Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Same gender romance discussion

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Same gender romance discussion
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
05.23.2013 , 09:02 PM | #1411
Quote: Originally Posted by Kioma View Post
Sure, but there's people like that everywhere. I'm talking about the majority.
So, do you think the majority of players want more, end game content/class story lines or SGR romances?

Quote:
I have issues with it. It's fine if it has a context.
It does have context! To those who say "I'm offended" it has context
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so *********** what." - Stephen Fry

Kioma's Avatar


Kioma
05.23.2013 , 09:11 PM | #1412
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
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.
::Please Stand By, Signature Assessment Probe Commencing Analysis::

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
05.23.2013 , 09:25 PM | #1413
Quote: Originally Posted by Kioma View Post
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.
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]


Quote:
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.
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.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so *********** what." - Stephen Fry

Kioma's Avatar


Kioma
05.23.2013 , 09:52 PM | #1414
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
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.

Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
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.
::Please Stand By, Signature Assessment Probe Commencing Analysis::

Bytemite's Avatar


Bytemite
05.23.2013 , 10:27 PM | #1415
Quote:
I can't really speak for the majority because I don't frequent most of the other boards.
Probably lucky at that. Lot of arguing on some of them, not a lot of understanding or listening.

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
05.24.2013 , 12:53 AM | #1416
Quote: Originally Posted by Kioma View Post
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.



That's what I mean by vetoing things on the basis of disliking them and for no other reason.
Will have to disagree. I think the devs do need to figure out what the majority of players want, and out of that, what is the most cost effective for them, while, if we're lucky, implementing the things that are nice for some, but likely not cost effective.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more...than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so *********** what." - Stephen Fry

zzoorrzz's Avatar


zzoorrzz
05.24.2013 , 04:58 AM | #1417
Quote: Originally Posted by Kioma View Post
Ahem:


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.
Yes, I personally consider the whole thing insignificant, but thats not important right now. My opinion that "retooling" old content is waste of time and resources isnt influenced by that at all. I would say the same thing about any kind of similar changing old content, even the new story aspects I would like. 1-50 story is good as it is. Lets think about new things to add, but add them to new content, because coming back to change old things would only make developing new story content slower.

Noblis's Avatar


Noblis
05.24.2013 , 09:30 PM | #1418
Quote: Originally Posted by zzoorrzz View Post
Yes, I personally consider the whole thing insignificant, but thats not important right now. My opinion that "retooling" old content is waste of time and resources isnt influenced by that at all. I would say the same thing about any kind of similar changing old content, even the new story aspects I would like. 1-50 story is good as it is. Lets think about new things to add, but add them to new content, because coming back to change old things would only make developing new story content slower.
This makes sense. Has anybody noticed in the Act 1 of various stories, the lightsabers still have huge hilts?
If that hasn't changed from beta, what are the chances of additional story options? Redesigning the cutscenes
would be cheaper than new voiceovers AND animations for SGRs. But it is not happening. It seems they are continuing to focus on new content. Que Sera, Sera.
Hold up ! If we save Han now, there won't be anything for us to do at the beginning
of ROTJ !

cool-dude's Avatar


cool-dude
05.24.2013 , 11:40 PM | #1419
I think it would be hard to have an open homosexual relationship, in the Empire perspective, as the Imperials are pretty much made after the Nazi party. Hell, idea behind the imperial agent came from the gestapo. the culture is based around how the Nazi's thought; and they killed homosexuals like dogs. I think from the Empire side, if they add SGR, they need to make it to where the relationship is not open to the public. We're talking about a fictional culture, who pretty much see aliens as the Nazis did the Jews; either killing them or putting them to work as slaves. From an Lore perspective, why would a bigoted culture, be accepting to homosexuality?

A fascist society like the empire, would identify specific roles for each type of individual based on race, social standing, etc. I'm sure they have their own ideas of what a proper relationship between two people is. In fact, you run into a pureblood on Korriban, that finds it despicable, that his ancestors mated with slaves, and believes, there needs to be an ethnic cleansing among the overseers. Then you have the noble class amongst the Empire, and on Kaas, you overhear a woman talking about how a relative of hers got with a person they consider a lesser, and about how this relative is now on her own because of it.
"Sarcasm is strong in this one"

Noblis's Avatar


Noblis
05.25.2013 , 05:11 AM | #1420
Interesting.
I had always seen The Empire as being akin to Adam Sutler's UK. Still fascists.
Hatred of certain groups was used to rule by fear. Fear was a tool for control and a means to
complete domination. The henchmen were seen more than the leader. But you know the leader is to be feared.
In The Empire, the Emperor is not seen but greatly feared; even by the henchmen.
There is probably a Don't Ask Don't Tell policy in The Empire. "We know you're out there. Just keep it to yourself."
Hold up ! If we save Han now, there won't be anything for us to do at the beginning
of ROTJ !