[Same gender romance discussion]

I said it should only be added if it benefits the game enough to justify the resources.

 

Unless you have any data - hard evidence of truthful data - about the resources it takes to update any particular part of this game then you must understand that your comments seemed - and still seem - to boil down to 'This shouldn't be in because I don't like it.'

 

You cite that you believe it should go in if it will benefit the game sufficiently - all right, that's fair enough. You also cite that the game is in trouble (though I've yet to see any specific, factual evidence to state exactly and objectively how much 'trouble' it is in; you certainly haven't provided any).

 

Here's the thing: I know at least a dozen people who would be far more inclined to play - and very likely start a subscription - if SGRAs were a part of the game. I have not done any particular research into how many would or wouldn't; that number is a rough one but it's pulled from actual conversations I've had about the game. Some used to play, some never have. All of them were surprised that SGRAs weren't in it from launch - specifically because it's a Bioware game.

 

Now, maybe it's partly because I talk to people who tend to be sympathetic to LGBTI issues or are, indeed, themselves part of the LGBTI spectrum, but if I can think of that many without doing a survey I think it's fair enough to extrapolate that putting SGRAs in as an option would benefit the game's health far more than one might suspect (and a great deal more than you seem to be implying).

 

timidobserver, you have stated you will never support SGRA inclusion. The word 'never' was yours. That means that even if the game were the healthiest in the world you would not support SGRA inclusion. Yet you say you have nothing against it going in if it's a suitable use of the resources that you don't have any data upon.

 

I must, therefore, come to the conclusion that the reason you don't want SGRAs in the game is because of some form of homophobic ideal (because, truly, nothing else fits). So why are you bothering to come to this thread and say 'Oh, I don't have anything against it going in if the game's healthy enough but I'll never support it going in,' (both of which are concrete statements that you have made) and then getting uppity and morally righteous when people call you out on your stance?

[Same gender romance discussion]

Oh, people are going to have preferred canons, don't get me wrong, I fully agree there. I just often see a lot of people having, shall we say, difficulty coming to grasp with factors from different canons that conflict with one another (such as the canon elements introduced in episodes I, II and III when contrasted against the EU). It wasn't a pointed comment at you, fabiyun. It was more a gentle reminder to people in general that when people say 'the canon needs revision' one then needs to establish which canon and how one thinks it needs to be revised.

 

I mean... if they're completely separate does the canon really need to be revised or is it just a matter of accepting that they're separate (whether one is said to be 'more canon' or not)?

 

Either way the only people who can actually revise the canon or say what should or shouldn't be in it are the creators. Fans can make suggestions and have opinions but in the end that's all they are - opinions and suggestions. Even if the ideas we come up with seem to make sense they aren't anything more than head-canon.

[Same gender romance discussion]

Regarding SW canon, I don't necessarily see it as being poorly organised. Rather I see it as being unique among fiction canon by being broken into parts. Both Wookieepedia and LucasArts support this: there is more than one kind of Star Wars canon.

 

In all other works of fiction - that I've seen, anyway - there is only one accepted canon. Everything that falls within it is canon; everything that doesn't is non-canon (or dubious canon if it hasn't been confirmed or denied by the creator/s). But in Star Wars there are multiple levels of canon, several different levels of reality as it were. The Holocron Continuity Database was created with several different forms of canon in mind.

 

It's important to understand, in any discussion of Star Wars continuity, that continuity in one canon stream doesn't necessarily mean continuity in another.

[Same gender romance discussion]

You just illustrated one of my pet peeves- just because media depicts something does not mean it's sexist or misogynistic. Quite often, it isn't. In fact, it can often be a statement about misogyny or sexism, but what one has to do is look over the whole of the whatever before looking at the particulars. Most of the time, people don't want to bother engaging their brains and analyzing what is in front of them. They just want to criticize.

 

Indeed. If the media portrays something it implies only one thing without question: that it is profitable for the media group to do so.

[Same gender romance discussion]

However, I am against the idea that it should be added purely for the sake of equality.

 

Any particular reason you're so firmly against equality in this matter, or is it mainly that it won't add anything to the game that you, personally, care about?

[Same gender romance discussion]

They've 'put a hold on it' since before release. There's no realistic reason that an update containing what you vaguely describe as 'heavy content' (which I take to actually mean 'content that I want') can't also contain SGRA content updates.

 

As Tatile says the evidence points to the developers simply not wanting to add it in but, on the same note, not wanting to actually come out and say that. We're now well past the point of taking things on faith. If they want us to believe something different then they need to start providing evidence. Makeb was barely a start. Cute, yes, but nothing more than that.

[Same gender romance discussion]

It's not a personal attack, more of "look, these people think they know you, are you ok with that?"

 

No, I knew it wasn't a personal attack. And I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I think it's an assumption on the part of the game developers/writers. (and, of course, applies to just about any media you care to name) - they're telling everybody what they should want. Which, of course, means we have to let them know they're wrong. "Here, you don't need a well-developed character to enjoy this romance/story/whatever." Well... Actually yes, I do.

 

From a consumer's perspective I have no problem with thematically appropriate characters that aren't very likeable because not every character should be an enlightened being free of bias or baggage. But every character you expect the audience to connect with, positively or negatively, should have a high degree of development. Are they a boorish lout? A patient mentor? An impetuous troublemaker? As a writer you should know why they're that kind of person, even if you never intend the audience to find out. I have a problem with facile cookie-cutter two-dimensional characters which are basically shoddy cardboard cut-outs of stereotypes that everyone's seen before.

 

...But I've probably gone on a tangent.

[Same gender romance discussion]

Well remember, "men don't need women to be whole", and of course, that the women in this game exist only for the men playing it.

 

Can't speak for all men but that's certainly not true of me.

[Same gender romance discussion]

I'm still a fan of hero-sexualism. Not the most satisfying option but it solves far more problems than it creates.

[Same gender romance discussion]

I'm more interested at looking at it from a non-midichlorian perspective, because I personally think those are very much like mitochondria, which are kind-of like really ancient bacteria (and given by the "mother" - they're transmitted via the ovum), which wouldn't make much sense for in-organic materials which can be imbued with the Force, or at least aspects of it.

 

They were based on mitochondria, according to what Lucas has said on the matter.

[Same gender romance discussion]

I don't think JetAten has made any 'mistakes', either in picking up the game with expectations or comparing it to other, non-MMO games. Bioware: Austin isn't the same company that made the games being compared to TOR but they have very much capitalised on the good standing of the Bioware name; all of the advertising carries the Bioware label and the EA label (at the bottom of this very page, for example) with no differentiation made between the Austin and Edmonton branches. I think that picking up TOR and expecting it to have the same rough level of quality in certain areas as previous titles is entirely reasonable. If nothing else the quality assurance people at EA should have made certain it was the same quality before allowing it to be launched, instead of both BW:A and EA rushing it through to release so obviously.

 

It's not the same quality. It is a good game but it's left a lot of long-standing Bioware (and even EA) fans cold. And unfortunately we've been saying that we hope it gets implemented 'soon' since launch. A year and a half later not even 'writer soon' covers it.

 

This whole matter has been poorly managed; they still won't confirm what's going on with it. One 50+ NPC flirt opportunity per faction (female for Republic, male for Empire) doesn't make up for over a year of almost total silence. Tell us it's coming or tell us it's not, that's what I say. I'd rather know than not.

 

No, they don't have any requirement to put it in. No, they don't have any requirement to tell us anything. But it's still darn shoddy customer service.

[Same gender romance discussion]

No, we don't. The devs do. That's the problem with players getting what they want.

[EDIT: And no, not trying to bait you, I was curious as to what you think the majority of players want, not just the majority of posters in this thread]

 

The developers don't either. They can (and do) provide a wide range of content. They only need to decide which parts they'll put in, which they'll leave out and in which order. They certainly don't need to choose between, say, end-game content and SGRAs. They may choose to (which is their right as the makers of the game) but they don't need to.

 

EDIT: If you're actually wondering what I think the majority of players want, I think the player population is too split to agree on any one particular type of content and as cynical as it may be of me I definitely think most groups would claim the majority want what they do. I certainly don't think SGRAs are a priority for the majority of players but I doubt crafting is either. I can't really speak for the majority because I don't frequent most of the other boards.

 

I took it to mean, in how people think things have to be changed or stopped just because they're offended, when I listened to it.

 

That's what I mean by vetoing things on the basis of disliking them and for no other reason.

[Same gender romance discussion]

So, do you think the majority of players want more, end game content/class story lines or SGR romances?

 

Sigh. Now you're just baiting me, but that's okay because your point here is irrelevant. What the majority of players want from the game's development isn't the 'majority' in question. As you well know. And as you consistently avoid addressing, we don't actually have to choose between them.

 

It does have context! To those who say "I'm offended" it has context

 

Yeah, but that's not the context in question. With the context of trying to make constructive comments, yes, 'I'm offended' has no real meaning on its own other than 'my feelings don't like that'. Such statements require clarification and further discussion which is, I believe, part of Mr Fry's main point. Vetoing things because you disagree with them and for no other reason is stupid.

 

But without that context it's just a license to be rude. "I've offended you? I don't care. Saying 'I'm offended' is meaningless, Mr Fry says so." No, saying 'I'm offended' isn't meaningless. It expresses a reaction to a subject. It's the function of stopping at 'I'm offended' and offering no other objection that's the meaningless bit.

[Same gender romance discussion]

I'm not against the retooling of older content. Not at all. I can just see why BW/EA might not be for it. Why? Because of that bolded part in the quote. Potentially.

 

Yes, but nothing is guaranteed to make them money. Everything is a potential money-maker.

 

Things, in my experience, that help get new players in, is things like new expansions that catch their eye and going f2p (which BW/EA did). What retooling old content might do, is get old players to return, but even then, without other changes, I don't find that to be the case either.

 

Without other changes, maybe, but when did I ever suggest that there should be no other changes? Not once. Indeed, I think that not having to choose between option A and option B is one of the good things about MMOs. I'd like to see that broadened, too - sabacc games, for example, or that space-chess game whose name I keep forgetting.

 

TOR has it's fans who will come and go, and that's likely where their player numbers will stand. WoW of course can worry less about it, since millions of players coming and going, still has them with millions of players. TOR seems to have less wiggle room, not to mention being run by stockholders, where the important part isn't "Is the game good" but rather "are we making money".

 

Blizzard has shareholders too. That's why Blizzard and Activision merged in the first place; the shareholders decided it'd be a good move.

 

WoW has millions of subscribers now, yes. It's worked its way up to the position it holds. No reason SWTOR can't do something similar. Although sci-fi MMOs do markedly less well than fantasy MMOs, even with the Star Wars label attached.

[Same gender romance discussion]

So yes, there are people who fall into that category, as there are for all the other categories of the TOR experience (PvE, PvP, what have you).

 

Sure, but there's people like that everywhere. I'm talking about the majority.

 

And my quote is a good one It's a very true statement.

 

I have issues with it. It's fine if it has a context.

[Same gender romance discussion]

The problem I have is not that you want time and resources invested into this same gender romance thing. The problem is that you want to "retool" the old content. That's waste of time. We all know how slow they are with developing new story content. Lets not make it even slower by coming back again and again to change old content.

 

Ahem:

Updating old content on something as insignificant as same gender romances would be great waste of time and resources. I say include it in the new content if you must, but focus on new content, not on recycling old one.

 

Bold added by me for emphasis. Retooling old content may be a problem for you but it's certainly not the only problem you appear to have with the idea. People don't call things 'insignificant' lightly, nor do they toss about terms like 'if you must' if their position on a matter is neutral.

 

Besides, retooling old content - heaps of old content, not just adding in SGRAs (which would be easily one of the smaller changes if they went the herosexual route) - would certainly not be a waste. There's no denying the fact that the game was rushed and there are heaps of things that could stand improving. There could be more open PvP areas, companion quests, there could be free-control space missions, group space missions, more missions thrown in here and there to make levelling more enjoyable, there could be additional Advanced Class missions so levelling is a more varied experience between, say, Sith Assassin and Sith Sorcerer. They could put in chairs people can sit down on. They could include more in the way of galactic lore so people feel more immersed into the story.

 

Not everyone has already played the game so it certainly wouldn't be a waste for the new folk. These options and plenty more would potentially drag in more players - subscribers and no - and get SWTOR more money. And, as has been pointed out, they aren't changes that would need to all happen at once. Would new content be good? Yes. I'd have loved it if Makeb were considerably larger and more involved. But that doesn't mean the old stuff couldn't do with a work-over.

 

Besides, it's not taking them all that long; certainly not as long as you're implying. World of Warcraft is taking consistently longer. Burning Crusade came out three years after vanilla WoW. Wrath of the Lich King was almost two years after that, Cataclysm slightly over two years later, Mists of Pandaria almost two years later again. So if we use WoW as a model the SWTOR team is actually well ahead releasing new material (and that's not including the mini-events like the Grand Acquisitions Race and so forth). They could be doing nothing but patches and the occasional themed event until 2015, instead we've had several themed events and a digital expansion.

[Same gender romance discussion]

Not what I meant. More like "If you don't add this content, I'm leaving" which, yes, people have made that comment on every bit of content, whether it be PvE, PvP, storylines, SGR, ect ect.

 

Again, that's not the point because you're using a different sentiment than the one I've now repeatedly stated. 'If you don't add this content I'm leaving' is a statement of self-interest. It doesn't involve the deprivation of a form of content from a different group of people on the basis that you don't want it. 'If you make that content I don't want to play then I'm leaving' is both a statement of self-interest and selfish.

 

It's probably also one of the reasons SGR is low on the to do list. I'd say most people can play the romance storylines as they're offered and not go "Well I'm /this/ in real life, so if my gaming experience doesn't reflect that in my character's life, I'm totally offended and have to quit, because I just can't imagine that my character is different than me."

 

While the rest of players realize, there's so many things the character does that they the player wouldn't do, even with the option system, as it's a limited option system.

 

<sighs>

 

SK, look. The majority of people who are pro-SGRA know quite well it's a limited-option system. The majority of people who are pro-SGRA are also entirely capable of separating their in-game experiences from their real-world sexuality. You're boiling everything down to oversimplicity again and the quote in your signature says all you need to say on your opinion of what you're boiling this down to.

 

The vast majority of us aren't here because we're 'totally offended and have to quit' because we just can't imagine that our characters are different than us. We're here because we want to see a feature implemented and have every right to ask for it.

[Same gender romance discussion]

I'm pretty sure people who want SGR don't only want that. Actually, if I was asked if I preferred to get a SRG companion or 2 new warzones, I'd have to think about it...and after that, ask what kind of warzones.

 

Yeah, see, I'd go the SGRA companion hands down, but that doesn't mean I don't want to play the rest of the game (PvP excluded). And let's face it, one of the great things about the MMO game model is that there's no real need to choose; we can have PvP, PvE, RP-friendly areas, companions, OGRA/SGRAs, guilds, space combat...

[Same gender romance discussion]

Heh. I like the "presumably" there. Nice touch.

 

I also avoid PvP myself, as well as the PvP threads because of the arguments that usually go on in those, but yeah, I understand why it's included and why people like it and why they think it's important.

 

Yeah, the arguments are the reason that 'presumably' is there. Still, there's people who will never be satisfied in every group (including the pro-SGRA crowd). I can't really speak about them because I don't think they're representative of any majority. Most tend to be quite reasonable people.

 

Or maybe I just meet the few reasonable ones by some freakish cosmic chance.

[Same gender romance discussion]

But it's typical MMO player behavior. Look at this thread. "I only wish to play SGR content, don't update it and add it or I'm leaving"

 

It's the same attitude, just a different area of the game.

 

No, sorry. I don't know a single person who's pro-SGRA who's ever said they ONLY want to play SGR content. Everyone I've spoken to on the matter wants to play SGR romance content (many, like myself, also want to play OGRA content) and also, you know, the rest of the game. It's not the same attitude at all. And in any case that's not even the point I was making. I'll repeat myself.

 

What I was saying was that it's selfish to threaten to leave the game because someone else is getting content updates in a form of content you don't play. Here, I'll even give you an example.

 

I don't play PvP at all. I accidentally ran into an enemy territory today and backpedalled well before the game could PvP flag me. I have no interest in it at all. I find no fun in it, I don't bother doing it, I avoid it whenever I can. I absolutely refuse to play games that enforce PvP because I won't be pushed into it; I don't even play competitive RTS games like Starcraft 2, I'll only play cooperative games or the single-player campaign. I truly can't express the depth of my disinterest in PvP. Heck, I don't even like competing for crafting resources and quest mobs.

 

But I don't go into PvP threads demanding that no time or resources be spent on developing it. I don't call it insignificant; I don't even consider it insignificant because lots of people do indeed enjoy it. I don't insult people who do it. I don't think less of PvPers. I certainly wouldn't block the development of PvP in the game with the single exception that I would indeed leave in a heartbeat if they enforced PvP. But even then I wouldn't try and take anyone with me when I left; I'd do so quietly and without fuss.

 

Why? Because I'm not so small-minded and petty that I think the whole game needs to be catered to my tastes alone. Do I want SGRAs in the game? Yes I do. Do I think that they should retool the original content? Yes I do. Does that mean I ONLY want to play SGRA content? No, it does not. Honestly I'd be happy if they did more work on PvP because it'd make the PvPers happier (presumably). I have no problem with them getting what they want. That's totally cool with me. It's content I'll never ever see and still I'm in favour of them working on and improving it.

 

So no, sorry, we'll have to disagree. There's a massive difference between saying 'I want this in because that's where my interests lie' and 'If those people get what they want then I'm leaving.' The latter is tremendously selfish and to boil all MMO players down to the same motivations is a gross oversimplification.

[Same gender romance discussion]

Just curious, but do you know of any MMOs with a replay option that isn't "roll up a new character"?

 

Depends on the part. In LotRO you can play through any given flashpoint-style mission, but any MMO allows that kind of replayability. In STO you can replay any mission at all (and you get a level-appropriate version of the quest rewards), so such a system does exist out there. Definitely not common but it exists.

[Same gender romance discussion]

Updating old content on something as insignificant as same gender romances would be great waste of time and resources. I say include it in the new content if you must, but focus on new content, not on recycling old one.

 

Well done, you managed to completely avoid a key part of my point. I said retooling old content, including romances. Not exclusively romances. Plus this content isn't 'insignificant' to everyone who plays the game.

[Same gender romance discussion]

And now that the game is over a year old, I'm sure there's players who play much more than me, who have all 8 classes to 50 and would think updates to past content would be a reason to walk away.

 

Honestly, if someone finds an update to content they're past a reason to actually walk away, I'd disregard their opinion. That 'You must only update content I wish to play' attitude is selfish.

[Same gender romance discussion]

It's also why I think the next great MMO will be made by a private group (if it happens at all) as they'll be able to take risks that companies like EA are afraid of.

 

Yeah, I agree with you there.

 

And I did say in a previous post, that I had thought about it, and that I think herosexuality would be a good idea in being able to end it all.

 

Oh, to be clear, the herosexual thing was me expounding on a point I've made before. Wasn't aimed at you specifically. But still, yes, it'd solve an awful lot.

 

And with your use of "be appalled" is very likely why they haven't come out and said "Not worth the time and money to go back into old content"

 

But see, that's the thing. It probably actually would be worth going back over the original content and make a bunch of small tweaks and changes (not just SGRAs but a number of things; class-specific content that's keyed to the advanced classes, for example so that levelling a Gunslinger is a bit different from levelling a Scoundrel, say). It'd freshen up the content and get people who've been into the game from the start interested in the original stuff again.

 

But even if it's not worth going back over it, that's a different reason than 'we don't want to'. Cost-effectiveness is a very different animal than lack of desire to include a given type of content.

 

But yes, that's probably why they haven't said either. Which is a shame, really. There's always someone who's going to be appalled by something. If I had to choose between the two I'd personally prefer to have people appalled at me for honesty than for being duplicitous.

[Same gender romance discussion]

Last I heard the original team did indeed intend to include it but couldn't due to 'time and budgeting constraints'. It's all hot air, at this stage. They could implement same sex content into the original material, they just don't want to. Herosexuality, whatever people might think about its 'believability', would be the easiest and most equitable way of fixing this (other than removing romance entirely, which I'm not in favour of). Open relationships to male and female PCs (using those genders to mean the ones you can make in character creation), hire the voice actors to voice a few extra lines to iron out inconsistencies and make everything neat and good, bam. Mischief Managed.

 

We're now seeing appearance kiosks that can change species but not gender. Why? Because changing gender would mess with the romances already in place. What would fix that issue? Why, herosexuality would, who'd have thunk? It goes beyond same sex content. It makes the game more flexible to build upon in more respects than just letting male Smugglers get their flirt on with Corso or female Sith Warriors snuggle up with Vette.

 

SithKoriandr is probably going to point out* - entirely correctly - that they don't need to include anything they don't want to. That's absolutely right, they don't. It IS their game. But that doesn't change the fact that when they say it's 'too hard' to change the original content they're not being factual. They could and it's not too hard - or, at least, it's certainly not as hard as they seem to be implying. They just don't want to. And if they don't want to I just wish they'd say they don't want to so we could all be appropriately appalled and move on.

 

Having said that the Republic-side Makeb flirt-interest is enjoyable. So it's not like they can't do it well - when they want to.

 

* = An assumption on my behalf but I think a fair one. Apologies if I'm incorrect.