsciously think that there is something wrong with gay relationships. You want others to affirm you point of view, not inform it, but then we all do to a certain extent.
I was speaking in broader terms than Bioware, this thread was not specifically about Bioware, perhaps you have got me confused for someone who was talking about them? For me they are just a side note to issues far wider. When it comes to them I think they have done fine work and don't know what the fuss is all about. Lets face it relationships in most games are very 2 dimensional and you hardly notice them. They did a good job of whatever type of relationship they were portraying.
It is the demands of the social media mob that I find unacceptable. To them if there are going to be relationships there must now always be a gay one as well, and so on. If the writer wants to portray that then fine and many do, but do we want writing to be turned into a social contact enforced by Twitter?
You use the term 'mind control' to make what I am saying seem strange. But if you mount campaigns, write articles and do hashtags to get your version of reality enforced on everything everyone else does, then that's not a bad term for it.
You speak as if people don't have a will of their own. Hate to break it to you, most support or don't support something because they believe/disbelieve in that particular thing. Most people are not possessed by "mob mentality" over the internet (I mean come on, that's just silly). You make it sound as if 99% of the population is teenage girls and boys just clicking "like" because their "celebrity hero" told them to do so. Most of the human population is brighter than that (most of the teenage population is, in fact, brighter than that).
Where are these masses of people on social media sites demanding writers to include homosexual relationships in their games? Fact is that I see pretty much the opposite. When writers or companies include homosexual depictions (or even women as main characters) in their games I see the bigots demanding them to be removed, using derogatory terms, and just generally acting like angry, loud, entitled jerks.
Of course, like in this article's comment section, there are the more sneaky bigots that are smart about not outright using names or insults, but it's pretty clear which way they swing (pun intended) when it comes to homosexuality in general, so it's very hard to take their thinly disguised, but still bigoted, opinion(s) seriously.
Please though, do tell me if you find that mob with pitchforks, forcing writers (who are hired by companies not by the amount of twitter spam they receive) to do as they want.
Comments
Please don't use buzzwords while complaining about people using buzzwords......its not very objective.
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
If we had threads from players insisting that it is way past time a Laura Croft game allowed you to play as a man, that it was demeaning to men and was helping women take over the world. Then I would do the same and say, we don't care. But as posters do not feel a need to demand that as their right I don't get an opportunity to point out the fallacy of their arguments. If you know of any such threads, do point the way to them.
You say that no one writes articles about the white male controlled world of games. What was this thread then? It is certainly not he first one on here or on other forums I frequent. In fact I would say that there are quite a lot of such threads and articles. Obviously not enough to your liking, but then I think your view on this may explain why you would want more.
When people are campaigning for change, what do you want me to call them, apart from campaigners?
There is a clear distinction between trail blazing, which is what Roddenberry did and the social media mob clamming for its version of reality. They want to define a code within which writers must obey the rules, that is Big Brother via social media. They will be watching you.
Do you think that people who start campaigns on a weekly basis on social media have the same standing as those who fought for their freedoms in the Civil Rights movement or American Independence? Their followers click a like button without thinking, they support policies because a pop star does. Your attempt to conflate these questions about gaming with the great social movements of the past is questionable at best.
But I think many of them do see themselves as the successors to such giants of the past. I would say look at yourself, look at how you are living and look at the issues you think need addressing. Then think about what happened in those historical eras and learn some humility.
The only distinction is that social media didn't exist back then - we had rotary telephones and 3 TV channels and if you wanted to discuss issues, you did it in person. People just expressed and communicated their opinions in slower ways using the technology of the time, but if they'd had cell phones with cameras and IM, those who wanted change would have also pushed "like" buttons... and, btw, they were also cast as dilettante mobs back then by those who didn't want the changes.
All that Roddenberry did was reflect social issues of the day using an artistic medium of the day and took a progressive stand that also rubbed many the wrong way back then... exactly the same thing that Bioware has done with DA-I and same sex relationships.
The hypocrisy is all in singling out women's or LGBT issues as being less worthy than issues from the past and trying to minimize them simply because now, the issues play out instantly in our current form of communication, i.e. social media.
But come on, eh? We all know what is really being said here. No one with half a brain is confused by the extraneous issues about "social media campaigners" being introduced to hide the bias and intolerance.
And like I already said, I'm neither gay nor a woman. But I'm not going to pretend that this discussion is about anything other than whether you support or don't support their rights.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Clearly we are trying to hide our 'bias and intolerance' while you stand on morally superior ground, I guess no one learnt a lesson in humility from the past then?
Your depiction of people in the 60's having phones as being the equivalent of social media is frankly laughable. Where and when were people with telephones called a 'dilettante mob'? Social media has allowed a new way of communicating sound bite issues phrased like adverts to attract endorsement. You seem like someone who can analysis issues, do you actually think all the people who support an issue because a popstar put their endorsement to it actually analysed what was being said? I call them a mob because they are often uniformed, follow the flow and kick up a hue and cry in the search of this weeks Frankenstein monster.
Social media has allowed mob rule into politics, but this is not realised, instead people fall over themselves with idolising how democratic it all is. It is about as democratic as the mobs that would put their thumbs down in the gladiator arena to signify they wanted an execution. I don't think you need 'half a brain' to see the problems with it and my stance on social media is the same no matter what is discussed. Years ago I spoke on here against the adding of Facebook links to MMO's. There it was mob rule of a game, here it is mob rule of society.
I am not saying social media has no redeeming features, we are in fact using a form of it now which I have respect for. To you this is not an issue, so anyone who brings it up must be hiding an agenda, to me it is very real. You only have to see who has been made to apologise this week because of Twitter to see this is about public humiliation for not conforming, not democracy.
Are you seriously suggesting that not being able to ride on an all whites bus or declare yourself as gay without facing a horrible reaction are on a par with what we are talking about? How many gay relationships feature in a new game is on a par with that? Come on that's ridiculous.
I can't accept your parallel with Bioware, we live in a different world now. But what I do accept is that an original game does not have as many of these issues as a subsequent title. There is not as much pressure for it to have a proscribed set of characters as decided by the social mob. I do not expect writers to write without reference to the society they are in, but neither do I want them to have to write as people expect them to.
Not only would I not see that as a political statement in itself, but I find it bizarre that someone else would see it as a political statement. The same applies if all four playable characters were female, or if there was a 3/1 split, regardless of whether the three were male or female.
It could perhaps be made into a political statement if a common sentiment among NPCs in game is that it's good that the hero is male because women are weak and useless, or something ridiculous like that. Or switch male with female and it's equivalently political. But it would take some doing to turn it into a political statement.
-----
Suppose that you're designing a game and have to choose A or B. Some of your players strongly prefer A to B and will be offended if you choose B. The rest of your players don't care. There isn't any obvious other advantage to choosing B over A (e.g., this isn't a "B is charge money for something and A is give it away for free" thing). Which do you choose? This isn't a trick question.
Of course you're going to choose A. If some of your players will see it as an offensive political statement if all of the playable characters are male and the rest don't care, then of course you make some male characters and some female. This isn't a hotly contested political issue where any statement on either side is going to get you burned. It's more akin to some players wanting it to be easier to pick up loot off the ground and the rest not caring: you give the players who care what they want because it costs you nothing and makes some of your players happier.
The problem is that there are some issues where if you touch it, you're almost certain to offend a good chunk of people on one side or the other. If a game had something that was an obvious reference to Obamacare, for example, that would very much be playing with fire. If you portray it as being a good thing, you offend people who want it repealed. If you portray it as a bad thing, you offend people who like the law. Either way, you're likely to offend people who want such contentious issues kept out of their entertainment.
And furthermore, it would be completely gratuitous. Even if a game needs to have some sort of health care for whatever reason, there's no reason why it needs to make any obvious references to a particular real-life law. That's precisely the sort of political issue that I don't want in my games. If Fox News or MSNBC want to go on about Obamacare at length, that's fine; someone who watches a political news channel knows what he's getting. But I also want to be able to get away from having to deal with it.
At this point, I really just have to say "get over it". So what. There's characters in Biowares games that are blatantly gay. Get over it. There's also characters that are blatantly straight. Get over it. If you don't like it, then don't follow that storyline. Yes, it is that simple. Bioware games are all about choices.
This is 2014, not 1980. Things have changed. Oh, and btw, Bioware games have always had it as as part of the game, it just hasn't been as blatant as it is in DAI where the character says he likes to get it on only with guys. Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and SWTOR have all included it.
Once again, so what. Bioware has always been a trailblazer and unafraid to try things that others find taboo. It's what makes them so incredibly good. They usually make you think about what you do and the consequences of such actions, even if the consequences mean no effect on you whatsoever. I celebrate their awesomeness in being willing to take chances, not bash them because I don't like what they did.
The point is that you don't have to follow the story if you don't want to.
What I don't get is how this thread is still open due to what it addresses.
You seem to have some notion that writers write what the mobs tell them to write or that someone forced Bioware to include gay relationships. I don't think they're that shallow or simple minded. There are hacks out there who do indeed try to cash in on pop trends but they usually write for tabloids and fanzines or these days, they write edgy blogs, especially if they get paid by the number of hits like many do.
Other than those obvious hacks, I tend to give writers the benefit of doubt. They write stories in certain ways and have their characters behave in ways that are reflective of their own personal moral code - heroes and villains both.
So when Kirk kisses Uhura in Star Treck or Bioware includes a same sex romance story line in DA-I, public pressure to include those things in their fiction is the last thing that comes to my mind. What comes to my mind is that they're original decisions made by the writers who are fully aware, in the context of the times they live in, of what they're doing it and why they're doing it. And in both cases they are doing something that they believe should be acceptable but isn't accepted by some.
So why is it that you think that the Uhura / Kirk kiss was motivated by artistic integrity but Bioware's same sex romances are just a result of the twitter mob insisting that they do that? I'm frankly having a hard time following your logic... Are you saying that ALL progressive ideas in 2014 are suspect because of social media and the ones in the 60s were immune to the effect of public opinion?
Or could it just be that you don't like the inclusion of same sex relationships in games, can't quite bring yourself to just say that, and instead decided to be dismissive about what Bioware did on the basis that twitter is exerting some form mind control on their writers?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
You keep coming back to that, you can't accept that someone has a different opinion to you, perhaps they subconsciously think that there is something wrong with gay relationships. You want others to affirm you point of view, not inform it, but then we all do to a certain extent.
I was speaking in broader terms than Bioware, this thread was not specifically about Bioware, perhaps you have got me confused for someone who was talking about them? For me they are just a side note to issues far wider. When it comes to them I think they have done fine work and don't know what the fuss is all about. Lets face it relationships in most games are very 2 dimensional and you hardly notice them. They did a good job of whatever type of relationship they were portraying.
It is the demands of the social media mob that I find unacceptable. To them if there are going to be relationships there must now always be a gay one as well, and so on. If the writer wants to portray that then fine and many do, but do we want writing to be turned into a social contact enforced by Twitter?
You use the term 'mind control' to make what I am saying seem strange. But if you mount campaigns, write articles and do hashtags to get your version of reality enforced on everything everyone else does, then that's not a bad term for it.
I guess I just read deeper between the lines than you then. Or maybe I over analyse the situation, I am just trying to imagine myself as a feminist seeing a game coming out in 2014 with multiple options for a hero character in a rpg game but for some unknown reason no female possibilities. The first thing that would come to mind is that for the devs, a strong and powerfull hero can only be a male.
-------
The thing is that it's rarely only A and B. Let's stick with DA-I for example, you have A who don't want homosexual interaction in their game, B don't really care if it's there but won't pursue the option themselves and C they want to have an option for homosexual interaction.
Group A and C are in opposition, so there is a choice to make but it is not as easy as you seem to imply. The decision will come from the top, it could be a personal choice to push a belief or it could simply be about money. Which group is bigger, A or C, that is different by regions. Bioware's Montreal devs are most likely influenced by the place they live in, and it happens that Montreal is really LGBT friendly. So let's say they decided to go for that because it's simply in line with their beliefs. To them, it is not necessarily an agenda or even a political statement, it's simply the way things are for them, but for some people it certainly will feel like it is since it's the opposite of what they want.
--------
I don't know what type of game could plug in Obamacare without looking totally stupid, but let's say a Sim game that is really going for realism. A universal healthcare option would be well received in Canada and most european country as it's what they are used to. Some American might take offense in it, especially if it try to emulate every aspect of the bill but then I would question why someone so agaisnt controversy or political statement loaded game, would buy this type of game to begin with.
Anyway, no one would ever make a game like that, so you don't have to worry about that one.
Sure, but there aren't any games that I can think of that are targeting only racists or homophobes.
I like RPG type games that have their own internal culture, history, religion, and politics. An entire virtual world full of political factions, religious factions, different races each with their own prejudices, is preferred.
Games that try to push me in one direction or another IRL will probably get discarded quickly.
------------
2024: 47 years on the Net.
It is the same thing, is it not? You say that anyone that does not like homosexual content is a bigot. And since you made no attempt to inform otherwise, I'd say it is safe to assume you personally hold this view as well. Therefore if anyone disagrees with you on this subject, they are a bigot (or at least they are in your eyes). Honestly just like the word "Tolerence", bigot is just a word used by people who believe their opinion is in the majority (and maybe it is.....but that does not change how subjective it is). I try to stay away from those words because they mean nothing to me.
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
It is not the same thing, you can disagree with his opinion and still not have a problem with homosexual content.
If your saying that you have no stance on the issue (live and let live), well then that's cool. I was just responding to his blatant bashing of people that hold a certain point of view that happens to be different than his. I could care less what they put in games. Since we are talking about this particular issue. I did play Borderlands The Pre Sequel, and there was plenty of homos in that game ( I'll admit I rolled my eyes a few times) but I still enjoyed it. Just because you disagree with something does not mean you have to hate it. Besides as many have said before me, "Don't like it? Don't buy it" (its just as simple as that).
The code of the pessimistic loner: "We unpopular loners are realists, who follow the three non- popular principles: Not having any (Hope), Not making any (Gaps in your heart); And not giving into (Sweet talk)".
Umm, there isn't a single Gamergater that thinks games shouldn't have gay characters or people are going to go to hell.
Those that think that are radical fundamentalists, just like 3rd wave feminists and thus are on one side...also, can you please name me the radical Christian that was invited to a GDC to talk to game makers about the importance of saving gamers souls by not making games with gay characters...oops.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
What point are you trying to make? That you are a homophobe and still play games with homosexual content? Congrats
A homophobe is a bigot. Is there any other way of saying that?
There is not a single one but the ones that are, are radicals... which one is it ? How would a radical fundamentalist and a third wave feminist be on one side ? They are both extremes of the scale.
BTW my comment had nothing to do with gamergate, I am simply talking about general political statement in games. You say that only feminist are pushing to have political statement in game and that the other side isn't pushing for the status quo ? Isn't the gamergate about paying journalist to boost reviews anyway ? I admit I didn't read much about it. But why would one of those fundamentalist be invited to a GDC anyway ? It's not like they would ever come up with any good idea ...
As I already said a couple of times, I don't think non-strategy games without narrative stories really have political content (certain people such as Anita Sarkeesian would disagree but that's another topic).
I'm using the term propaganda as the second meaning in the definition you linked. Deliberately trying to advocate for or discredit a specific political position or ideology in a game. Most games don't and shouldn't do that. But politics is just relations of power within society. Every game with a narrative is going to have some politics in it.
Are you seriously suggesting that Frozen is a "gay agenda" movie. I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh at such a silly statement. Also, children aren't dumb. They will eventually choose for themselves what they like/dislike. Teaching your children hate is wrong in my opinion, but hey my family tried to teach me to be racist and it certainly didn't work.
Honestly I think it should be illegal to influence your children religiously or to hate certain groups of people. That should be a choice for them when they are of age (18), not a choice made by the adult for the child.
Smile
You clearly haven't played Dragon Age: Inquisition because it does not try to make everybody in it bi. You never even have to experience the relationship part of the game if you don't want to, which is another reason why I find it hilarious when people complain about Bioware games having these choices. Because that's what they are: Choices. And you can play the game without choosing those choices.
Smile
What are you talking about? A ton of games usually have a male hero saving some helpless female and they in-turn fall in love (because video game logic).
Also, your excuse for having no gays and lesbians in games is by far one of the worst I've seen so far. I mean, if that's how you think, why should there be any straight couples in games at all? Why not just have them all be gay and lesbian since it is a fictional world and they could reproduce in ways we aren't aware of.
You see what I just did there? That's how you basically sound accept yours is the 100% straight population version. Both versions are obviously ridiculous and on either ends of extremes is my point, and so your "fictional species in a fictional world" excuse isn't even remotely decent.
Smile
Same sex marriages and homosexuality aren't "life styles." That's like saying straight marriages and heterosexuality are "life styles."
Smile
You speak as if people don't have a will of their own. Hate to break it to you, most support or don't support something because they believe/disbelieve in that particular thing. Most people are not possessed by "mob mentality" over the internet (I mean come on, that's just silly). You make it sound as if 99% of the population is teenage girls and boys just clicking "like" because their "celebrity hero" told them to do so. Most of the human population is brighter than that (most of the teenage population is, in fact, brighter than that).
Where are these masses of people on social media sites demanding writers to include homosexual relationships in their games? Fact is that I see pretty much the opposite. When writers or companies include homosexual depictions (or even women as main characters) in their games I see the bigots demanding them to be removed, using derogatory terms, and just generally acting like angry, loud, entitled jerks.
Of course, like in this article's comment section, there are the more sneaky bigots that are smart about not outright using names or insults, but it's pretty clear which way they swing (pun intended) when it comes to homosexuality in general, so it's very hard to take their thinly disguised, but still bigoted, opinion(s) seriously.
Please though, do tell me if you find that mob with pitchforks, forcing writers (who are hired by companies not by the amount of twitter spam they receive) to do as they want.
Smile