Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Same gender relationships clarifications?

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > Story and Lore
Same gender relationships clarifications?
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

amnie's Avatar


amnie
12.27.2012 , 05:01 PM | #4521
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
My point on the cutscenes and the top MMOs (and as a fan of TERA, is that even a top MMO? Doesnt seem it in NA anyways) is that's it's just not that cared about by the majority of players.

And I thought I did address the physical appearance. I'm curious. Is it because people (who in this thread and the other in General) think the lack of it is discriminating, or is it really just to play out some imaginative fantasy?

I have nothing against the later. I just think some are saying it's discriminating so they can obtain the fantasy. When I don't think it's a matter of discrimination, but rather a matter of cost, and people want to play the discrimination arguement, because they think that will give them what they want (which, it could in some instances).

They didn't put it in originally because of cost (as they said in the beginning), a cost they thought they'd make up at release (is my guess). And since the release, things haven't panned out to match their projected profits.
matter of cost? then explain to me why OGRA made it into the game.

looks like grasping for straws to me. 'it's a matter of money' is a pretty easy answer, and yet so very very wrong. if they honestly didn't have the money - or time, as they claim - they should have made romance options a 'post launch' feature, and not same-gender romance options. (not forgetting to mention that still doesn't explain why you can't even [flirt] with a member of the same sex)

oh, and just so you know, for me it is indeed just 'living out a fantasy' when I want a gay male chiss smuggler. in reality I'm a straight female human. shockingly, I don't even have the same hair colour as my character.

none if this matters, though, because I still very much see the big issue with cutting only parts of a feature when cutting the whole feature would have prevented a lot of this 'stink'.

MagusGothica's Avatar


MagusGothica
12.27.2012 , 05:05 PM | #4522
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
Discrimination would be "OMG ICK! NO WAY! NEVER! I DON'T AGREE WITH IT!"

Discrimination isn't "Sorry, but putting that in just isn't cost effective/profitable"
Regardless of the veiled, shady reasoning behind it, the end result consistently remains the same.

Equal representation is being denied to a group of people. The motivation, the reasoning, are of no consequence whatsoever. Equality is very infrequently easy, or cost effective, but that doesn't justify not granting it. If someone is doing a morally wrong thing, frankly, I don't give a good gosh darn what the reason behind it is. The fact that what is being done here is morally wrong is reason enough for myself and many other of my colleagues to raise serious concerns.

About the positions of this company regarding fair and equal treatment of groups, about this company's stance against discrimination, and most importantly, about this company's ethical policies. Specifically on promising a feature to a group of paying customers, and then failing to deliver said feature over an entire year. And yes, their silence, their shadiness, their deletion of Tweets, and their misdirection have all indirectly supported business practices which can be considered... unethical, at best.

I'm sorry, but I'm not generally fond of the idea of giving my money to companies that behave in such a way. If they're willing to lie about something like SGR's (which, as I've mentioned, they have already taken the press fallout for because of the statements made at launch) then... what else would they be willing to lie to their customers about? It is an atrocious business move on the part of a company to lie to paying customers, and frankly, whoever orchestrated this cloak-and-dagger silence and misdirection campaign should be ashamed of themselves.

And you, SithKoriandr. I've explained a couple of times what consistent negative arguments do to our cause. You're indirectly screwing us over. By repeatedly fighting us. I don't know why you do it. I don't know why you want to screw us over so badly. But whether you realize it or not, your crusade against SGR is likely doing just that. Odds are I'm betting people like you are a big part of why we haven't gotten what we want. Because some incompetent financial analyst at EA was lurking the boards one day and saw posts like yours, seemingly supportive of our cause but insisting, repeatedly, against all opposition and reason presented to you, that there is no possible way that SGR's could ever be cost effective ever, and as such, we would never get them. Said analyst takes it higher up, suits decide that you may have something there, and we're ****ed. For good.

Please, for the love of all that is holy, just shut up. I don't care what your reason is. I don't care how good your logic is. I'm tired of seemingly well-meaning people trying to stonewall us, for no apparent reason whatsoever. Because whether you know it, or believe it, you may very well be stonewalling us WAY more successfully than you think.

And the fact that our cause is being destroyed from within this very thread, is honestly, very hurtful and insulting to me. Please. Stop. Leave us alone.

Odds are they have the V/O assets already recorded, they're just waiting for some gods-unknown reason to make it happen. So please. Just leave us alone and let it happen.

stuffystuffs's Avatar


stuffystuffs
12.27.2012 , 05:05 PM | #4523
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
Discrimination would be "OMG ICK! NO WAY! NEVER! I DON'T AGREE WITH IT!"

Discrimination isn't "Sorry, but putting that in just isn't cost effective/profitable"
So now you have a problem with anyone saying it's discriminatory and not just certain people?

Discrimination isn't necessarily as explicit as you make it out to be. Really, it comes down to two groups of people being treated differently (intentional or not).

I'm also not sure about the "cost effective" angle, considering there are tons of OGRA content and not all of it feels necessary. Instead of making sure most male PCs had a woman on every planet to "sex up" they could have done a few SGRA romances. But, OMG NO! male PCs need more action! Can you see why that's kind of a problem? That's what doesn't sit right with me. If there were only a few OGRA encounters then it would be a different story.
Node guarder

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
12.27.2012 , 05:06 PM | #4524
Quote: Originally Posted by Tatile View Post
But do you believe it was discrimination not to develop same-sex romances at the same time as opposite-sex romances, as that is where the majority are getting their basis of the discrimination from?
No. I think it was a matter of profits as they stated. I think their profits havent been as good as they hoped to beable to add it in after the fact.

Cutscenes take time to make. The people who make those cutscenes are very likely also the ones who do the cutscenes that will be needed in the expansion they're planning on making.

Writers may have the time to pen it out, but they're also likely trying to pen good/passable stories for the expansion.

One could think it was Lucas Arts that said no to it, but then I'd have to wonder why they just didn't say, no there isnt, and right now it's not a priority.

With BW's track record of SGR in other games, I think it shows it wasn't a matter of discrimination...at least on BWs part....but back to profits (which they're in the business to make).

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
12.27.2012 , 05:13 PM | #4525
Quote: Originally Posted by stuffystuffs View Post
So now you have a problem with anyone saying it's discriminatory and not just certain people?

Discrimination isn't necessarily as explicit as you make it out to be. Really, it comes down to two groups of people being treated differently (intentional or not).

I'm also not sure about the "cost effective" angle, considering there are tons of OGRA content and not all of it feels necessary. Instead of making sure most male PCs had a woman on every planet to "sex up" they could have done a few SGRA romances. But, OMG NO! male PCs need more action! Can you see why that's kind of a problem? That's what doesn't sit right with me. If there were only a few OGRA encounters then it would be a different story.
Ever think that could of just been the writers and not BW as a whole? They write the story, bosses read it, think it's good to go and pass it, without ever thinking "OMG! There's no SGR! What are you a writer or an insensitive discriminatory hack!"

Do you call Matel sexist because they don't advertise Barbie for boys, when there are boys who play with Barbie?

I basically take BW's word on it being about profits, it's the one thing I can always believe a company on, they're out to make money.

Tatile's Avatar


Tatile
12.27.2012 , 05:13 PM | #4526
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
One could think it was Lucas Arts that said no to it, but then I'd have to wonder why they just didn't say, no there isnt, and right now it's not a priority.
LucasArts is not as discriminatory as many like to think. This is covered in Natashina's FAQ.

And if you are going to attack people for thinking that Bioware's actions over this subject is discriminatory, then I would suggest you realise that many of us - myself included - do so in reference to the decisions that were made not to develop this content at the same time and rate as opposite-sex content (i.e. when it would have been cheaper, given that they were recording and animating the opposite-sex content).


Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
Ever think that could of just been the writers and not BW as a whole? They write the story, bosses read it, think it's good to go and pass it, without ever thinking "OMG! There's no SGR! What are you a writer or an insensitive discriminatory hack!"
Unfortunately the writers are not allowed to talk about anything interesting, so we can't know what the initial process was, but as this is a Bioware derivative, one would have expected the management to realise the expectations that were had for the story.

This game is a demonstration of aggressive hetero-centrism and pan/bi/homosexual erasure - that sort of thing would have been noticed during development, someone just decided that offering content to the LGBT community or persons who would enjoy same-sex content, wasn't important.

And Mattel? Really? Yes, I do, actually. Also, there's a gender-neutral Easy Bake Oven being released. It's black and silver.

Palar's Avatar


Palar
12.27.2012 , 05:51 PM | #4527
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
I basically take BW's word on it being about profits, it's the one thing I can always believe a company on, they're out to make money.
The word they never gave? ... Yep, clearly we're the ones putting words in their mouth.

natashina's Avatar


natashina
12.27.2012 , 05:52 PM | #4528
The FAQ link is under the title, "Heart of a Jedi" down in my signature, just to let you guys know.

And yeaaah...to say that LucasArts is discriminatory is very erroneous. If you don't feel like reading the FAQ, take a few minutes and Google George Lucas same sex marriage. It's very enlightening, and goes largest against the massive pre-conceptions of LucasArts being narrow minded.

Oh, and then there is again the matter of the gay Mandalorian couple from the books. I hope people realize that not much got by Lucas and he did have to approve all the novels. So that isn't exactly hidden. From the FAQ:



Quote:
11) Is SGR even canonically in Star Wars?



Yes! There are plenty of examples of SGRs in the Star Wars IP. In the games, it began with original Knights of the Old Republic in 2003, with the companion Juhani, who would only romance female Revans. There was also a same gender romance in the books as well, with Goran Beviin, who's husband was Medrit Vasur. Goran was first featured in the e-book Boba Fett: A Practical Man. The two of them were later fully realized in the book Sacrifice, both of which were by created by author Karen Traviss. They are officially recognized as canon by Lucasarts.

The games do count as a form of EU cannon that had to be approved by Lucas. I don't think Disney will change that either. Again, take a few minutes to Google Disney's stance on the LGBT community and you'd be very surprised. Hell, I was surprised when I found out how inclusive they are.

So yeah, Disney isn't going to yank those due to any stance against the LGBT community. Disney is very pro LGBT rights. This includes for their employees as well as their parks and cruises.

Seriously? They never gave us their word?

Um, there is a ton of information that very clearly states otherwise. The press also wouldn't have given two flying flips if BioWare hadn't said anything in the first place. I've got video footage if you care to see it.

We know that every employee that spoke about it publicly and directly has left/been let go of BW-Austin. That's why we're pushing so hard for an answer.

stuffystuffs's Avatar


stuffystuffs
12.27.2012 , 05:58 PM | #4529
Quote: Originally Posted by SithKoriandr View Post
I basically take BW's word on it being about profits, it's the one thing I can always believe a company on, they're out to make money.
Well, first, they never even mentioned that it wasn't included b/c of "profit".

If they did, link it.

Second, even if motives are for "profit" actions can still be discriminatory. It's not always intentional. Or, do you think companies are free from any kind of moral scrutiny as long as they are doing it for profit?
Node guarder

SithKoriandr's Avatar


SithKoriandr
12.27.2012 , 06:00 PM | #4530
Quote: Originally Posted by Palar View Post
The word they never gave? ... Yep, clearly we're the ones putting words in their mouth.
Interresting, there's a link inthe General Discussion thread, where they said they didnt include it initially due to money reasons.