(By the way, I have no idea if E L James is very very good, because I haven't read her work - heterosexual (or BDSM) erotica is not to my taste - but she certainly falls into the lucky category!)

She's terrible, but it's easy to read and getting people to read is a good thing, also, while the writing is terrible you just can't put it down!

Its not about centering the game around it, its about getting our hopes up. Gay people may be getting more accepted but we're still very marginalized and gaming is notoriously hetero-centric. Not just hetero but tween male centric. So you've got all this skimpy clad bimbo barbies running around with huge breasts. 2 minorities of gamers (women and gays) get consistently kicked to the curb in favor of their target audience. So when that developer comes around promising to throw a bone to you that is so rare you get excited.

If you are a straight male gamer, would you want to spend 90% of your gaming time being surrounded by gay characters in video games? I think after a while it would get frustrating for you. Just like it does for gay people right now. I think most gay people understand that the majority of folks out there are straight and that's who will be a developer's primary target. We've learned to deal with it. But like I said, when that rare game comes around promising to include something for you that so few companies do, it is exciting and a disappointment when they don't follow thru.

/facepalm

 

If you don't like love and romance in your game, go play World of Warcraft or RIFT or EVE or...

 

See, I can do that too.

While I seem to be one of the few who never played WoW, I hold many other MMO's under my belt. EQ1. EQ2, COH, COV, SWG, Rift, Eve, AC....all of which I enjoyed, none of which had anything to do with sexuality. My point was if sex and sexuality is centric to your game, I'd suggest Red Light District.

To the first point, not caring either way means that they don't care if it IS in the game or if it is NOT in the game. To the second: And yet here you are, in the forums complaining about the idea that some people want different things to you in the game. You're not doing a good job of showing how much you don't care.

To clarify for you, I believe Bioware should use their limited resources (cash flow) to fix bugs and expand content to expand their paying player base. I don't see it as an investment to go backwards and rewrite the romance options. This costs an enormous amount of money. As the game already went way over buget and they are desperate to increase cash flow, the ROI will not be there. Simple math.

We have this ONE thread in all of the forums, and you're making out as if we're hysterically demanding we get our way BEFORE anything or anyone else... Which is patently not true. (You know this thread has been going since before launch, right?)

Yes, I too have been with SWTOR since launch. As well as you must realize, you made my point for me. This one thread, out of all the others. and any company that produces a product like this has to look at cost of ventures like this. The ROI will not be there. The game is what it is.

Women writing male/male slash fanfiction on the Internet are not seeking to sell a product (because there's no money in fanfiction unless you happen to be both very very good and very very lucky*), they are writing for self-entertainment purposes primarily, and entertaining others is secondary. Yes, they have a story to tell, and usually it involves hot guys having sex with each other! Because that is what they want to read about. If they weren't getting anything out of it, they would be writing something else.

I think we had a disconnect here. I was not refering to 'fanfiction", I was refering to actual book sales. Sorry, I don't read any fanfiction. I do however frequent Barnes and Noble.

For me, being a female writer of femslash, I certainly am writing it because I want to see my favourite characters becoming involved romantically and sometimes even making love (though I find erotica in general to be rather tedious). I am also writing it because that is what I want to read. I am not writing it to sell a product, thank you very much, I am trying to entertain myself and anyone who shares my tastes.

I need a clarifation on "femslash". I am unfamiliar with the term, and cannot post an honest opinion.

Note: Zandilar, while I might disagree with several of your points here, I am truely enjoying a good discussion on the subject. I would appreciate talking this conversation out of this thread and continue through messages. It is refreshing not to be labeled a "troll" just for disagreeing.

To clarify for you, I believe Bioware should use their limited resources (cash flow) to fix bugs and expand content to expand their paying player base. I don't see it as an investment to go backwards and rewrite the romance options. This costs an enormous amount of money. As the game already went way over buget and they are desperate to increase cash flow, the ROI will not be there. Simple math.

I keep seeing this point being made, and I have to ask:

Which has a better chance of expanding their player-base - finally living up to their promises, and using their "4th pillar" to bring in a marginalised and untapped demographic; or doing the exact same thing as every other MMO out there, and chasing the exact same pool of fickle players (who have already moved on from this game anyway)?

I keep seeing this point being made, and I have to ask:

 

Which has a better chance of expanding their player-base - finally living up to their promises, and using their "4th pillar" to bring in a marginalised and untapped demographic; or doing the exact same thing as every other MMO out there, and chasing the exact same pool of fickle players (who have already moved on from this game anyway)?

Truthfully?

Chasing the exact same pool of fickle players.

This is...

1) A computer game

2) A MMO one at that

3) The whole "Do this for equality!" never brings the audience it speaks of.

People will get on the crusades for "OMG DO OR DON'T DO THIS! THIS IS WHY I DON'T READ OR CHECK OUT OR PLAY OR WHAT HAVE YOU!" all the time. When it's done, it doesn't increase the pool of customers.

Hasn't worked for comics. Hasn't worked for movies. The start of it, with Makeb, didn't bring in any sizable population to support continued growth for the devs to think "Hmmm...maybe we should."

This doesn't mean they won't. Just that, that line of thinking continues to fail. Did you pick up Batwoman? Green Latern? X-Men (Northstar)? Gen-13 (Rainmaker)?

Truthfully?

 

Chasing the exact same pool of fickle players.

 

This is...

 

1) A computer game

2) A MMO one at that

3) The whole "Do this for equality!" never brings the audience it speaks of.

 

People will get on the crusades for "OMG DO OR DON'T DO THIS! THIS IS WHY I DON'T READ OR CHECK OUT OR PLAY OR WHAT HAVE YOU!" all the time. When it's done, it doesn't increase the pool of customers.

 

Hasn't worked for comics. Hasn't worked for movies. The start of it, with Makeb, didn't bring in any sizable population to support continued growth for the devs to think "Hmmm...maybe we should."

 

This doesn't mean they won't. Just that, that line of thinking continues to fail. Did you pick up Batwoman? Green Latern? X-Men (Northstar)? Gen-13 (Rainmaker)?

Fair points - it all depends on the approach.

Especially with Makeb. They sat back and (again) hoped for word-of-mouth, which left it to Fox News and "the Gay planet" as far as non-players heard.

Green Lantern? ... Had to look that up, since it wasn't one of the 'actual' Lanterns. Again, the approach: DC's idiotic "everyone must be in their 30s" reboot erased Obsidian, so they just turned his father gay to shut people up. JSA minus the entire point of that book? I wouldn't be surprised if it's tanking in the sales. Batwoman must be doing alright, though, she's one of the few new-ish characters to be kept around without any ret-conning.

The X-Men books have done the whole metaphor for so long, they'd already have the readers so changing Northstar to a mutant and tacking him on after finally scrapping his old team was never going to matter. (Go back to the 80s Claremont books and see just how subtext he snuck in, whenever his actual ptiches for gay characters were shot down.)

Ah, Gen-13... the apex of the mid-90s "pure fan-service" books. I borrowed a couple of issues from a friend, back in high-school. With plots like "Evil monkey ruins the local pep-rally" and "evil midget kidnaps the team, and puts them in lingerie as part of his plan to create super-babies", I'm doubting Rainmaker was created for the sake of any inclusive agenda. (Oh god... it has been that long since high school. My hair-line just receded from the realisation.)

Fair points - it all depends on the approach.

 

Especially with Makeb. They sat back and (again) hoped for word-of-mouth, which left it to Fox News and "the Gay planet" as far as non-players heard.

 

Green Lantern? ... Had to look that up, since it wasn't one of the 'actual' Lanterns. Again, the approach: DC's idiotic "everyone must be in their 30s" reboot erased Obsidian, so they just turned his father gay to shut people up. JSA minus the entire point of that book? I wouldn't be surprised if it's tanking in the sales. Batwoman must be doing alright, though, she's one of the few new-ish characters to be kept around without any ret-conning.

 

The X-Men books have done the whole metaphor for so long, they'd already have the readers so changing Northstar to a mutant and tacking him on after finally scrapping his old team was never going to matter. (Go back to the 80s Claremont books and see just how subtext he snuck in, whenever his actual ptiches for gay characters were shot down.)

 

Ah, Gen-13... the apex of the mid-90s "pure fan-service" books. I borrowed a couple of issues from a friend, back in high-school. With plots like "Evil monkey ruins the local pep-rally" and "evil midget kidnaps the team, and puts them in lingerie as part of his plan to create super-babies", I'm doubting Rainmaker was created for the sake of any inclusive agenda. (Oh god... it has been that long since high school. My hair-line just receded from the realisation.)

The idea a group wants it, they need to support it when it starts to show up.

I was actually going to mention Obsidian, but forgot on that. But it goes back to the point. We have these comics that have characters that go in a diverse, outside the norm, route and the groups hollering the loudest don't actually follow through with the "We want to see this before we start paying for it"

The way for more SGR content in TOR is for those clamoring for it to be included in games to actually pick up the game. If Makeb had brought in any real fraction of the LGBT community, we would've not only seen a big announcement from it from BW/EA (ie..."TOR gets 500k more subs with arrival of SGR") we would also be seeing a bigger push on it by BW/EA.

This doesn't mean they won't add more in the future, but it won't be the big push it could've been.

There are some same-sex flirts during Bounty Hunter even contracts. Nothing major, just little one-liners but still nice.

Video:

Wrong. If Lucas decided there was no homosexuals, bisexuals or transgenders in SW it wouldn't be wrong. It would be his right as it's his fictional universe..

I know it's an old post, but I don't check this thread that often and I wanted to reply to it.

I'm sorry, but your comment makes about zero sense.

It's his fictional Universe, yes. I just don't see how this would make not having LGBT content in any way less wrong.

That's like saying a bar owner who doesn't allow anything but heterosexual, anglo-saxon males in his establishment would be right.

Or in other words, Lucas would have had the right to present the dictatorial and racist Empire as the 'good guys' in his Universe, yet wouldn't (hopefully) a lot of people think it's wrong to do that and rightly so?

Just because something is legally right, doesn't mean it is ethically right in any way.

By not including gays and lesbians in your fictional Universe you are marginalizing and excluding them and whether it's your right or not, it is indeed still wrong.

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, as English is not my native tongue.

Let me give you another example. Female characters are vastly underrepresented in LOTR (I'm talking books here, not movies). Naturally, it was Tolkien's right and his decision how he represented women in his books, but still from how we see society today, his approach to female characters feels wrong and outdated.

(I'm pretty sure, if Tolkien wrote his books today, we would have more characters like Galadriel and Eowyn and less like Arwen, but that's beside the point).

Another example would be the xenophobic and racist content in the work of H.P. Lovecraft.

Lovecraft had every right to write what he wanted, but he was still terribly, terribly wrong in doing it.

Whether you actually depict someone as vile and worthless or you just exclude him from your work , both means using your power as a writer and creator to do wrong.

I know it's an old post, but I don't check this thread that often and I wanted to reply to it.

 

I'm sorry, but your comment makes about zero sense.

 

It's his fictional Universe, yes. I just don't see how this would make not having LGBT content in any way less wrong.

That's like saying a bar owner who doesn't allow anything but heterosexual, anglo-saxon males in his establishment would be right.

Or in other words, Lucas would have had the right to present the dictatorial and racist Empire as the 'good guys' in his Universe, yet wouldn't (hopefully) a lot of people think it's wrong to do that and rightly so?

 

Just because something is legally right, doesn't mean it is ethically right in any way.

By not including gays and lesbians in your fictional Universe you are marginalizing and excluding them and whether it's your right or not, it is indeed still wrong.

 

I'm not sure I'm making myself clear, as English is not my native tongue.

 

Let me give you another example. Female characters are vastly underrepresented in LOTR (I'm talking books here, not movies). Naturally, it was Tolkien's right and his decision how he represented women in his books, but still from how we see society today, his approach to female characters feels wrong and outdated.

(I'm pretty sure, if Tolkien wrote his books today, we would have more characters like Galadriel and Eowyn and less like Arwen, but that's beside the point).

 

Another example would be the xenophobic and racist content in the work of H.P. Lovecraft.

Lovecraft had every right to write what he wanted, but he was still terribly, terribly wrong in doing it.

Whether you actually depict someone as vile and worthless or you just exclude him from your work , both means using your power as a writer and creator to do wrong.

There would be nothing unethical about it.

If someone created a fictional universe and said "There's no such thing as alcohol or drugs, not even an equivalent to them, in this universe." Would you be upset? Not likely. Would you call it unethical, because alcohol does exist in RL. No.

You assume, and wrongly, that the rules of a fictional universe, have to match up to your ethical standards/real life beliefs/real life truths. They do not, because it goes back to being fiction.

Now, obviously, GL never said there wasn't SGR in Star Wars, and there are a few examples of it in non-movie canon (including now with Makeb). But to tell any writer what the rules to their fictional universe are, is the unethical thing to do. You don't like someone's fictional creation, don't read it/watch it or make your own.

Let me give you another example. Female characters are vastly underrepresented in LOTR (I'm talking books here, not movies). Naturally, it was Tolkien's right and his decision how he represented women in his books, but still from how we see society today, his approach to female characters feels wrong and outdated.

(I'm pretty sure, if Tolkien wrote his books today, we would have more characters like Galadriel and Eowyn and less like Arwen, but that's beside the point).

Off-topic, I know, but further to SithKoriandr's post I have to disagree with this too.

Tolkien's works are set in an early Mediaeval European analogue. In those times women were represented almost exactly in real life as they are in his works. Take RL legends and myths of the time and you'll see a similar lack of prominent women. Further, take actual real life history, women simply were that badly represented in that time. To give his works the sort of real life mythology feel he wanted, he had to follow suit. If he had a nice, round 50/50 power split between men and women (even if he only did this for Man, let alone the other races) it would feel out of place and forcibly "politically correct". It would spoil the setting. It speaks volumes that he depicts his most noble and "advanced" race as the race who are most ready to appoint based on ability and knowledge rather than gender (i.e. Galadriel holding more sway than Celeborn, Luthien being the "star" of her adventures, more so than Beren etc).

The point is, what we think to be "right" today by some arbitrary moral compass should hold no sway over what any author or creator puts within his or her works. Just as Tolkien's setting was responsible for his accurate under-representation of women, GL could readily say that in the galaxy far, far away homosexuality had yet to evolve into the human way of life, and was a trait not at all found in aliens. If he said that, his own views IRL could be called into question (i.e. it's not ok to be homophobic irl) but his word would have to be law within his own creation. Right or wrong doesn't come into it.

There are some same-sex flirts during Bounty Hunter even contracts. Nothing major, just little one-liners but still nice.

 

Video:

rofl... guy wonders if that's a bug or something

I gues the only reason they won't add same gender romances is the PEGI 18+ which wil be applied then. Bioware is famous for it's attitude towards same gender romances (look Mass Effect series or Dragon Age). Both of those games are 18+ thou. I would love to see the option in Old Republic, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

As for the thread, I didn't even tried reading through the first part and all those pages here, so I am a little out of discusion. Sorry for that Just giving my opinion.

I gues the only reason they won't add same gender romances is the PEGI 18+ which wil be applied then. Bioware is famous for it's attitude towards same gender romances (look Mass Effect series or Dragon Age). Both of those games are 18+ thou. I would love to see the option in Old Republic, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

 

As for the thread, I didn't even tried reading through the first part and all those pages here, so I am a little out of discusion. Sorry for that Just giving my opinion.

I can't remember if it was PEGI or ESRB, but I remember in the earlier days of this thread back near the Guild Summit, people got antsy while waiting and contacted the organization for clarification on this type of thing. The response was that they do not differentiate as a policy; sexual content is sexual content, with neither warranting a higher rating based purely on the genders of those involved. Now, the context could easily change the rating, like the difference between a kissing animation and a full-out romance scene with nudity.

I gues the only reason they won't add same gender romances is the PEGI 18+ which wil be applied then.

It has been stated numerous times, to the extent that one person wrote to ESRB and asked, that same-sex relationships garner no higher rating than opposite-sex relationships.

Whoever told you they do is either incorrectly informed or flat-out lying.

Taking it here from the old thread....

 

 

 

And they would implement it into a finished game how? Because by the time they would evaluate that, people already own the game. And male/male option was implemented into ME resulting from player feedback and, I guess, from them evaluating how many people played modded Sheps in order to be able to romance the same gender. Why else would they have added it for the last part of the series?

 

I'm not going to read or even contribute further to this thread. I'm quoting this from the first page.

I have only four words: Downloadable Content - Fire Island

I'm not going to read or even contribute further to this thread.

So... why bother posting then? Especially since your next comment is incomprehensible.

I have only four words: Downloadable Content - Fire Island

I gues the only reason they won't add same gender romances is the PEGI 18+ which wil be applied then. Bioware is famous for it's attitude towards same gender romances (look Mass Effect series or Dragon Age). Both of those games are 18+ thou. I would love to see the option in Old Republic, but I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

 

As for the thread, I didn't even tried reading through the first part and all those pages here, so I am a little out of discusion. Sorry for that Just giving my opinion.

Um. You do know SGR flirts are in Makeb, yes? And the game's rating didn't change.

What a silly thing to say.

So... why bother posting then? Especially since your next comment is incomprehensible.

[snip]

Does anyone have a clue what this means? It seems like it should mean something, but I DK what.

No idea. I think it's that guy's attempt at appearing wise and intellectual by hiding his meaning behind pithy phrases and references, but only in an area where he knows no will understand and therefore cannot compete with his greatness. This is especially obvious since he's not coming back to the thread.

It's just spam, really.

(Also, "Island"? We're space.)

So... why bother posting then? Especially since your next comment is incomprehensible.

Does anyone have a clue what this means? It seems like it should mean something, but I DK what.

I believe Fire Island was (or possibly still is) a famous destination for having many homosexuals vacation there with parties and so on. However I only have this knowledge based off of references on TV such as Simpsons and American Dad so I can't say one way or the other, but I believe he means it may come out as DLC to have your companions romancable and for it to only occur on some new planet which would be the equivilent to Fire Island.

However there's always the chance I could be wrong but that's what I think he means.

However there's always the chance I could be wrong but that's what I think he means.

So, he's saying that Bioware should put all the SGR/A stuff in one place?

Why? He's afraid of catching The Gay?

No wonder he didn't want to comment further or elaborate, merely posting in this thread probably put him at risk of The Gay

I believe Fire Island was (or possibly still is) a famous destination for having many homosexuals vacation there with parties and so on. However I only have this knowledge based off of references on TV such as Simpsons and American Dad so I can't say one way or the other, but I believe he means it may come out as DLC to have your companions romancable and for it to only occur on some new planet which would be the equivilent to Fire Island.

 

However there's always the chance I could be wrong but that's what I think he means.

For a very long time, Fire Island was a prime destination on the East Coast for LGB people to congregate. In fact, it's famous theater just got designated an historical site thanks to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand.

Of course, it hasn't been as big a destination in recent decades what with San Francisco and Vermont being so openly accepting.