Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

General: All I'm Asking...

1235»

Comments

  • TyrokiTyroki Wellington, FLPosts: 183Member

    Sorry Jaime. That would be a big No, and an even bigger NOOOOOOO. :)

    I'm really not sure if this one was worth the time it took you to write. Pity, your articles are usually more interesting.

    MMO's played: Ragnarok Online (For years), WoW (for a few weeks only), Guild Wars, Lineage 2, Eve, Allods, Shattered Galaxy, 9 Dragons, City of Heroes, City of Villains, Star Trek Online (Got someone ELSE to pay for it), Champions Online (Someone else paid), Dofus, Dragonica, LOTRO, DDO and more... A LOT more. I've played good AND bad. The bad didn't last long. :P

  • OzivoisOzivois Phoenix, AZPosts: 598Member

    There are multiple posts here that state something like "if you don't want to play a game with these elements introduced you don't have to play it".

     

    Good point and that's exactly what will happen. Hardly anyone will play it.

     

    Why a developer would introduce sexual preferences in their game when sex is not part of the game would be a mystery to me.  It is not going to help sales, and they will end up having to spend large amounts of time dealing with complaints from players being harassed because of their character choices.  Even in this day and age, there are plenty of immature players out there.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Originally posted by Sovrath

    Originally posted by dragonbrand


    Originally posted by Horusra


     

     Evolution is not always good. 

     Then its called Devolution

    nuts you beat me too it.

    Horusra, evolution means to move to a better stage.

    Actually, it simply means to develop adaptations towards ones environment...it by no means implies "better" or "worse".... to be "more evolved" simply means to have undergone more adaptations. Whether this makes the organism more successfull or not depends entirely on the stability of the environment it is adapting towards.... if the environment is relatively stable...then adaptations will tend to make it more effective in that environment....If the environment does not remain stable....then a greater degree of adaptation will tend to make it less able to accomodate those changes. There have been any number of species that have evolved themselves right into extinction.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Originally posted by just1opinion

    Originally posted by dar_es_balat


    Originally posted by Sovrath



    That's a really easy question to answer.

    Because though historically Marriage was a certain thing and though there are probably societies that follow that historical idea of marriage, in THIS society we now have a concept of marriage for love.

    And because people love they have broadened the idea of marriage. Marriage is no longer looked upon as solely a business contract.

    I think it's ok to accept the idea that society gets to evolve.

    You may have an idea of marriage based off of love.  I however do not.   I love my girlfriend, and will probably marry her, however the decision to marry has absolutely nothing to do with love on either of our parts.  It has to do with whether or not there is a long term benefit to our families, finances, and general well being.

    To state that this society has "evolved" is erroneous, and does not respect a viewpoint that is not particular to yourself as it claims that those who do not share your viewpoint are some sort of social evolutionary throwback.

    Your post, therefore, is not only erroneous in its premise, but also completely invalidates your previous post where you claim to get along with all viewpoints.   This is clearly not the case.

     

    That highlighted bit there....

    Would be nice if I too could marry to take care of long term benefits for MY family, finances, and general well being. Yeah, that's pretty much not "inclusive."  Of course there was also a time when there were racial rules about marriage too.  Only some people's families and children deserve those long term benefits, and well being and what not, huh?

     

    I think marriage is defined between the two people that are in union, in part, but the law does define the legal aspects of said contract and decides who they want to exclude from having those "benefits," or as I see them....rights.

     

    And on the marriage in games topic....either make it non gender specific or don't have it at all. You'd think that at least games could not be prejudicial and exclusive, since the real world doesn't seem to want to evolve to seeing all of humanity as "one people" stuck on "one marble" together in the sky, who all bleed blood and have the same emotions. If you want to delude yourself into thinking that isn't the case....go right ahead. But the more you exclude others....the more you risk that coming right back to your court some day. Open the door to taking one religion's rights away (or race, or gender, or whatever minority you want to fill in here)....you open the door to yours being taken. Same with any other people group you want to try to exclude.  It only makes it that much easier later for YOU to be the one excluded.  Why can't we at least learn that in games and be more accepting of diversity?  Is it REALLY all that difficult??

     

     

    Well... I think the optimum question here becomes.... what is the function of  marriage within a game? Is it a recognition of a bond between PLAYERS (i.e. entirely OOC).....or is it a recognition of a bond between CHARACTERS?

    The answer to that probably depends a bit on the type of game...and how the Dev's portray marriages function within the game. For a game like Second Life...where there is some clear bleed over between a persons real persona and thier virtual avatar...I'd say you have a point.....for others not so much.

    I've had characters "married" in games....and it really all was just about RPing and the development of the characters not the players. If it's intended to play that kind of role in the game...then it really makes sense for the Dev's to impose some restrictions that make sense for the social norms of whatever society is being portrayed in the game. For instance, if it's a historical game set in 16th or 17th century Europe...then same gender or even mixed race/religion marriages are patently absurd. As such simply would not have been tolerated within the context of that society. On the other hand, if marriage is intended to play some sort of out of game role within the context of that venue....then maybe the Dev can ignore/bend the reality of the social norms of the setting for the game and allow such things to occur.... It all depends on what function the Dev's (and players) want "marriage" to have within thier venue. Is it a strictly "in-game" function....or is it a somewhat out-of -game function like a mail system or friends list?

  • RaventreeRaventree Yourtown, MNPosts: 456Member

    Rarely do I disagree with these articles, but in this case I do.  While I agree that more character customization is always a bonus, I don't think game publishers pushing their political agendas on us has any positives at all.  Allowing more buff looking females or less buff looking men is just better customization, but when you start getting in to politics you have crossed the line.

    Maybe you think marriages should be a game option and include same sex marriage.  Maybe I agree and maybe I don't.  Maybe the developer strongly disagrees with you and refuses to put it in.  Now you refuse to play the game because the developer's social agenda doesn't match your own.  Maybe the gay community decides to start petitioning the developer to put it in there and so the developer concedes.  Now the right wing starts pressuring them to take it back out and things start to get ugly.

    The developers don't need that kind of pressure and I, as a gamer, don't want your political views forced on to me.  I play games for escapism, not so politics and real life crap can follow me wherever I go.

    I say leave crap like that out of the game mechanics and let the players do as they wish.  If this is your idea of edgy, I will pass, thank you.

    Currently playing:
    Rift
    Played:
    SWToR, Aion,EQ, Dark Age of Camelot
    World of Warcraft, AoC

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Originally posted by MissyShade

    As I sometimes do, I will remind people that I often play devil's advocate. I am, actually, rather amused at some of the political assumptions made of me already, even though I've played off these changes as being unnecessary and sensitive in the developer-player-investory relationship.

    Would many players welcome the changes? Sure- many have asked for them. This is only list of some of the ideas players have suggested in a way to be more "progressive" in today's world, by being more welcoming to minority cultures and ideas. I actually like some of these ideas myself, but possibly for different reasons than you may imagine.

    I think, however, there is plenty of room for depth in our games. They tend to be too shallow, too mimicky, too much boom and not enough thought (and I'm not talking about skill in game play). The more controversial options and lore that a game developer provides the player, the more intense a game can become. Of course, too, intensity can be a bad thing.

    Also, perhaps I'm confused, but it seems several of you are both saying "let people do whatever they want" and "don't cram this down my throat by making it part of my game" in the same breath. How can people do whatever they want if the game doesn't let them; and if the game lets them, how does it cram it down your throat?

     

    Jamie,

    I think the disconnect you are having is that your article seemed to be advocating pushing a real world political agenda into and pushing it into the game-world. The nice thing about game worlds is that they can be entirely divorced from real world agendas and issues...and harmlessly so. For example, I think most of us would be outraged if a particular game company refused to allow people of a particular ethnicity to open up a game account. At the same time, we'd be perfectly happy playing a game...where in the context of the game characters of a particular make-believe race/ethnicity (orcs, kilingons whatever) were treated as second class citizens by the make-believe society in that game world...or were inherently evil...whatever.

    What people are really trying to say is... don't try to force real world issues into my game....let games be games, nothing more then meaningless fun...and follow whatever internal rules the Dev's imagination can dream up.... leave real world issues and agendas out of them..... and if people are uncomfortable with a particular games setting...well no one is being forced to play it....there is plenty of room for variety in games/settings out there.

     

     

     

     

     

  • merruamerrua limerickPosts: 12Member

    I'd go for what you mention.

    To be honest, you could put in all the ideas you mention and 99% of people would not notice, and the other 1% are loons who are in such a minority there is no point chasing their cash. 

    For example femine males/mascline females are in a bunch of games already and no one cares.

    Gender neutral marriage has been demanded repeatedly by players so people can play with their leveling partner/ partner in real life who likes playing x gender. 

    ex perfect world, ether saga

    Players on this site, freak out over what your talking about, but you know what, when they are in the world, people dont really notice and if anything think its handy as they can do more with their character.

    Just because its called "marriage" doesnt mean it means what it means in real life, even if it does most dont care what everyone else is doing, nor does it mean that all players see it as romance.

    Some fine it fun, some are in for the teleports, some like the bonus xp etc. People make what they want from it. 

    More options = good.

    Then get out of the way and let us play. 

  • BullwraithBullwraith Oak Harbor, WAPosts: 3Member

    Jaime, I find it odd (given the overall progressive tone of your OP) that you limit the concept of in-game marriage to two individuals.

    It seems to me that polygamy, regardless of the genders of the toons involved, should also get those little perks.

    Just sayin...

  • RhygarRhygar Cape TownPosts: 20Member Common

    Forget about political correctness.  If you want to be edgy, make a permadeath game.

  • ThyarThyar Lansing, MIPosts: 17Member

    To date - the MMO that had the best character creation by far, to me, was Aion.

     

    I truly appreciated having a wide range of options for personalizing my toon's facial features, body size, proportions, skin tone, etc...

     

    That does not mean for one moment that I thought that system was perfect.  Far from it.

     

    I want even MORE options available - from fur, to scales, to even different non-humanoid body types available.

     

    A vast majority of players always will design toons that fit in with what have become the popular types seen in most MMOs.

     

    I want to the opportunity to be amongst those who can sculpt my toon according to my preferences.

     

    I am looking forward to the MMO that eventually dares to expand on Aion's model, and gives me that opportunity in combation with a game worth playing.

     

     

    Old enough to know better - young enough to do it anyway.

  • DreamQueenDreamQueen Greenville, NCPosts: 19Member Uncommon

    Why don't we just have a Religious Marriage and a different Government Civil Contract that isn't called marriage... How hard would that be??

    Couldn't it just be easy to accept that Everyone gets Financial Benefits under the Government Contract, but that if you aren't obeying a religion its not called a "Marriage"... You'd think we could just do that... After all, religious rules are not meant to evolve and change, they are meant to remain strictly the same and if you didn't believe or want to follow them you simply don't follow the religion and follow a different one? Why should a religion have to change its rules for others? There could always be a new religion that takes the best of the old and starts anew, you shouldn't expect to change what is written in books and in stone... Although, on another note: it is impossible to tell with translations and editing what is true or lies anyway, but religions are meant to be static, while the government has to be evolving and changing....

    Runes of Magic and MMOs shouldn't have a Marriage, but they should have Business Partnerships that allow you to sign a contract and join with others for mutual benefits... We've always had the guilds/alliances/corporations and group/raids... Why would we need a marriage on a video game?

    The only tool you have every needed to be together on a video game is to share the same last name - that is it... If you want to be two guys walking around with biographies and the same last name then yeah, that is all that has ever been needed  (and it is possible on Everquest 2).  The fellowship and guild bonuses applied to anyone on Everquest 1 for campfires and banners regardless of who you are and how you orient, and you just group together/raid/duo together... Everquest never had a "Marriage" because it wasn't needed - it was a Fellowship of 8 that could share the same campfire... No one needs to argue over Orientation etc...

    Oh, and if you want to get married in Roleplay - just host your own Marriage Ceremony, you don't need anyone else to do that... In Everquest 2 ,  you can decorate your house for it,  or have it in a guild hall (tier 3 for outside courtyard), etc... What does it need to be written into the game for? There's always roleplaying...

    It would be cool to see truly alien beings with a different religion that isn't reflective of actual religions, and to see bonding that has nothing to do with real marriage... Just please, keep real life out of video games!!

    *sighs* Keep my Fantasy games purely for escapism reasons!! I have no problem with Erudites on Everquest being black, but all of this seems like they are really taking the political/religious views way to far...

    This is all just too complicated, hopefully they will just make realistic life simulation games to please t hose who want it, and others like me can keep playing our pure fantasy games...

    After all, I prefer blue skin and colorful angelic feathery wings with pointy ears anyday to any other realistic video game avatar...

    I'm one of those women whose characters will always be perfectly sexy or cute, no matter what options they give me for "realism"....

    Note: Yeah, Aion is Beautiful!!! Just simply amazing graphics and its awesome!! You should be able to design your own alien being and anything you want on certain games, but on others that are heavily dependent on a lore set in books (set in stone) you obviously should never be allowed to create a character that doesn't belong in that universe...

    On Star Trek Online I made a purple horned alien girl who is cool... Star Wars Galaxies - I played a purple Twi'lek alien girl...

    Being able to actually fully customize a character on any game relating to outer space is awesome, but on most Fantasy games it should always be restricted to what makes sense for that world... IE. High elves should always be White, that is what they are! Dark elves should always be bluish/purple as that is what they are... Every game should just have humans live on every continent so that it would make realistic graphical sense for humans on that continent to be different races...

  • tswthoradintswthoradin Grand Rapids, MIPosts: 83Member

    Marriage isn't a religious idea or word, it's a secular word. Marriage predates most religions and is considered a secular contract or a business contract. The earliest recorded accounts of marriage are mentioned on Hummurabi's Code which is roughly 2000 BC. So the argument it's violating some religious tenant only applies within that religion. If religions want their own sacred institution then they should come up with their own word and not try to make other people apply their views of morality to everything. Allowing people to marry (or not allowing) based on religious views is a subversion of the whole concept of marriage.

     

    I hear a lot of people arguing that they don't want to bring the "real world" into a game, but the simple fact is, by fighting a persons choice of partner in a virtual world, you are the ones who are bringing in the real world. You apply you're own personal morality and definitions based on religion to a virtual construct. Not only is that an attempt to change the definition of a word that has been around for over 4000+ years, but it is an attempt to make people conform to an ideology based outside of the game. When you do that, I would question who really is bring the 'real world' into the game.

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,769Member Uncommon

    It’s important that two people of the same sex can get married in a MMO even though marriage is unimportant morally speaking? So it’s important we can all do something that’s not important? I applaud the best piece of politically correct mental gymnastics I have seen in quite a while. :)


     


    I question allowing the sort of politics that gets discussed in the forums into the game. That is a can of worms that nobody should want to open.

  • NesrieNesrie Medford, ORPosts: 648Member

    Just like in real life, if you can't handle the idea that there are people out there different than you, just go hide in a corner somewhere and don't attend the wedding. Weddings in MMOs are only big for some people anyway.

    parrotpholk-Because we all know the miracle patch fairy shows up the night before release and sprinkles magic dust on the server to make it allllll better.

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    Originally posted by tswthoradin

    Marriage isn't a religious idea or word, it's a secular word. Marriage predates most religions and is considered a secular contract or a business contract. The earliest recorded accounts of marriage are mentioned on Hummurabi's Code which is roughly 2000 BC. So the argument it's violating some religious tenant only applies within that religion. If religions want their own sacred institution then they should come up with their own word and not try to make other people apply their views of morality to everything. Allowing people to marry (or not allowing) based on religious views is a subversion of the whole concept of marriage.

     

    I hear a lot of people arguing that they don't want to bring the "real world" into a game, but the simple fact is, by fighting a persons choice of partner in a virtual world, you are the ones who are bringing in the real world. You apply you're own personal morality and definitions based on religion to a virtual construct. Not only is that an attempt to change the definition of a word that has been around for over 4000+ years, but it is an attempt to make people conform to an ideology based outside of the game. When you do that, I would question who really is bring the 'real world' into the game.

    1) Marriage is one of those words that has meaning in multiple different contexts....Legal, Religious, Social, Economic, Personal, heck even Political.... It's probably best if we just accept the fact that rules that define it under one context don't neccesarly carry over to the others.

    2) It's pretty much impossible to determine when Marriage or a concept very similar originated. The problem with early history is that written records are very scant and it's difficult to judge alot by them ..other then the fact that something was in existence by that time. For example, I've heard it generaly opined by scholars that the Iliad and the Odyessy existed as oral traditions for at least 500-800 years before they were first written down.

    3) Religion (not any specific ones that exist today, but spiritual belief as a concept) VASTLY predates any formal codified laws. There is evidence of grave goods in Neanderthal burials, let along before Cro-Magnon first established sedentary communities. We can't tell exactly what they believed, but it's clear they believed something.

    4) Given the biological realties of human beings.......long gestation times, relatively helpless offspring, slow growth of offspring and long times until maturity.... the practical realities of early human existance...very high mortality rates, labor intensive methods of survival, little surplus labor. It is highly likely that marriage(for all intents and purposes) as a social function has been with us for a VERY long time. It may not have exactly resembled what we have today..... but there is just too much functional value in it for early humans not to have adopted it. It is also likely that it was HIGHLY biased in favor of couplings that would produce healthy off-spring. This more then likely is where our instinctual bias against same-sex or closely related (i.e. brother-sister) relationships derives from. Instictual bias being the "Yuck" factor...rather then the "This is immoral" learned response.  Good, bad or indifferent.... the things which we "feel" on an instinctual level tend to be biases that were hard-wired over vast numbers of generations which helped our early survival as a species.

     

    5) Most importantly why is it that you ASSUME that a persons objections to same-sex marriage functions MUST derive from thier real life religious concerns. I am agnostic in real life..... and have no real moral issue with real-life same-sex unions (other then a bit of a "yuck" factor instinctual reaction)... I have no problem with such things in SOME game contexts...but certainly would in others. It depends on 2 factors... Firstly,  the function marriage is intended to play in the game (whether it is a primarly IC or OOC mechanic).... and secondly, how does it fit into the internal logic of the game world.

    It seems to me that it is you that is insisting that peoples Real World preferences should dictate what is supported in a game. I have no problem with a marriage of 20 different same-sex characters and thier pet elephant if its an OOC function set on planet Bleamfarb in the 29th Century. However an IC wedding between same sex nobles in what is supposed to be a historical 17th Century European setting.....somebody better be calling the Inquisition to crash the party.

  • KwanseiKwansei HyogoPosts: 334Member

    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

     

    3) Religion (not any specific ones that exist today, but spiritual belief as a concept) VASTLY predates any formal codified laws. There is evidence of grave goods in Neanderthal burials, let along before Cro-Magnon first established sedentary communities. We can't tell exactly what they believed, but it's clear they believed something.




     

    Bah now you have me wanting to play Civilization again.. Sorry, read that comment and had flashes of civ trees in my head

1235»
Sign In or Register to comment.