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.
Nothing of the sort. Did I say anything that invalidated my respecting other belief systems?
Yes, you did. You claimed that your belief was in line with social evolution, which immediately means that my belief must no longer posess relevancy as the great evolution has occurred. We must now all move forward to meet it.
I believe your opinion differs from mine on how society best operates. Notice the difference. Nowhere in my belief did I claim superiority over yours with the clever use of words and concepts like evoution, progress, and/or growth. That is offering due respect. Anything else is merely a farce. Offer a concrete belief. State your case with facts. Wait for a counter. Score appropriately. Hooray for high school debate. At least I got something out of freshman year other than a trash can and a de-pantsing. :-)
I did not however read the rest of your post, as I surmised that it was expounding upon this original point. I may be wrong, but thats where the old saying comes from "Always put your best foot forward." You started on a weak point, and as a result I didnt listen.
I think you need to read my post again. I never said that my beliefs were in line with a social evolution that evolved to one definition which was "my" definition. I did say that society has included an additional reason to marry which is love. I has evolved to "include" this. Though I probably said "broaden".
It can now be part of the equation for those who want a marriage based on something other than merging families.
So yes, society gets to evolve. Perhaps one day we will evolve to include other ideas of what marraige can be. Ah here we go.
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, inTHIS 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.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
In my view when it comes to affairs of the heart it really is no one elses business but the two, three, four, ten or however many people involved. It is their relationship not yours so why spend your time worrying about what other people are doing and spend more time focusing on what you are doing with your own life.
1 Charaters that are different, not human like. As already mentioned the Char in GW2 fit this very nicely.
2. Marriage regardless of sex is something I would like...as long as the married couple could share eq. Aardwolf, a huge and imo one of the best thought-out muds ever did this. A marriage of concienience to be sure.
one more...I just hate seeing weapons that are impossible to wield. Yeah, I know, its a game. It still bothers me to see a Greatsword that is nearly as lond as a person is tall and often nearly as wide as the person. That puppy would be near impossible to drag around much less us in a fight unless it were dropped on someone to crush them :P
Progressivism itself isnt evil, but it is easily manipulated by evil people as at its heart appeals to the dissatisfaction of a disadvantaged class or classes. This opens the door for those who use progressive ideology in common with rhetoric like opposition, evolution, maturation, racial epithets, and even simple words like growth and progress to manipulate crowds to accomplish evil things while all the while thinking they are doing good. Progressive Ideaologues and their flocks often fail to take into account that society is always growing, with every idea, word, thought, and action we are moving in some way or another. The fault of the progressive is not that they want something, but rather that they want something RIGHT NOW. Dare we not give in to their impatient demands? Only at our own peril, as the progressive often uses terms like revolution to manipulate those around them, rallying them to whatever cause they happen to find handy. To use an example of where progressive ideology turns evil: A man gets into a conflict with another man, during which he states "I am going to snap your big nose." The man had a rather large nose, to be true. It was a dominant feature of the mans face. The man however responds "What? So you hate me because Im Jewish?!" Nowhere in that exchange was there ever a prior word exchanged about whether or not a person was Jewish. However the progressive trend at the time is that to be Jewish is to be oppressed. This man was using race as a social tool to garner sympathy for the crowd, so that the crowd would gather on his side of the upcoming conflict. Furthermore, he himself was being a racist, as a large nose is not an exclusively Jewish feature, nor do all Jewish individuals posess large nonses.
I don't think that Marxist/National Socialist ideals should have much of a place in mmorpgs.
While I agree with some of the other posters about needing a ton more options on race the political agendas you put forth are just another way to further divide the gamers who log in to escape the bs of real life. Hell, EQ has a ton of races including frogs. Why can't people do this now?
If, one day far into the life cycle of a game, the devs want to add in things like marriage, I'm down, but waste even one dollar on some stupid crap that only a few people care about at launch and I'll immediately move on to another game. Why? That dollar should have been spent on improving the aspects of the game that the majority of players care about. No game ever comes out even close to perfect. To whine about socio-political garbage being missing when the theoretical game you talk about will no doubt launch with a ton of crap wrong with it, (like every other game does), is a slap in the face of people who every day shell out hard earned money for broken software. I could care less if two guys get married in a game, but unless everything else in the game is perfect, you pretty much screwed 90% of your potential gamer pool to make a few people happy.
All the above said I should note that I am quite socially liberal, I really don't give a damn who marries who or how many people they marry or almost anything else related to personal freedom. If you are not hurting someone else with what you are doing, why should I care? We should all respect each other and be polite, but that doesn't mean we need to approve of everyone elses decisions or cheer them. We are also free to disagree with what they chose and are free to voice that disagreement. I just don't think we should infringe on others basic rights to do whatever the xxxx they want if they are not hurting other people via their choices. In an MMO especially, who really cares? If you don't like the big amorphous sexless blob with 10 wings then just don't play with them? pretty simple
I couldn't agree more.
I agree to a point as well. I do not think most of the people posting here do. The point we do not all aggree on is
[quote]Maybe we, as players, don't need change – after all, we seem to be doing well off in a growing gaming industry. There's still room for change, however, and some of us will be happy to welcome it.[/quote]
Room for Change. As if the rest of the community is jut not willing to change. It is not that the rest of the community is not willing to change, it is the "Who determines what CHANGE am I supposed to be happy to welcome?"
Once you start on such a slippery slope you fall from entertainment and enter the realm of social engineering. I want no other THEME in my head other than ORCS are bad, Elves are good. These games we play have clear cut Black and White no shades of gray areas. One side good, the other side not good. Or in the case of DAoC my side good, everyone else bad.
I suppose that is a good point.
My original thought is that for a main stream game I don't want it to exclude real people from doing in game activities because the in game activities are trying to make some sort of social statement one way or another. I would rather keep all social commentary out of a game so that all players can feel free to enjoy it without having to question the game play.
Having said that, in the interest of fairness, I suppose if a game company wanted to make a game that was all about some sort of social commentary toward any belief system then that would and should be their right as well.
As long as the game company is clear about what the game is "about" then who would I be to say they couldn't and shouldn 't do it?
Now you are talkin! I think we both just got on the same page with this. Especially the exclude people from a mainstream game for ANY reason other than their choice.
Like cannot play a female character without first proving you are a female in teh RW.
Stuff like that is something I would not support. <-- note I did not say the developer could not do it.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
Again you've written a wonderful thought provoking article that is certainly going to go over the heads of the average reader here on MMORPG.com. The issues you bring up is ones that are more likely to be addressed in games with more modern settings, such as The Agency, The Secret World and others where the issues of race, lifestyle and other current events and issues can be dealt with in how they write the backstories, who the Iconic heroes and villains are in the lore of the game and how they implement the mechanics of race features, how players can be rewarded for playing such diverse characters or if they should be rewarded, and so on.
If the game developers want to tackle these issues in the near future, they need to step into these uncertain waters carefully and be sensative to the gamer reaction, because as one can see from the various replies above, some see this as being too Care Bear-ish, and not necessary in the realm of MMO's where they want to escape the world and not have it brought into them.
The first part to do with races, genders and all that though I completely agree with. But I don't think of that in the happy lah lah everyone gets along and accepts each other way of thinking. I think of it more as yes give us some truly alien and non-human races. That may or may not work in the way we do for reproduction, that may have societies and values that differ wildly from ours. Where anytime certain races they just may instantly devolve into arguing or even fighting to the death over their differences. Like it or not humanities history is written primarily in blood and conflict so why not include some more of that in MMOs as well? So long as we are all mature enough to handle it.
This part is absolutely true. All of it. Humans are by nature conflict driven. Our conflict may as well be represented in a video game by adding elements from our culture. A developer inventing a new culture should absolutely have free reign to do whatever they wish to do! Now if only developers would step away from JRR Tolkein's creations. Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, etc have remarkably similar cultures to ours in all pieces of literature involving them to date. So do Klingons, Romulans, and Vulcans. Let's leave those alone and not re-invent the wheel.
A Drudge, Empyrean, Olthoi, Gelidite, Pokemon, Andorrian, Alpha-Centauri, Ryzoram, Thrombifioid, or a whole host of other fun words leave whole cultures, social values, and mores to be defined wholly by the person or group of persons who created them. Therein lies the much desired vehicle for social flexibility in online games. To redefine what already exists is to ask for outcry against it. To define something new, now that is social evolution.
I think you need to read my post again. I never said that my beliefs were in line with a social evolution that evolved to one definition which was "my" definition. I did say that society has included an additional reason to marry which is love. I has evolved to "include" this. Though I probably said "broaden".
It can now be part of the equation for those who want a marriage based on something other than merging families.
So yes, society gets to evolve. Perhaps one day we will evolve to include other ideas of what marraige can be. Ah here we go.
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, inTHIS 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.
I read your post the first time. All of it. Thank you for insulting my intelligence by re-posting it. I highlighted in red exactly where you stated, very clearly, that the thoughts defined in your paragraph constituted social evolution. By defining one set of thoughts as social evolution you define more tradtitional models of thought as objects only worthy of history.
You sir are quite wrong, as I have pointed out before. I hope now that youve emptied your grab bag of lame excuses and are prepared to come to grips with the reality of exactly what youve said. At least have the courage to stand by your convictions once they are challenged.
I think you need to read my post again. I never said that my beliefs were in line with a social evolution that evolved to one definition which was "my" definition. I did say that society has included an additional reason to marry which is love. I has evolved to "include" this. Though I probably said "broaden".
It can now be part of the equation for those who want a marriage based on something other than merging families.
So yes, society gets to evolve. Perhaps one day we will evolve to include other ideas of what marraige can be. Ah here we go.
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, inTHIS 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.
I read your post the first time. All of it. Thank you for insulting my intelligence by re-posting it. I highlighted in red exactly where you stated, very clearly, that the thoughts defined in your paragraph constituted social evolution. By defining one set of thoughts as social evolution you define more tradtitional models of thought as objects only worthy of history.
You sir are quite wrong, as I have pointed out before. I hope now that youve emptied your grab bag of lame excuses and are prepared to come to grips with the reality of exactly what youve said. At least have the courage to stand by your convictions once they are challenged.
We clearly are not seeing the same thing in my post. And it speaks volumes about you when you see it as an insult if a person reposts one of his posts so that you don't have to go searching for it in order to reference.
You see it as an insult and I see it as being courteous. Interesting.
I stick by my post that society gets to evolve to include a more broad definition of marriage. I think it is a social evolution to have a society accept different ideas of marriage.
what type of evolution would it be?
edit: ah I see, you look at my post as one mode of thought completely replacing previous ideas. Look more to my use of "broaden". did you not like broaden? should I have used another word indicating an acceptance of other ideas?
If you dont' want to link that last line to the timbre of my post then so be it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Evolution doesnot render previous iterations as history unless you are talking about genetic evolution. As society evolves it becomes something else . . . that evolution doesnt necessarily void or rend meaningless previous iterations of a societal concept. In this case as society evolves and develops a new meaning of marriage, that new meaning can inclusive of the previously "unevolved" concept.
Excellent article - and the exchanges in the comments prove well the point that freedom of expression leads to friction.
The way I've looked at things, traditional stories are an arguement or explanation in the form of a metaphore while MMOs are (or at least in a sandbox should be) simulations. Either can be used for escapism, either can be a textbook about the real world (although admittedly outside of some effort in simulating economies, I haven't seen a lot of effort in MMOs to really say much that is "real").
My advice to MMO designers would be that if you want to broach a controversial concept like marriage is to take the Star Trek approach. Do a lore pass and have each race/culture in the game and have each have a different idea of what "marriage" means, exaggerated versions of the real world differences of opinion.
I'm always disapointed because I want to make a fat guy. I had a really cool fat toon in SWG back before it was murdered. I want to be able to make like a really slovenly guy, or maybe a guy with a limp!
I agree with a lot of folks here. Leave the RW stuff in the RW. If people want to RP marriage, let them do it. But, don't make it a requirement to access certain content. I uninstalled RoM because of the marriage junk. It is a definite game breaker for me when I feel forced to participate in nonsense.
I agree with a lot of folks here. Leave the RW stuff in the RW. If people want to RP marriage, let them do it. But, don't make it a requirement to access certain content. I uninstalled RoM because of the marriage junk. It is a definite game breaker for me when I feel forced to participate in nonsense.
Wait, whaaa?? They're FORCING people to marry or attend weddings?? Man, I must have totally missed something. Is that what you're saying here? If that's the case....then I have to agree with you.
I'm not sure why games can't just continue to give players more and more CHOICES. I'm good with choices. I don't generally like being "forced" to do anything in a game.
This is a great article the OP wrote and I couldn't agree more. The problem is that there are just too many immature gamers(age doesn't matter) that like to hide behind the anonymity of the internet. Those same gamers will always be there to whine, flame, troll and try to stop any progress in the evolution of mmo's. A perfect example is the Blizzard Real ID incident recently.
Yes, it was done wrong by Blizzard, but brilliant in it's concept. The majorly sad thing about the incident was that the trolls and griefers of the net whined in unison until they got their way to shut it down without working with Blizzard to instead offer a better solution. Obviously, the whiners got their way and proved that unless devs take a stand and hold their ground, this same event will always prevail.
of all else posted so far this.
I personaly do not want politics in my game. But like others have said, their can be many different games for different tastes, but could you imagine a mmo with politics similiar to our own? The game would simply implode! If you have ever read any of the comments below news articles posted online you would know this already. "Grown-ups" are bad enough.
It's a proven historical fact that beer saved humankind.
I agree with a lot of folks here. Leave the RW stuff in the RW. If people want to RP marriage, let them do it. But, don't make it a requirement to access certain content. I uninstalled RoM because of the marriage junk. It is a definite game breaker for me when I feel forced to participate in nonsense.
Wait, whaaa?? They're FORCING people to marry or attend weddings?? Man, I must have totally missed something. Is that what you're saying here? If that's the case....then I have to agree with you.
I'm not sure why games can't just continue to give players more and more CHOICES. I'm good with choices. I don't generally like being "forced" to do anything in a game.
There are perks that are given to those that participate in marriage or forced friendships.
Racial Awareness? Ethnic heritage? Gay Marriage Online?
To be perfectly honest, this is all petty. The lore is the lore is the lore. Elves are pale skinned, with pale hair and fine features. Dark Elves are purple skinned, with white hair and fine features. An African heritage Elf while nice and politically correct, simply is not necessitated by the lore. Neither is a Polynesian elf. Im a Polynesian. Im not upset about it. Its not necessary! My race isnt even represented amongst most human oriented facets of gaming. Should I be insulted that Kupe isnt riding around in his wooden Katamaran discovering islands in the middle of Azeroth? No, because the World of Warcraft is precisely that. Theres a line between fantasy and reality. These distinctions unnecessarily cross it. Next thing you know we are going to have a portion of the online population in wheelchairs so that the disabled can be represented. Or maybe some folks will be forced to play a retarded character so that the demographic with Downs Syndrome is represented fairly online.
This kid has the right idea. Hippies and their utopian dreamworld where everyone gets along, is represented equally, all live the same, and all love each other are only one step away from cults like Heavens Gate and Jonestown.
Jamie, your article seeks to ruin the fun of online gaming and in its place turn the MMO into a giant online Drum Circle, smelling of virtual patchouli. If successful it will do nothing short of ruin what makes games fun: the escape factor.
As for Gay Marriage online, why is this even necessary? Just have people swear brotherhood or something and give them the same benefits. People need to realize that cramming social agendas down the throats of individuals through all media outlets isnt going to change the world for the better, its going to wreck it.
I think you need to read my post again. I never said that my beliefs were in line with a social evolution that evolved to one definition which was "my" definition. I did say that society has included an additional reason to marry which is love. I has evolved to "include" this. Though I probably said "broaden".
It can now be part of the equation for those who want a marriage based on something other than merging families.
So yes, society gets to evolve. Perhaps one day we will evolve to include other ideas of what marraige can be. Ah here we go.
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, inTHIS 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.
I read your post the first time. All of it. Thank you for insulting my intelligence by re-posting it. I highlighted in red exactly where you stated, very clearly, that the thoughts defined in your paragraph constituted social evolution. By defining one set of thoughts as social evolution you define more tradtitional models of thought as objects only worthy of history.
You sir are quite wrong, as I have pointed out before. I hope now that youve emptied your grab bag of lame excuses and are prepared to come to grips with the reality of exactly what youve said. At least have the courage to stand by your convictions once they are challenged.
We clearly are not seeing the same thing in my post. And it speaks volumes about you when you see it as an insult if a person reposts one of his posts so that you don't have to go searching for it in order to reference.
You see it as an insult and I see it as being courteous. Interesting.
I stick by my post that society gets to evolve to include a more broad definition of marriage. I think it is a social evolution to have a society accept different ideas of marriage.
what type of evolution would it be?
edit: ah I see, you look at my post as one mode of thought completely replacing previous ideas. Look more to my use of "broaden". did you not like broaden? should I have used another word indicating an acceptance of other ideas?
If you dont' want to link that last line to the timbre of my post then so be it.
You think, and therefore thats exactly how it should be... because thats how you think it is. See this is the problem. You are concerned only with you. You cannot see past your own viewpoints, and see that by pushing these agendas you espouse you are offering complete disrespect to those who would disagree with you. And yet you still claim to be courteous and respectful. I contend that you dont know the meaning of the words.
Your 'broad definition' of marriage isnt a definition of marriage at all. Its soap opera garbage fit for tabloids and super market bookshelves. If you want to take a good look at how it works all you need to do is look at the divorce rate, single parent increases, devolution of family value, and increases in youth violence. Look at when all these things started occurring. Its no coincidence that they all happened together, and its not the first historical documentation of such a thing occurring. Rome had the same problems in its decline. So did Egypt. So did many of the dynastic periods in Chinese history.
Since this has happened before, in some regard, is it really evolution, or is that simply a label uneducated people slap on a trendy idea to make it sound appealing?
To many people watch Glen Beck in here. There is a simple solution for this, if a game is created with options such as creating avatars that are not what you deem to be socially acceptable, or are giving an option that you don't approve of (such as gay marriage) then do not play that game. I for one welcome more choices to customize my character. Will I ever roll a gay character, probably not, but i'd love the choice.
I don't think the author of the article or any of those evil 'progressives' are arguing that all games need to be now socially acceptable and push a liberal agenda down peoples throats. I think what people are saying is that it would be nice if 'some' games had the option of more then what we have seen for the past 16 years.
What is wrong with a game that deals with racism, warcraft did it with the orcs and humans. Star Trek caused all sorts of problems for having a white man kiss a black woman on tv. Heck some of the best stories I have ever read in fantasy and sci fi have had to deal with racism as the root of the plot. I think most great stories touch on our own social experiences to influence our emotions. They become something that we just don't see or hear, they become something we feel.
I think if this stuff is included in a game it will bring a new depth to the community and player base. I do have to say, I don't know if I agree to making games 'edgy' just to rock the boat. I also would be hesitant to any game that sought to influence my morals on an issue. But I am an adult and part of being an adult is knowing your limits.
Getting angry and throwing words like marxist, stalinist, nazi, etc... really don't validate anyone's point. If you really are bothered by people giving constructive ideas to how they think the genre could be infused with new ideas, then you will go a lot further by arguing your point in a well thought out and polite manner.
You Know what i like about Lore.. It is completly made up, it can be what ever the fuck you want it to be.
What i love about the comments , is that a fair amount of them , stress the fact that allowing people to do what they want will infringe on there rights some how. I am completly lost on how allowing same sex couples would spell the end of the world for every one. If you belive orcs can not be gay that is awsome for you, please kick me out of your RP guild.
MMO's should be a place where people can act out, and do what they may not be able to do in real life, and for some people that is the escape. I find it very ammusing however that people start to throw around draconian social structures , in an effort to curtail people doing what they want to do. On ewould think that it was the other way around.....
Like in real life, gay elves should be allowed to marry.
They're paying 15 bucks for an experience, may as well have an equal experience. Unless we're still in an age where separate but equal seems like a fair deal.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.
Comments
I think you need to read my post again. I never said that my beliefs were in line with a social evolution that evolved to one definition which was "my" definition. I did say that society has included an additional reason to marry which is love. I has evolved to "include" this. Though I probably said "broaden".
It can now be part of the equation for those who want a marriage based on something other than merging families.
So yes, society gets to evolve. Perhaps one day we will evolve to include other ideas of what marraige can be. Ah here we go.
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
agreed Sovrath
In my view when it comes to affairs of the heart it really is no one elses business but the two, three, four, ten or however many people involved. It is their relationship not yours so why spend your time worrying about what other people are doing and spend more time focusing on what you are doing with your own life.
Two things I like are:
1 Charaters that are different, not human like. As already mentioned the Char in GW2 fit this very nicely.
2. Marriage regardless of sex is something I would like...as long as the married couple could share eq. Aardwolf, a huge and imo one of the best thought-out muds ever did this. A marriage of concienience to be sure.
one more...I just hate seeing weapons that are impossible to wield. Yeah, I know, its a game. It still bothers me to see a Greatsword that is nearly as lond as a person is tall and often nearly as wide as the person. That puppy would be near impossible to drag around much less us in a fight unless it were dropped on someone to crush them :P
I don't think that Marxist/National Socialist ideals should have much of a place in mmorpgs.While I agree with some of the other posters about needing a ton more options on race the political agendas you put forth are just another way to further divide the gamers who log in to escape the bs of real life. Hell, EQ has a ton of races including frogs. Why can't people do this now?
If, one day far into the life cycle of a game, the devs want to add in things like marriage, I'm down, but waste even one dollar on some stupid crap that only a few people care about at launch and I'll immediately move on to another game. Why? That dollar should have been spent on improving the aspects of the game that the majority of players care about. No game ever comes out even close to perfect. To whine about socio-political garbage being missing when the theoretical game you talk about will no doubt launch with a ton of crap wrong with it, (like every other game does), is a slap in the face of people who every day shell out hard earned money for broken software. I could care less if two guys get married in a game, but unless everything else in the game is perfect, you pretty much screwed 90% of your potential gamer pool to make a few people happy.
Now you are talkin! I think we both just got on the same page with this. Especially the exclude people from a mainstream game for ANY reason other than their choice.
Like cannot play a female character without first proving you are a female in teh RW.
Stuff like that is something I would not support. <-- note I did not say the developer could not do it.
Say hello, To the things you've left behind. They are more a part of your life now that you can't touch them.
Jaime,
Again you've written a wonderful thought provoking article that is certainly going to go over the heads of the average reader here on MMORPG.com. The issues you bring up is ones that are more likely to be addressed in games with more modern settings, such as The Agency, The Secret World and others where the issues of race, lifestyle and other current events and issues can be dealt with in how they write the backstories, who the Iconic heroes and villains are in the lore of the game and how they implement the mechanics of race features, how players can be rewarded for playing such diverse characters or if they should be rewarded, and so on.
If the game developers want to tackle these issues in the near future, they need to step into these uncertain waters carefully and be sensative to the gamer reaction, because as one can see from the various replies above, some see this as being too Care Bear-ish, and not necessary in the realm of MMO's where they want to escape the world and not have it brought into them.
Again, Jaime. Good article.
This part is absolutely true. All of it. Humans are by nature conflict driven. Our conflict may as well be represented in a video game by adding elements from our culture. A developer inventing a new culture should absolutely have free reign to do whatever they wish to do! Now if only developers would step away from JRR Tolkein's creations. Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, etc have remarkably similar cultures to ours in all pieces of literature involving them to date. So do Klingons, Romulans, and Vulcans. Let's leave those alone and not re-invent the wheel.
A Drudge, Empyrean, Olthoi, Gelidite, Pokemon, Andorrian, Alpha-Centauri, Ryzoram, Thrombifioid, or a whole host of other fun words leave whole cultures, social values, and mores to be defined wholly by the person or group of persons who created them. Therein lies the much desired vehicle for social flexibility in online games. To redefine what already exists is to ask for outcry against it. To define something new, now that is social evolution.
Laudanum - Romance. Revenge. Revolution.
Crappy, petty people breed and raise crappy, petty kids.
I read your post the first time. All of it. Thank you for insulting my intelligence by re-posting it. I highlighted in red exactly where you stated, very clearly, that the thoughts defined in your paragraph constituted social evolution. By defining one set of thoughts as social evolution you define more tradtitional models of thought as objects only worthy of history.
You sir are quite wrong, as I have pointed out before. I hope now that youve emptied your grab bag of lame excuses and are prepared to come to grips with the reality of exactly what youve said. At least have the courage to stand by your convictions once they are challenged.
Laudanum - Romance. Revenge. Revolution.
Crappy, petty people breed and raise crappy, petty kids.
We clearly are not seeing the same thing in my post. And it speaks volumes about you when you see it as an insult if a person reposts one of his posts so that you don't have to go searching for it in order to reference.
You see it as an insult and I see it as being courteous. Interesting.
I stick by my post that society gets to evolve to include a more broad definition of marriage. I think it is a social evolution to have a society accept different ideas of marriage.
what type of evolution would it be?
edit: ah I see, you look at my post as one mode of thought completely replacing previous ideas. Look more to my use of "broaden". did you not like broaden? should I have used another word indicating an acceptance of other ideas?
If you dont' want to link that last line to the timbre of my post then so be it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Evolution doesnot render previous iterations as history unless you are talking about genetic evolution. As society evolves it becomes something else . . . that evolution doesnt necessarily void or rend meaningless previous iterations of a societal concept. In this case as society evolves and develops a new meaning of marriage, that new meaning can inclusive of the previously "unevolved" concept.
Gaming since Avalon Hill was making board games.
Played SWG, EVE, Fallen Earth, LOTRO, Rift, Vanguard, WoW, SWTOR, TSW, Tera
Tried Aoc, Aion, EQII, RoM, Vindictus, Darkfail, DDO, GW, PotBS
Disagree 100% with this article. Let's make MMO's politically correct? Stay away from my MMO's!
I can't comment further without getting in some kind of trouble, so I will leave it at that.
Honestly, I think that both sides of this argument are two taut ends of a rubber band.
On side wants complete equality, openess without bias or prejudice.
The other side wants the status quo, with an option of, 'live and let live, way the hell away from me'.
Couldn't there be a middle ground where both sides could meet?
Mne eto nado kak zuby v zadnitse.
You better check that definition....A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.
Usually does not equal always.
and Devolution means:
AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "dev·o·lu·tion
–noun
1.
the act or fact of devolving; passage onward from stage to stage.
2.
the passing on to a successor of an unexercised right.
3.
Law . the passing of property from one to another, as by hereditary succession.
4.
Biology . degeneration.
5.
the transfer of power or authority from a central government to a local government.
Excellent article - and the exchanges in the comments prove well the point that freedom of expression leads to friction.
The way I've looked at things, traditional stories are an arguement or explanation in the form of a metaphore while MMOs are (or at least in a sandbox should be) simulations. Either can be used for escapism, either can be a textbook about the real world (although admittedly outside of some effort in simulating economies, I haven't seen a lot of effort in MMOs to really say much that is "real").
My advice to MMO designers would be that if you want to broach a controversial concept like marriage is to take the Star Trek approach. Do a lore pass and have each race/culture in the game and have each have a different idea of what "marriage" means, exaggerated versions of the real world differences of opinion.
I'm always disapointed because I want to make a fat guy. I had a really cool fat toon in SWG back before it was murdered. I want to be able to make like a really slovenly guy, or maybe a guy with a limp!
I agree with a lot of folks here. Leave the RW stuff in the RW. If people want to RP marriage, let them do it. But, don't make it a requirement to access certain content. I uninstalled RoM because of the marriage junk. It is a definite game breaker for me when I feel forced to participate in nonsense.
Wait, whaaa?? They're FORCING people to marry or attend weddings?? Man, I must have totally missed something. Is that what you're saying here? If that's the case....then I have to agree with you.
I'm not sure why games can't just continue to give players more and more CHOICES. I'm good with choices. I don't generally like being "forced" to do anything in a game.
of all else posted so far this.
I personaly do not want politics in my game. But like others have said, their can be many different games for different tastes, but could you imagine a mmo with politics similiar to our own? The game would simply implode! If you have ever read any of the comments below news articles posted online you would know this already. "Grown-ups" are bad enough.
It's a proven historical fact that beer saved humankind.
There are perks that are given to those that participate in marriage or forced friendships.
http://forum.us.runesofmagic.com/showthread.php?t=44724
I could not have said it better.
You think, and therefore thats exactly how it should be... because thats how you think it is. See this is the problem. You are concerned only with you. You cannot see past your own viewpoints, and see that by pushing these agendas you espouse you are offering complete disrespect to those who would disagree with you. And yet you still claim to be courteous and respectful. I contend that you dont know the meaning of the words.
Your 'broad definition' of marriage isnt a definition of marriage at all. Its soap opera garbage fit for tabloids and super market bookshelves. If you want to take a good look at how it works all you need to do is look at the divorce rate, single parent increases, devolution of family value, and increases in youth violence. Look at when all these things started occurring. Its no coincidence that they all happened together, and its not the first historical documentation of such a thing occurring. Rome had the same problems in its decline. So did Egypt. So did many of the dynastic periods in Chinese history.
Since this has happened before, in some regard, is it really evolution, or is that simply a label uneducated people slap on a trendy idea to make it sound appealing?
Food for thought.
Laudanum - Romance. Revenge. Revolution.
Crappy, petty people breed and raise crappy, petty kids.
To many people watch Glen Beck in here. There is a simple solution for this, if a game is created with options such as creating avatars that are not what you deem to be socially acceptable, or are giving an option that you don't approve of (such as gay marriage) then do not play that game. I for one welcome more choices to customize my character. Will I ever roll a gay character, probably not, but i'd love the choice.
I don't think the author of the article or any of those evil 'progressives' are arguing that all games need to be now socially acceptable and push a liberal agenda down peoples throats. I think what people are saying is that it would be nice if 'some' games had the option of more then what we have seen for the past 16 years.
What is wrong with a game that deals with racism, warcraft did it with the orcs and humans. Star Trek caused all sorts of problems for having a white man kiss a black woman on tv. Heck some of the best stories I have ever read in fantasy and sci fi have had to deal with racism as the root of the plot. I think most great stories touch on our own social experiences to influence our emotions. They become something that we just don't see or hear, they become something we feel.
I think if this stuff is included in a game it will bring a new depth to the community and player base. I do have to say, I don't know if I agree to making games 'edgy' just to rock the boat. I also would be hesitant to any game that sought to influence my morals on an issue. But I am an adult and part of being an adult is knowing your limits.
Getting angry and throwing words like marxist, stalinist, nazi, etc... really don't validate anyone's point. If you really are bothered by people giving constructive ideas to how they think the genre could be infused with new ideas, then you will go a lot further by arguing your point in a well thought out and polite manner.
You Know what i like about Lore.. It is completly made up, it can be what ever the fuck you want it to be.
What i love about the comments , is that a fair amount of them , stress the fact that allowing people to do what they want will infringe on there rights some how. I am completly lost on how allowing same sex couples would spell the end of the world for every one. If you belive orcs can not be gay that is awsome for you, please kick me out of your RP guild.
MMO's should be a place where people can act out, and do what they may not be able to do in real life, and for some people that is the escape. I find it very ammusing however that people start to throw around draconian social structures , in an effort to curtail people doing what they want to do. On ewould think that it was the other way around.....
+1 for the above poster and the ref. to ST
Welcome Home
Rev
Like in real life, gay elves should be allowed to marry.
They're paying 15 bucks for an experience, may as well have an equal experience. Unless we're still in an age where separate but equal seems like a fair deal.
I kill other players because they're smarter than AI, sometimes.