Same gender romance discussion

[timidobserver]

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?

 

I am not really sure what you responding to on that first paragraph. Nothing in my post makes any assumptions on how much resources would be required to do anything. I am not saying it does or doesn't justify the resources, because saying that would require me to prove one way or the other. I am simply saying that it should benefit the game enough to justify the resources if it is added, and that statement needs no data to substantiate it. My statement leaves it up to Bioware to identify what benefits the game enough to justify being added.

 

If you followed my previous posts, I said that the statement about how the game is doing as a minor point. I do not debate minor points that have no impact on my overall point, so we'll just say that you guys are right that the game is doing better than Bioware ever expected it to do and there have never been any financial issues or subsrciber that may have halted or postponed previous plans. That has no impact on my statement that they should only add content that would benefit the game enough to justify the addition.

 

As far as what I personally support, yeh I don't support content addition that doesn't benefit me. It is the same reason that I don't support space combat. I personally have no use for it, so the next expansion will be useless to me. However, what I personally support matters very little when I follow it up by saying that it doesn't bother me if they add stuff that benefits the game. I take it that they decided, based on some kind of data, that adding space combat would be good for the game and worth the resources. I imagine that the space combat expansion will bring in money and new subscribers, and ultimately it will lead to them being able to add stuff that I like. I am fine with that. My view on space combat and my view on same sex content are identical, so no there is no homophobic bla bla bla as you stated.

 

 

I have been around enough to know what people mean when they say things like "enough to justify" and "benefits". You have not provided one single whiff of evidence to support your statements; however, I should point out that a lot of us- myself included- only bought the game on the promise of SGR's, and a lot of us have not been paying in order to play the game. I've seen this pattern before. You say that it is not your place to determine if this is a benefit and that you do not care if it is added or not- but if that is the case, why are you even commenting? Someone who is apathetic to this discussion would not say anything. Someone who has a vested interest in the topic- either for or against- would say something. Quite often we get people trying to bend their words around so that they do not sound like they are against SGR's even when they are against them by making the exact claims you have.

 

So, either prove that this is something that is not a priority, or you will continue to to run into people who are quite skeptical about your statements. Prove your point. If you do not wish to prove your point, then why bother continuing to comment?

 

How long you have been around it completely irrelevant. If you say I said something that I didn't, I am simply going to call you on that and not respond. That isn't a productive discussion, so why not respond to what I say instead of tailoring it to be something inflammatory that is simple enough that you are capable of responding to it?

 

Just a heads up. There are a couple of people that are responding directly to what I say instead of restating it into something else and then responding. I'll continue to respond to them. If you continue to morph my posts into something else and then respond, you won't get a response next time.

 

They've already said F2P turned the monetary side around, people got the Ops, WZs and SSSP they were demanding, and bug-fixes have nothing to do with story content.

 

So unless you'd care to explain what else you mean by "in trouble", the "I don't want" is what's going to stand out in your post.

 

If you followed my previous posts, I said that the statement about how the game is doing as a minor point. I do not debate minor points that have no impact on my overall point, so we'll just say that you guys are right that the game is doing better than Bioware ever expected it to do and there have never been any financial issues that may have halted, postponed, or changed previous plans to add certain content. That has no impact on my statement that they should only add content that would benefit the game enough to justify the addition.

Edited November 30, 2013 by timidobserver

[markcymru]

I do not debate minor points that have no impact on my overall point, so we'll just say that you guys are right that the game is doing better than Bioware ever expected it to do and there have never been any financial issues that may have halted, postponed, or changed previous plans .

 

I just want to point out that you yourself are doing what you've accused others of doing... viz re-wording their position in a way that allows you to make a point that you want to make. In in doing that, you ARE in effect debating the "minor point".

[timidobserver]

I just want to point out that you yourself are doing what you've accused others of doing... viz re-wording their position in a way that allows you to make a point that you want to make. In in doing that, you ARE in effect debating the "minor point".

 

Nope, I am demonstrating that changing that particular point matters very little. The idea was to show that you can change it to be whatever you want it to be and it still won't matter. So, I changed my statement to be that the game is and has always been doing excellent in order to hopefully end that line of discussion. I don't really dig the whole "Hmmm his main point is unimpeachable, so let's go after this side point that doesn't matter" tactic.

Edited November 30, 2013 by timidobserver

[Tatile]

Nope, I am demonstrating that changing that particular point matters very little. The idea was to show that you can change it to be whatever you want it to be and it still won't matter. So, I changed my statement to be that the game is and has always been doing excellent in order to hopefully end that line of discussion. I don't really dig the whole "Hmmm his main point is unimpeachable, so let's go after this side point that doesn't matter" tactic.

 

So why are you here? To tell us that you think that Bioware should make magical hundreds of patches before considering giving us something they promised back at launch?

 

The stave-off, stave-off, stave-off tactic is something you and yours have used for months - it's tired and incorrect.

[timidobserver]

So why are you here? To tell us that you think that Bioware should make magical hundreds of patches before considering giving us something they promised back at launch?

 

The stave-off, stave-off, stave-off tactic is something you and yours have used for months - it's tired and incorrect.

 

No. I am against content additions purely for the sake of equality, making political statements. If they find that the benefit to the game justifies the resources, they should add it. However, they should not add it for reasons not relating to making the game better.

 

Also, I don't really care about things that were said at launch. They said a lot of stuff at launch that is still on the wall of crazy. As long as it is still on the list of things to do, they haven't broken any promises. I've been noticing a swarm of same-sex dialog options as I level through Makeb, so it is clear that they are taking at least some steps.

[Tatile]

No. I am against content additions purely for the sake of equality, making political statements. If they find that the benefit to the game justifies the resources, they should add it. However, they should not add it for reasons not relating to making the game better.

 

Also, I don't really care about things that were said at launch. They said a lot of stuff at launch that is still on the wall of crazy. As long as it is still on the list of things to do, they haven't broken any promises. I've been noticing a swarm of same-sex dialog options as I level through Makeb, so it is clear that they are taking at least some steps.

 

A swarm? Really? The one romance with one character and no other [Flirt]s except for in the Marcobinocular and Seeker Droid quests (Imperial side, bisexual women NPCs only) are a "swarm" to you? Gosh.

 

Also, "political statements"? "for the sake of equality"? No, Bioware couldn't possibly add something to the game because it's part of their company's policy to be inclusive, or that of their parent company. No, they couldn't possibly add something to the game because it's what players have asked for - that people have said they would sub for. No, no, of course. Anything that doesn't directly involve cishets is a "political statement". Just like allowing the inter-racial and inter-species marriages in the game is a "political statement".

 

It's not like Bioware have made a "political statement" with the exclusion of this content - it's not like they were the ones to start this whole mess by talking over themselves and back-and-forthing with every little step.

 

No, no, you're so right. Women in positions of power! Why! That's a political statement as well! Why on Earth did Bioware include that? They shouldn't have done, should they? They only did it "for equality's sake". Because, lord knows, if you do anything that makes people "equal", you're doing the wrong damn thing.

 

No, this is a game, it's not real life. People shouldn't be able to escape the troubles of real life in a game. They should be forever reminded of their being marginalised. Of being treated as "lesser" or "other", as an after thought. Because games are, after all, the purview of people who have privilege.

[Seireeni]

No. I am against content additions purely for the sake of equality, making political statements. If they find that the benefit to the game justifies the resources, they should add it. However, they should not add it for reasons not relating to making the game better.

 

I have to pitch in an ask, why do you think they would at same gender romances for the sake of "making political statements"? Why wouldn't it make the game better?

[Joushigun]

No. I am against content additions purely for the sake of equality, making political statements. If they find that the benefit to the game justifies the resources, they should add it. However, they should not add it for reasons not relating to making the game better.

 

Also, I don't really care about things that were said at launch. They said a lot of stuff at launch that is still on the wall of crazy. As long as it is still on the list of things to do, they haven't broken any promises. I've been noticing a swarm of same-sex dialog options as I level through Makeb, so it is clear that they are taking at least some steps.

 

And yet, your point about it not benefiting the game was thoroughly obliterated by me. Your original point is also invalidated because you sit here and argue that you don't want something added to the game because you don't want something added to the game. Your rationale is uninspiring at best, and weak at worst. You have been unable to back your assertions that SGRA's do not benefit the game- and refused to back them up while claiming without support that they do not benefit the game.

 

What it comes down to is that this is your opinion and you just do not want SGRA's because you think it's about equality or a political statement despite being given a very thorough explanation of the way in which it monetarily benefits BioWare and the game.

 

Given that all of your arguments have been stripped bare and countered one by one and you have yet to provide a decent explanation of why your position is better than ours all you leave us with is the very strong impression that you are homophobic and oppose SGRA's because of that.

 

The problem here is that you seem to think you're going against neophytes who have never actually argued about these issues. Instead, you're dealing with people who have been countering these insipid arguments for years- decades in some cases.

[Joushigun]

I would like to add that the reason I want SGRA's in the game is not because of equality or politics or all of that stuff- but because I like gaming and love Star Wars and want to enjoy the game as I would like to enjoy it and even love it, but apparently that's too much to ask for the Mister CisGender, Heterosexual Pants out there.

[timidobserver]

A swarm? Really? The one romance with one character and no other [Flirt]s except for in the Marcobinocular and Seeker Droid quests (Imperial side, bisexual women NPCs only) are a "swarm" to you? Gosh.

 

Also, "political statements"? "for the sake of equality"? No, Bioware couldn't possibly add something to the game because it's part of their company's policy to be inclusive, or that of their parent company. No, they couldn't possibly add something to the game because it's what players have asked for - that people have said they would sub for. No, no, of course. Anything that doesn't directly involve cishets is a "political statement". Just like allowing the inter-racial and inter-species marriages in the game is a "political statement".

 

It's not like Bioware have made a "political statement" with the exclusion of this content - it's not like they were the ones to start this whole mess by talking over themselves and back-and-forthing with every little step.

 

No, no, you're so right. Women in positions of power! Why! That's a political statement as well! Why on Earth did Bioware include that? They shouldn't have done, should they? They only did it "for equality's sake". Because, lord knows, if you do anything that makes people "equal", you're doing the wrong damn thing.

 

No, this is a game, it's not real life. People shouldn't be able to escape the troubles of real life in a game. They should be forever reminded of their being marginalised. Of being treated as "lesser" or "other", as an after thought. Because games are, after all, the purview of people who have privilege.

 

I am not all the way through Makeb, but so far I have seen a lot more same-sex dialog options. There has been one every time I move to the next stage in the main story arc of Makeb so far. That is a swarm to me, although I accept that you may not view it as much. We can agree to disagree on that. I do think something is better than nothing since it demonstrates that they are making progress even if slow.

 

Correct, I am against adding it due to inclusive policies or political statements. However, if they are seeing where they would gain significant sub, cartel point buyers, or that it would overall make the game better, they should go for it.

 

I don't really have any comments on your statements about women or using the game as a real life get away.

 

I have to pitch in an ask, why do you think they would at same gender romances for the sake of "making political statements"? Why wouldn't it make the game better?

 

I think that political statements could potentially be a reason to do it because I've seen statements in articles and posts from some posters that imply that they should add it to make a statement, to be fair, inclusive, or to promote equality.

 

I haven't said that it wouldn't make the game better, only that it should if they add it.

Edited November 30, 2013 by timidobserver

[Tatile]

Correct, I am against adding it due to inclusive policies or political statements.

 

So, you wouldn't mind if a game in an IP you really enjoyed came out, but you weren't able to play, say, a cishet white dude from launch, but the developers promised that you would in the future. You get two years down the line with no word from them, no indication that there's going to be the cishet white dude in the game, that would be fine for you?

 

Because adding in the cishet white dude would be inclusive, and a political statement. And you're against inclusion, after all.

[markcymru]

Nope, I am demonstrating that changing that particular point matters very little. The idea was to show that you can change it to be whatever you want it to be and it still won't matter. So, I changed my statement to be that the game is and has always been doing excellent in order to hopefully end that line of discussion. I don't really dig the whole "Hmmm his main point is unimpeachable, so let's go after this side point that doesn't matter" tactic.

But you’ve missed my point, which is this. You put words in someone else’s mouth – you could have left out the phrase “you guys are right that”. And those words were a distorted version of what was said. Taken together, that amounts to creating a straw man, however minor the point was to your main point. And it’s hard to escape the conclusion that you were attempting to indirectly cast aspersions both on “you guys” and on their position.

 

That tells me something about your character, which my post drew attention to.

 

And BTW, you've shifted your ground again.

[timidobserver]

But you’ve missed my point, which is this. You put words in someone else’s mouth – you could have left out the phrase “you guys are right that”. And those words were a distorted version of what was said. Taken together, that amounts to creating a straw man, however minor the point was to your main point. And it’s hard to escape the conclusion that you were attempting to indirectly cast aspersions both on “you guys” and on their position.

 

That tells me something about your character, which my post drew attention to.

 

And BTW, you've shifted your ground again.

 

Again, nope. It simply demonstrates that the point isn't important and anything can be substituted there.

[Tatile]

Again, nope. It simply demonstrates that the point isn't important and anything can be substituted there.

 

The point is you don't think SGRAs should be in the game and you want everyone else to roll over and agree with you.

[markcymru]

Again, nope. It simply demonstrates that the point isn't important and anything can be substituted there.

Nope, you're just proving that I'm right.

[timidobserver]

So, you wouldn't mind if a game in an IP you really enjoyed came out, but you weren't able to play, say, a cishet white dude from launch, but the developers promised that you would in the future. You get two years down the line with no word from them, no indication that there's going to be the cishet white dude in the game, that would be fine for you?

 

Because adding in the cishet white dude would be inclusive, and a political statement. And you're against inclusion, after all.

 

I wouldn't mind them doing that at well. It wouldn't really fit into Star Wars lore, but they could remove white people from SWTOR entirely and I wouldn't care.

 

The point is you don't think SGRAs should be in the game and you want everyone else to roll over and agree with you.

 

Nope, if everyone agreed on everything the world would be boring. I am fully aware that there is exactly 0% chance of getting the many of the people that frequent this thread to agree with me.

[Joushigun]

I wouldn't mind them doing that at well. It wouldn't really fit into Star Wars lore, but they could remove white people from SWTOR entirely and I wouldn't care.

 

 

 

Nope, if everyone agreed on everything the world would be boring. I am fully aware that there is exactly 0% chance of getting the many of the people that frequent this thread to agree with me.

 

Actually, you do care, or you wouldn't be arguing about it on this thread. Stop trying to prevaricate your way through this argument. For crying out loud, you sound like a Monty Python sketch. Are you really that bored out of your gourd that you have to come onto this thread in order to argue time and time again over something that you don't care about?

 

You have shifted your grounds repeatedly, ignored counter arguments. . .heck, I'm starting to think that you really are trying to act out a Monty Python skit.

[Tatile]

You have shifted your grounds repeatedly, ignored counter arguments. . .heck, I'm starting to think that you really are trying to act out a Monty Python skit.

 

It's the timidity, maybe he should go back to being an observer.

[Joushigun]

It's the timidity, maybe he should go back to being an observer.

 

He really should, but he probably won't.

[markcymru]

You have shifted your grounds repeatedly, ignored counter arguments. . .heck, I'm starting to think that you really are trying to act out a Monty Python skit.

 

Damn it, you took the words right out of my mouth. "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!"

[Tatile]

Can we move onto a more interesting topic of conversation?

 

It came up on tumblr, people using worn stereotypes for their characters - particularly gay men (it's tumblr, after all) - and I was wondering, what, if any, stereotypes do you think would exist in the Star Wars universe? Or more specifically, SWTOR.

 

I should imagine that the Republic and the Empire, being separate for so long, would have very different ones, if any.

[Joushigun]

Damn it, you took the words right out of my mouth. "Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!"

 

Yeah, I grew up on Monty Python

[Joushigun]

Can we move onto a more interesting topic of conversation?

 

It came up on tumblr, people using worn stereotypes for their characters - particularly gay men (it's tumblr, after all) - and I was wondering, what, if any, stereotypes do you think would exist in the Star Wars universe? Or more specifically, SWTOR.

 

I should imagine that the Republic and the Empire, being separate for so long, would have very different ones, if any.

 

Oddly enough, I wouldn't be necessarily surprised if the Empire was better about gays and lesbians than the Republic for the oddest of reasons- in many heavily militaristic societies (see Greece) lesbians and gays were not only tolerated, but even encouraged. The Empire, for all its elitism, is a heavily militaristic society. It would probably be based upon dominance, much like Hellenistic society or Roman society.

[Tatile]

Oddly enough, I wouldn't be necessarily surprised if the Empire was better about gays and lesbians than the Republic for the oddest of reasons- in many heavily militaristic societies (see Greece) lesbians and gays were not only tolerated, but even encouraged. The Empire, for all its elitism, is a heavily militaristic society. It would probably be based upon dominance, much like Hellenistic society or Roman society.

 

Yeah - while also coming across as heavily conformist, it does seem to support a fair amount of individuality (in which said is expressed as power and upward motion). I should imagine there would mostly be stereotypes about those who engage in actual relationships with aliens (in all but the slave castes, as well, I should think), rather than merely using them as sexual objects.

 

The only resistance would likely come from the idea of bloodlines, but (as we spoke with the midichlorian thing) that could be overcome with science (and lots of money).

[copperjack]

Oddly enough, I wouldn't be necessarily surprised if the Empire was better about gays and lesbians than the Republic for the oddest of reasons- in many heavily militaristic societies (see Greece) lesbians and gays were not only tolerated, but even encouraged. The Empire, for all its elitism, is a heavily militaristic society. It would probably be based upon dominance, much like Hellenistic society or Roman society.

 

That would be kind of funny, if in the Empire everyone assumes the really masculine, military, warrior type guys must be gay.