EA defends itself against thousands of anti-gay letters

[chiefohara]

... who are these people that they have enough free time to worry and fret about inane things like homosexuality in computer games?

Seriously?

 

[Limecake]

Yes - but there is not an option to disagree with the concept.

But there is! you can choose to not sleep with anyone from the same sex! disagreeing with the concept is not the same as a universal ban of gay sex.

regardless of how this 'debate' turns out, gay people will still exist.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Most of those letters are from Florida? Who knew.

As Tommy Vercetti would say: Dumb.Florida.Morons.

No disrespect to sane people of Florida.

I don't have a problem with gay romance option. I have a problem with how it was integrated in the game. But that's the least of ME3 problems.

I still think we should be able to choose character sexuality in character creator. It would make a lot more sense and it would put a lot of people at ease. In Dragon Age 2 Anders came on to Hawke for no apparent reason. If I had the option to choose Hawke's sexuality from the beginning that wouldn't have happened. Things like that can ruin your playthrough. You're perusing one romantic interest, and at the same time you're developing another one that you didn't want without realizing it. It's just bad game design.

I almost made the same mistake in ME3. Luckily I read about romance options before playing. The game doesn't even tell you that you're perusing a relationship with Cortez until it's too late. I blame the lack of sexual preference choice and I blame the dialogue wheel and Paragon interrupt because they never say what you're actually gonna say or do.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

I guess it's not there for the same reason there isn't an option to start a White Power rally on the Citadel and telling every other race that pure White children will inherent the Universe. Bigots would be the only people who would be mad that their preferred punching bag is equally represented in their entertainment products. It's comparable to when people complained about there not being a "foot fetishism" option in Mass Effect 3 because they weren't "fairly represented" like Gay players were.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

Would you expect a modern game with dialogue options to give you the option to oppose giving women the right to vote?

I expect any game dealing with issues under debate to serve both sides equally. For example: If there is a question dealing with religion, I should be able to respond either as a religious person or as an atheist. If there is a question dealing with gay marriage, I should be able to respond either for or against.

Even if it's anachronistic? If you were playing a dude in pseudo-medieval wherever, would you expect a "you know, I think our government is running up too much debt. Spending is out of control, and needs to be reigned in. Here's a copy of Atlas Shrugged." dialogue option?

Well, that's the reason people bitched about The Witcher for being sexist. Because setting a game in a context where sexism was rampant means that the developers are obviously all misogynists.

 

[omicron1]

It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

I guess it's not there for the same reason there isn't an option to start a White Power rally on the Citadel and telling every other race that pure White children will inherent the Universe. Bigots would be the only people who would be mad that their preferred punching bag is equally represented in their entertainment products. It's comparable to when people complained about there not being a "foot fetishism" option in Mass Effect 3 because they weren't "fairly represented" like Gay players were.

Operating under the assumption that any particular viewpoint is bigoted or somehow inferior to others is a sad way to debate, christophobe. (Hey look, intentionally comical hypocrisy!)

Fact: A very large portion of America, as well as smaller portions of much of Europe and a vast majority of third world countries, disagree with you on this issue.

Fact: The vast majority of them are not bigots or homophobes. They simply disagree, whether for religious or logical reasons - neither of which renders them or their opinions irrelevant.

Fact: Referring to one's opponent in a derogatory fashion does not resolve an issue, nor is it good logical form.

With these three facts established, please realize that the issue of what homosexuality is, and whether it is an essential, immutable state of being, will remain present and controversial for a long time yet, and as such it is wrong to legislate or make public decisions based on one side's answer this unsolved question.

Yes - but there is not an option to disagree with the concept.

But there is! you can choose to not sleep with anyone from the same sex! disagreeing with the concept is not the same as a universal ban of gay sex.

regardless of how this 'debate' turns out, gay people will still exist.

When you talk to Cortez, you have two options: Commiserate, or commiserate. At no point in the game are you given a choice, through dialogue or action, to disagree. All you can do is accept BioWare's version of Shepard, or shut up and walk away. As a series built around player->main character projection, the absence of this option is both highly suspect and rather rude. I can be any Shepard I want, as long as she's liberal.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

I guess it's not there for the same reason there isn't an option to start a White Power rally on the Citadel and telling every other race that pure White children will inherent the Universe. Bigots would be the only people who would be mad that their preferred punching bag is equally represented in their entertainment products. It's comparable to when people complained about there not being a "foot fetishism" option in Mass Effect 3 because they weren't "fairly represented" like Gay players were.

Operating under the assumption that any particular viewpoint is bigoted or somehow inferior to others is a sad way to debate, christophobe. (Hey look, intentionally comical hypocrisy!)

Fact: A very large portion of America, as well as smaller portions of much of Europe and a vast majority of third world countries, disagree with you on this issue.

Fact: The vast majority of them are not bigots or homophobes. They simply disagree, whether for religious or logical reasons - neither of which renders them or their opinions irrelevant.

Fact: Referring to one's opponent in a derogatory fashion does not resolve an issue, nor is it good logical form.

With these three facts established, please realize that the issue of what homosexuality is, and whether it is an essential, immutable state of being, will remain present and controversial for a long time yet, and as such it is wrong to legislate or make public decisions based on one side's answer this unsolved question.

I was raised in the Church, so you really need to watch your mouth. I never said I had anything against any religion, you're just assuming I do because I think it's wrong to discriminate against people because they're different. And I'm not ASSUMING that discrimination against a group of people is Bigotry, I'm outright saying it. Based on the fact that the definition is intolerance based on personal prejudices towards another group of people. You're basically saying gay people shouldn't exist, and just because other bigots like to get together and talk about how much they hate a particular group of people doesn't make them right. It just makes them a higher concentration of hateful people. Not to mention what you're calling "facts" are IN FACT logical fallacies.

 

[PaganAxe]

When you talk to Cortez, you have two options: Commiserate, or commiserate. At no point in the game are you given a choice, through dialogue or action, to disagree. All you can do is accept BioWare's version of Shepard, or shut up and walk away. As a series built around player->main character projection, the absence of this option is both highly suspect and rather rude. I can be any Shepard I want, as long as she's liberal.

The fact that you want to have your character make homophobic comments toward an NPC is rather sad by itself.

I'd say more, but Yahtzee's Extra Punctuation article about mods modding in the ability to kill children in Skyrim [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9246-What-Is-the-Matter-with-You-People.2] pretty much has the same idea I have about your case.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Huh. Arguing for the option to walk up to a man who is clearly still grieving over the loss of a loved one and telling him that his relationship and love for that person was immoral, illogical, or whatever.

People who genuinely want that option must be real pleasant to talk to in real life.

 

[Pearwood]

Fact: The vast majority of them are not bigots or homophobes. They simply disagree, whether for religious or logical reasons - neither of which renders them or their opinions irrelevant.

Right. They just want same-sex couples to never have the same legal rights married couples have. Not at all discriminatory. Argue your case all you want but don't bother trying to pretend it isn't rooted in homophobia, your argument is saying gay people don't deserve the same legal rights. If we were living in some kind of alternate universe where marriage was a purely religious ceremony and didn't confer any kind of legal status then we could discuss this properly without there being any homophobia or accusations of homophobia but that's not the case.

As a side note - why should I care what the minority wants? They're a minority because they're wrong. And why should I or any non-American developer care what Americans want? They're thousands of miles away, who cares.

 

[omicron1]

I was raised in the Church, so you really need to watch your mouth. I never said I had anything against any religion, you're just assuming I do because I think it's wrong to discriminate against people because they're different. And I'm not ASSUMING that discrimination against a group of people is Bigotry, I'm outright saying it. Based on the fact that the definition is intolerance based on personal prejudices towards another group of people. You're basically saying gay people shouldn't exist, and just because other bigots like to get together and talk about how much they hate a particular group of people doesn't make them right. It just makes them a higher concentration of hateful people.

My apologies for my ill-judged jab; it applies well to ~70% of Escapistgoers. Nonetheless, the principle remains the same - it is an attempt to saddle one's opposition with negative terminology and judicial bias, just as the terms "homophobe" and "bigot" are.

What I am saying is very simple: You can believe whatever you want, do whatever you want, as long as you don't make me believe it or respect your actions. I should not have to support your position, or refrain from stating mine, in the public sphere. [http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith/] I should not be barred from adopting children because they might grow up to believe as I do. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896] I should not have to cater a wedding I disagree with. You may disagree with me, but you may not ban me from discourse or make my beliefs hate speech - not before proving that they are wrong. Until that point - while homosexuality is still undecided as to its very nature, whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic - attempting to enforce your view of the issue is tantamount to tyranny. That is all.

Right. They just want same-sex couples to never have the same legal rights married couples have. Not at all discriminatory. Argue your case all you want but don't bother trying to pretend it isn't rooted in homophobia, your argument is saying gay people don't deserve the same legal rights. If we were living in some kind of alternate universe where marriage was a purely religious ceremony and didn't confer any kind of legal status then we could discuss this properly without there being any homophobia or accusations of homophobia but that's not the case.

You are beginning from the invalid postulate that homosexuality is similar in classification to race or gender - that it is inborn, impossible to alter. As long as your arguments rest on postulates that are not accepted by both sides, no conversation may take place.

At this point, I have said my piece, outlined my positions. I'm not moving from them. Good day to y'all.

 

[GiantRaven]

Haven't played ME3, but I remember DA2 seemed to have a ton of bisexual characters for some reason. Imo Bioware should make more exclusively gay or exclusively straight characters, because right now it feels like all my teammates want to fuck me no matter who I am...

Mass Effect 3 isn't at all like Dragon Age 2 in that regard. Of the new relationship options there is, I believe:

- 1 gay male
- 1 bisexual male
- 1 gay female
- 1 bisexual female

So sexuality is dependent on that character, rather than Shepard's gender.

Huh. Arguing for the option to walk up to a man who is clearly still grieving over the loss of a loved one and telling him that his relationship and love for that person was immoral, illogical, or whatever.

People who genuinely want that option must be real pleasant to talk to in real life.

Because if I ever roleplay an evil character in a game of D&D, that automatically makes me an evil bastard myself.

That makes sense.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

One day, I'd love for a game company to grow some balls in the face of complaints and simply say "This was how we wrote it, if you don't like it, you're welcome to kindly fuck off."

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Because if I ever roleplay an evil character in a game of D&D, that automatically makes me an evil bastard myself.

That makes sense.

This guy look like he's roleplaying to you?

 

[DANEgerous]

It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

Would you expect a modern game with dialogue options to give you the option to oppose giving women the right to vote?

I expect any game dealing with issues under debate to serve both sides equally. For example: If there is a question dealing with religion, I should be able to respond either as a religious person or as an atheist. If there is a question dealing with gay marriage, I should be able to respond either for or against.

Nothing ever leaves the debate table many still oppose women rights. when issues of women rights come up i should be able to choose for or against. Not like this is a more absurd proposal than outright murder which you can pull off in various games.

 

[GiantRaven]

This guy look like he's roleplaying to you?

Does it matter? Should we remove all negativity in videogames because somebody might potentially be choosing them literally?

Personally I think being able to make your Shepard homophobic would be interesting. I'd like to see how it would be handled.

Having more options to craft your Shepard can only be a good thing. Right now Shepard can only react in one of two ways - being gay or having him practically yell "I LIKE LADIEZ LOL" at the top of his voice. Would it have killed Bioware to put in some lines that could say no to Cortez without making Shepard sound like a complete twat?

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

I was raised in the Church, so you really need to watch your mouth. I never said I had anything against any religion, you're just assuming I do because I think it's wrong to discriminate against people because they're different. And I'm not ASSUMING that discrimination against a group of people is Bigotry, I'm outright saying it. Based on the fact that the definition is intolerance based on personal prejudices towards another group of people. You're basically saying gay people shouldn't exist, and just because other bigots like to get together and talk about how much they hate a particular group of people doesn't make them right. It just makes them a higher concentration of hateful people.

My apologies for my ill-judged jab; it applies well to ~70% of Escapistgoers. Nonetheless, the principle remains the same - it is an attempt to saddle one's opposition with negative terminology and judicial bias, just as the terms "homophobe" and "bigot" are.

What I am saying is very simple: You can believe whatever you want, do whatever you want, as long as you don't make me believe it or respect your actions. I should not have to support your position, or refrain from stating mine, in the public sphere. [http://catholicexchange.com/canada-orders-pastor-to-renounce-his-faith/] I should not be barred from adopting children because they might grow up to believe as I do. [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12598896] I should not have to cater a wedding I disagree with. You may disagree with me, but you may not ban me from discourse or make my beliefs hate speech - not before proving that they are wrong. Until that point - while homosexuality is still undecided as to its very nature, whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic - attempting to enforce your view of the issue is tantamount to tyranny. That is all.

Using big words because you were proven wrong is a very old trick that doesn't work on people who can see desperation. I CAN say that you should not be allowed to spew bigoted hate speech about one group or another because it is inherently wrong. I'm saying discrimination against gay people for being gay IS homophobic AND bigotry because by definition, that's what it is. I will say say that people like the KKK, or Neo-Nazis, or the Westboro Baptist Church SHOULD NOT be allowed to do what they do in public.

This is not hypocrisy because bigots are not people who deserve to be defended.

I miss the days when the Right to Free Speech was more than a shield used by bigots as a kind of satanic verbal judo to defend their baseless hatreds of other people.

 

[Pearwood]

You are beginning from the invalid postulate that homosexuality is similar in classification to race or gender - that it is inborn, impossible to alter. As long as your arguments rest on postulates that are not accepted by both sides, no conversation may take place.

At this point, I have said my piece, outlined my positions. I'm not moving from them. Good day to y'all.

Actually I didn't mention that. You said you aren't a homophobe, I asked how you can justify saying that when you're saying gay couples don't deserve the same legal rights. Either you don't think gay people should be treated equally or you're letting your religion or whatever get in the way of what is a purely legal matter.

As for whether it's impossible to alter, try finding a gay person who's been in denial and ask him or her if they were happy during that time.

 

[Fleetfiend]

It seems to me like the spirit of inclusiveness should extend to those of us who think Don't Ask Don't Tell was good policy, and would like to be able to tell Steve Cortez so. You know, rather than being forced to commiserate with him or ignore him completely. But hey, inclusiveness only works one way, right? It doesn't count if you're on the wrong side.

Would you expect a modern game with dialogue options to give you the option to oppose giving women the right to vote?

I expect any game dealing with issues under debate to serve both sides equally. For example: If there is a question dealing with religion, I should be able to respond either as a religious person or as an atheist. If there is a question dealing with gay marriage, I should be able to respond either for or against.

The thing is, it's like that for the heterosexual conversations as well, at least from my experience playing Mass Effect. Playing femshep, I accidentally hit on Kaidan just as much as I did on Traynor. And vice versa. Talk about serving both sides equally... I agree that it shouldn't be that way. I didn't want to come off as hitting on everyone just for trying to be nice. However, my "nice" comments DID come off equally slutty to whichever romancable crew member I was talking to.

You can't respond that way "for" or "against" when dealing with straight relationships. Why should it be different for gay ones?

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Does it matter? Should we remove all negativity in videogames because somebody might potentially be choosing them literally?

This is a universe Bioware created in which homosexuality is both socially acceptable and common enough that people don't even find it surprising (in-universe). The universe is pre-defined as having stamped out that particular negativity because that's the way Bioware wanted it. Hell, one of the constant running themes of the entire series is to cast aside differences and work toward a common goal.

Having more options to craft your Shepard can only be a good thing.

Can only be a good thing according to... whom, exactly? Bioware? Gamers as a whole? Or you?

Because like it or not, Bioware made the game that they wanted to make, and clearly not all gamers want Shepard (who like it or not does have per-defined personalities regardless of Paragon or Renegade because video games aren't tabletop games and don't have that kind of open-ended characterization) to act like a neanderthal in the context of the universe.