Jimquisition: Mass Effect 3 And The Case For A Gay Shepard

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I don't always agree with Jim 100% but this time I do. Completely. If his point was not made abundantly clear to those making the arguments then there is no hope left. Thank god (which is also Jim) for the Jimquisition.

 

[Therumancer]

Also in referance to your earlier message, your far more likely to wind up getting banned for personal attacks than I am for saying things that have come up before over a number of years.

Hell I just reported myself to see what would happen. My forum health can take a few hits.

Yours on the otherhand....

Your forum health meter is actually pretty meaningless. I had pretty much a perfect record until around Christmas of last year when I got banned for making some critisisms of The Escapist itself that I shouldn't have but the ban was repealed and I was put on the current status for that where it was made clear that they weren't going to follow it digit by digit for offenses.

As this subject has recurred in one form or another for years now, and this isn't the first time I've taken a position like this one, I'm not paticularly worried about it. Those hits won't last you long though if you keep flaming people, especially if they decide your a trouble maker. I've been around quite a long while.

Feel free to disregard me, but I'm telling you, if you make it personal, it doesn't matter what your reasons are, you aren't going to last. Not everyone here is as laid back as I am.

 

[tstorm823]

Games that let the player pick their own persona are really just not for me in the first place. If I wanted to just be me, I wouldn't be playing the video game. If I wanted to be whatever the hell I want, I'd make my own media. I appreciate a game that makes me something different than myself in an effort to create a developed characterization. I'd rather he just be either gay or not.

Besides, even though I understand that videogames and books are different forms of story conveyance, I think the video game community will eventually realize that nobody has ever praised a "choose-your-own-adventure" novel as a masterpiece. They can be great fun but will never be the height of reading experience that people think back on nostalgically. That is how I feel about games letting to choose your character traits.

 

[Therumancer]

Saying that homosexuals are somehow elevated above other sexual deviants is inherantly wrong, they are EXACTLY the same thing, just aroused by a differant abnormal trigger. Once you start saying homosexuals are entitled to representation, the same exact arguement can be made for ANY deviant using the same exact logic. It doesn't seem like an issue now, because nobody is using those arguements, but given time they will come, and with one deviation established as being accepted irregardless of the mainstream, it becomes increasingly difficult to say that others need to be singled out and excluded.

Every time you engage in a sexual act, even by yourself, that does not end in a child you are engaging in a deviant act. Using birth control and masturbation are obviously just as inherently wrong as everything else. In fact to maximize your breeding capability, and ensure you don't preform a deviant act, you should have many women ready to take your seed every time you engage in sexual acts. All sex should have been kept out of the game since its not for the purpose of breeding so its all deviant and you don't want to be deviant.

See, this is one of the reasons why these conversations degenerate. Intentionally ridiculous, and obtuse answers contribute nothing to serious discourse, much like straw man arguements. There is nothing clever about it. It's also responses like this that generally get me to drop out of threads and people to wonder why I don't seem to be taking them, or the opposing viewpoint in general, seriously.

So, if more people make sarcastic responses to your ignorant close minded statement you will keep your bigotry to your self? That sounds like a good idea. Also my statement that all sexual acts that don't involve breeding are deviant is more logical than your statement that sexual acts that you don't agree with are deviant.

Incorrect, I'm talking purely about biology in that part of the discussion. A healthy, properly functioning system, as opposed to one that is not. Which is largely besides the overall point of why this is an issue with "Mass Effect" which has to do more with kow towing to political correctness than anything else.

I say what I do largely to provide balance on these forums, which generally lean far to the left. This applies accross a number of topics. Dropping posts like this is pointless if your looking for a serious dialogue on the subject, and if your not, why bother to even say anything at all? You aren't even making a valid point for a hypothetical third party observer who might be neutral on the subject.

I'll also be honest, one of the reasons why I bother to post is due to the extremism on these forums when it comes to certain topics, people who are oblivious to there being any side to these issues other than the one they had been holding onto. In the overall scheme of things the point is to demonstrate that there is another side to this besides the strawman of religious or moral opposition, and that there is indeed a middle ground between that and the left wing position of total and complete acceptance, which goes beyond this issue.

Speaking for a period of years here on The Escapist alone, I've actually received a bit of praise from people who appreciated what I have to say, because many admit they had never heard a lot of the things I had to say before, and had to re-think some of their assumptions even if they in many cases wound up coming to the same conclusion. I received one private mail to that effect in response to what I was saying in regards to Jim's last video on this subject for example not that I'm going into that whole thing again here.

My point is that disagreeing with someone does not give you the right to disrespect them. I obviously disagree with, and could be just as ridiculous in return, or as hateful as other responses I've received. People who act like they can disregard the other side entirely are the actual ignorsnt ones... and also largely responsible for issues like this one keeping society divided more or less down the middle, creating turmoil which benefits noone.

Overall though, a point which many people seem to miss, probably due to my the answers I gave on request, is that my point has very little to do with gay rights. It's all about entitlement, and minorities demanding representation in creative works. The points I'm making could be drawn anywhere.

See, to argue this point with me your basically saying that you have never felt that political correctness has ruined a creative work, and pretty much giving up the right to make such criticisms about things in the future. I don't think many people see it that way, because of the whole "hot button" topic of it being about gays right now, but this situation is fundementally the same as a minority character being written into a show specifically because of political demands, rather than having been intended to fit into the show to begin with.

People keep bringing up the fact that there is some evidence that there might have been male homosexuality intended in ME1 that got cut, and operating under the assumption it was cut due to fear of backlash from bigots. In reality all we know is that Bioware claimed that they didn't think such things fit with their image of Mass Effect, plenty was written about it, and it was even mentioned to Destructoid. Basically the creators themselves said "we do not want to do this" but they wound up relenting due to pressure, and going in the direct opposite direction from their initial statements.... and THAT is the problem, and it would be a problem if they had compromised on any similar issue, not just this one.

Not to mention that it's doubtful given Bioware's track record with things like "Jade Empire" (pre-ME1) and "Dragon Age: Origins" which came a bit later, that they would have cut it due to fear of some kind of backlash, because they had already pushed those buttons before. It was a creative desician and one they were pretty much not allowed to stand by. That is ultimatly the sum total of my arguement here.

Also as a final note, there is this constant assumption that I hate gay men, go out of my way to bash them, and get whipped up into some kind of frezy at the merest mention. That's hardly the case. The subject doesn't come up every 15 minutes (it just seems like it because of all the ME3 topics relating to it, with Jim covering it two weeks in a row now for example), every time something homosexual happens in fandom, because I only care in very specific contexts.

What's more I'm amazed at how many people are bigoted towards me for not agreeing with them, and no other reason. See, ME3 isn't involving any kind of behavior that I find inherantly offensive and my earlier statements are far from saying *all* gay men are pedos or anything of the sort (no I won't go into it again, but I was very careful on how I stated my position despite people putting words into my mouth). What is actually being shown here is not something I have a paticular issue with, other than it being put into the game against the stated wishes of the creators, who apparently experimented with the idea, and decided it didn't fit.

Believe me or not, but that's pretty much where I stand.

... and I went through all of this to try and demonstrate you can actually have a more meaningful dialogue and find out more, by talking, as opposed to being ridiculous or going into "attack mode" every time someone with a diametrically opposed viewpoint shows up. Even if you don't wind up agreeing with them.

 

[flippedthebitch]

Homosexuality exists in over 450 animal species. Homophobia exists in only one. Which one seems more unnatural now?

People need to grow up.

That's a very poor defense. Thumbs exist in only one animal species too.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

okokok..... Monkeys. Ya? Monkeys.

I was clearly referring to the useful kind--the kind only found in a handful of species.

In your rush to starwman you missed the point just about as hard as one possibly could. It should have been fairly obvious I suggesting any argument centered around "but other animals don't" is inane.

If we are going to go ahead and use the "unnatural" defense, I suppose the following should be removed:

courts and law
broad sexual equality
age of consent
currency
the education system (schools)
clothing
democracy;
government
etc.
etc.

It's just a flat out pointless argument. I'm reminded of a pretty funny bit a stand up comedian did:

Anti-homosexuality activist - "Animals don't have gays." [small][Ignore the fact that we are animals and that other animals are gay, just for the sake of making fun of this person, lol.][/small]
Comedian - "You wanna judge what is and isn't normal based off what animals do? Maybe next time I see your wife I'll drop down on all fours and fuck her leg."

It's a bad argument. Don't do it, people.

OOOH Clearly that's what you were referring to. Clearly.
I did not miss the point (though I am hard). I got what you said. It was just silly. I LOL'd.

I agree, the "no other living thing on the planet does it therefore its wrong" argument is kinda being a little stupid. Personally I would have went with anything on that list of yours before thumbs. It doesn't really fit ya know what I'm sayin? Undermined your point somewhat.

 

[flippedthebitch]

As much as I hate agreeing with Lord Gremlin, I kinda have to defend his point. Legally speaking, being gay/lesbian/transgender/whatever is a mental disorder. Not that I have a problem with it, my aunt is gay, I don't have a problem with her, it just means mental deviation from the social norm. Trying to find statistics on such a matter calls anywhere from 1% of the population to 25% of the population a member of the LGBT club. Assuming that it's somewhere in between those two numbers, that is still a deviation from the social norm of the the population of the world, thus a mental disorder. Again, not bashing gay people, just pointing out that his comment is completely valid. We just take it at face value of the social stigma associated with the phrasing he used.

I'm not sure where you live but where I do LGBT is not a mental disorder legally or otherwise and deviating from social norms does not mean that you have a mental disorder.

Totally. What do you mean by "legally a mental disorder"? Where does that come from? A "deviation from the social norm" is not the definition of a mental disorder. A mental disorder is confirmed through scientific testing not casually looking at social behavior and comparing it to the "norm", which is so wonderfully vague it has no real meaning. By your little scale being white is a mental disorder cause most of the people in the world aren't white so its not the "norm". Also, if you wanna get really technical, a behavioral disability and mental disability are not the same thing. So what your (poorly) describing is a behavior disability.

That being said, being gay is not a disorder or a disability. It is your sexual orientation. It is not a disorder to be treated. THAT, is misleading, ignorant and insulting, whether you meant it or not.

 

[twiceworn]

No Jim, pedophiles don't "fuck kids".

While I do get the point you're trying to make regarding the comparisons to homosexuality, you're making it sound like pedophiles with a basic level of self control doesn't exist.

Pedophilia alone is not an action, nor is it a crime. It's an attraction. And while both you and the media in general seem to want to brand all pedophiles are monstrous rapists, fat greasy trenchcoat-wearing psychos who'd eagerly jump at every opportunity to kidnap children and do unspeakable things to them, that simply doesn't have any grounding in reality.

I'd go as far as to say the majority of pedos have their primal urges well under control, and are well aware that acting on them would be harmful. And out of a genuine love and respect for children, choose not to do so.

Claiming all pedophiles are rapists is just as ridiculous as comparing pedophilia to homosexuality.

you hit the nail on the head my friend and you did it so well that I feel I must expand on it.
pedophiles and homosexuals have one very clear thing in common,SEXUAL ATTRACTION, its not something they can choose or decide, they were born with it and while I hate to point it out, it must be said that if pedophilia (a form of sexual attraction) is considered a mental problem or some sickness, then by the same standard you can say the same about homosexuality (a form of sexual attraction)as if one form of sexual attraction that's a minority is considered a mental problem or some sickness why wouldn't the other be the same, on that note bestiality is also considered a mental problem when its all about sexual attraction, the only logical conclusion to come to is that if you aren't sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex then you have a mental problem, its simple logic, all forms of sexual attraction that doesn't have a chance of reproducing is clearly as much of a natural violation as the man born with no sense of self preservation. we evolved from animals and all life evolves to survive, sexual attraction exists so we will reproduce and continue our species, thus if your attracted to something that cant reproduce it serves no natural purpose and must be a mistake at best.

 

[Darknacht]

Saying that homosexuals are somehow elevated above other sexual deviants is inherantly wrong, they are EXACTLY the same thing, just aroused by a differant abnormal trigger. Once you start saying homosexuals are entitled to representation, the same exact arguement can be made for ANY deviant using the same exact logic. It doesn't seem like an issue now, because nobody is using those arguements, but given time they will come, and with one deviation established as being accepted irregardless of the mainstream, it becomes increasingly difficult to say that others need to be singled out and excluded.

Every time you engage in a sexual act, even by yourself, that does not end in a child you are engaging in a deviant act. Using birth control and masturbation are obviously just as inherently wrong as everything else. In fact to maximize your breeding capability, and ensure you don't preform a deviant act, you should have many women ready to take your seed every time you engage in sexual acts. All sex should have been kept out of the game since its not for the purpose of breeding so its all deviant and you don't want to be deviant.

See, this is one of the reasons why these conversations degenerate. Intentionally ridiculous, and obtuse answers contribute nothing to serious discourse, much like straw man arguements. There is nothing clever about it. It's also responses like this that generally get me to drop out of threads and people to wonder why I don't seem to be taking them, or the opposing viewpoint in general, seriously.

So, if more people make sarcastic responses to your ignorant close minded statement you will keep your bigotry to your self? That sounds like a good idea. Also my statement that all sexual acts that don't involve breeding are deviant is more logical than your statement that sexual acts that you don't agree with are deviant.

Incorrect, I'm talking purely about biology in that part of the discussion.

As far as biology is concerned any sexual act that does not produce a child is the same. So how is oral sex, masturbation, or sex using birth control any different from being gay? If I have sex with an other guy no child will be produced, if I masturbate no child will be produced, if I engage in oral sex no child will be produced, if my wife is on the pill(assuming its working correctly) and we have sex no child will be produced. How are any of these more or less deviant?

In the end this is about me opposing what amount to demands of entitlement and enforced political correctness, not a result of any other position I might hold.

How do you know that is why it was put in? PR statements don't always reflect the intent of the creators and they could have changed their mind. You are making assumptions and then criticizing others for making different equally, if not more, valid assumptions.
And as far as PC ruining the game you don't have to be gay so it cant ruin your game. Where you not paying attention? If ME3 made you have sex with a guy for every girl you had sex with to balance it out I could understand the problem but you are only gay if you want to be. And according to BioWare this was added in because they wanted to not because they where pressured to, so stop trying to ruin the game by pressuring the creators.

 

[Therumancer]

[

Speaking for myself, it'd be nice if they did for certain games, but I don't think they should be forced or pressured into doing so. Even if they make another series with a blank slate protagonist.

Then we more or less agree here, and there isn't much to argue about, since that's the bottom line of what I've been saying.

If you've followed my comments on other threads, I myself have mentioned they need more adult/sexual material in games that are not specifically focused on them. That said however I do not think games should be pressured for not being politically correct and not involving every group that decides it should be included... either sexually, or non-sexually. I am pretty much against political correctness in all of it's forms.

In the other thread Jim started with his last video I was reluctant to answer questions about my position on homosexuality in general due to fear over how it would confuse the overall point of what was being discussed (and I was right, it did). People seem to overlook the simple point that in the end I really could care less if they put gay guys into video games as an option. I simply draw the line at the idea of entitlement and people saying that they SHOULD be included, or that it's somehow wrong for them not to be in games like this one. To me it's all about the creator and the intent. You wouldn't have had me (and I think a lot of other people) going off about this if Bioware had not stated pretty clearly they did not feel male homosexuality fit with the game to begin with. It's sort of like the situation with TOR, Bioware said "there are not going to be any homosexuals in ToR" (of either gender) ever since there have been incessant efforts to pressure Bioware to change that, if they do it's going to be because of the pressure not because they felt that this was something that fit within their creation, and involved characters they created and wound up being that way.

If it happens on it's own, it happens on it's own however, which is why I am a huge fan of "Dragon Age: Origins" and have never attacked it, and you've never seen me go off on things like "Jade Empire" or similar games.

In the end this is about me opposing what amount to demands of entitlement and enforced political correctness, not a result of any other position I might hold.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Homosexuality exists in over 450 animal species. Homophobia exists in only one. Which one seems more unnatural now?

People need to grow up.

That's a very poor defense. Thumbs exist in only one animal species too.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA

okokok..... Monkeys. Ya? Monkeys.

I was clearly referring to the useful kind--the kind only found in a handful of species.

In your rush to starwman you missed the point just about as hard as one possibly could. It should have been fairly obvious I suggesting any argument centered around "but other animals don't" is inane.

If we are going to go ahead and use the "unnatural" defense, I suppose the following should be removed:

courts and law
broad sexual equality
age of consent
currency
the education system (schools)
clothing
democracy;
government
etc.
etc.

It's just a flat out pointless argument. I'm reminded of a pretty funny bit a stand up comedian did:

Anti-homosexuality activist - "Animals don't have gays." [small][Ignore the fact that we are animals and that other animals are gay, just for the sake of making fun of this person, lol.][/small]
Comedian - "You wanna judge what is and isn't normal based off what animals do? Maybe next time I see your wife I'll drop down on all fours and fuck her leg."

It's a bad argument. Don't do it, people.

OOOH Clearly that's what you were referring to. Clearly.
I did not miss the point (though I am hard). I got what you said. It was just silly. I LOL'd.

I agree, the "no other living thing on the planet does it therefore its wrong" argument is kinda being a little stupid. Personally I would have went with anything on that list of yours before thumbs. It doesn't really fit ya know what I'm sayin? Undermined your point somewhat.

Yeah, not really sure why I went with thumbs first... Momentary laps in brain? >_>

 

[Therumancer]

Saying that homosexuals are somehow elevated above other sexual deviants is inherantly wrong, they are EXACTLY the same thing, just aroused by a differant abnormal trigger. Once you start saying homosexuals are entitled to representation, the same exact arguement can be made for ANY deviant using the same exact logic. It doesn't seem like an issue now, because nobody is using those arguements, but given time they will come, and with one deviation established as being accepted irregardless of the mainstream, it becomes increasingly difficult to say that others need to be singled out and excluded.

Every time you engage in a sexual act, even by yourself, that does not end in a child you are engaging in a deviant act. Using birth control and masturbation are obviously just as inherently wrong as everything else. In fact to maximize your breeding capability, and ensure you don't preform a deviant act, you should have many women ready to take your seed every time you engage in sexual acts. All sex should have been kept out of the game since its not for the purpose of breeding so its all deviant and you don't want to be deviant.

See, this is one of the reasons why these conversations degenerate. Intentionally ridiculous, and obtuse answers contribute nothing to serious discourse, much like straw man arguements. There is nothing clever about it. It's also responses like this that generally get me to drop out of threads and people to wonder why I don't seem to be taking them, or the opposing viewpoint in general, seriously.

So, if more people make sarcastic responses to your ignorant close minded statement you will keep your bigotry to your self? That sounds like a good idea. Also my statement that all sexual acts that don't involve breeding are deviant is more logical than your statement that sexual acts that you don't agree with are deviant.

Incorrect, I'm talking purely about biology in that part of the discussion.

As far as biology is concerned any sexual act that does not produce a child is the same. So how is oral sex, masturbation, or sex using birth control any different from being gay? If I have sex with an other guy no child will be produced, if I masturbate no child will be produced, if I engage in oral sex no child will be produced, if my wife is on the pill(assuming its working correctly) and we have sex no child will be produced. How are any of these more or less deviant?
And as far as PC ruining the game you don't have to be gay so it cant ruin your game. Where you not paying attention? If ME3 made you have sex with a guy for every girl you had sex with to balance it out I could understand the problem but you are only gay if you want to be. And according to BioWare this was added in because they wanted to not because they where pressured to, so stop trying to ruin the game by pressuring the creators.

See, and again this comes down to nonsense. I don't even know why I try at times.

The point is simply that homosexuality is like any other form of arousal, it just happens to be deviant from the intended workings of the human body. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with sex that does not produce children, that's you trying to be ridiculous to make some kind of point. Simply that heterosexuality is the way the body was intended to work, and any other kind of arousal is by definition a deviant behavior. Most of what your saying is out of context to the original point and the reasons for making it.

As far as the creators of the game go, again, this has been an issue going back to nearly the beginning, and the intentions of the series were stated by Bioware. Yes, obviously things did change due to the pressure people have been putting on them constantly, but the initial intent stands, and there is no real point in argueing it.

We apparently have diametrically opposed opinions, and nothing is going to come of it, so I'm just going to drop this here unless there is a constructive purpose to it.

Besides I've already said my piece in this thread in general, and your posts are sort of a reminder that it might be time to just stop responding again and hopefulyl stick with it this time, because I've said my piece, others have said theirs, and it's not going to go anywhere except for circles at this point. My intention was never to "win" an arguement or convert anyone to begin with.

 

[Darknacht]

The point is simply that homosexuality is like any other form of arousal, it just happens to be deviant from the intended workings of the human body. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with sex that does not produce children, that's you trying to be ridiculous to make some kind of point. Simply that heterosexuality is the way the body was intended to work, and any other kind of arousal is by definition a deviant behavior. Most of what your saying is out of context to the original point and the reasons for making it.

As far as the creators of the game go, again, this has been an issue going back to nearly the beginning, and the intentions of the series were stated by Bioware. Yes, obviously things did change due to the pressure people have been putting on them constantly, but the initial intent stands, and there is no real point in argueing it.

We apparently have diametrically opposed opinions, and nothing is going to come of it, so I'm just going to drop this here unless there is a constructive purpose to it.

Besides I've already said my piece in this thread in general, and your posts are sort of a reminder that it might be time to just stop responding again and hopefulyl stick with it this time, because I've said my piece, others have said theirs, and it's not going to go anywhere except for circles at this point. My intention was never to "win" an arguement or convert anyone to begin with.

Please explain how any of the other things I listed are any less of a deviation of the intended workings of the human body than homosexuality. I really would like to know, I'm not closed minded you just seem to have no argument.
And it seems from the beginning they wanted to include every romantic possibility they could but where unsure if the fans would accept it. Is there a statement somewhere that says that they put it in because they felt pressured to or that they where doing it because of political correctness?
I would really like real answers to these questions. I am very against developers feeling forced to change there games because of out side pressure, it detracts from their ability to be creative. If you can show me that this is the case I will agree with you on this point, I am not an unreasonable person I will listen to evidence.

 

[nick2150]

Many things can be viewed from a purely logical standpoint, but that doesn't make it the correct conclusion. I would say that homosexuality is a natural product of genetic drift. With no selection pressure to force reproduction to be most efficient things get loose.I believe its natural purpose is to curb the massive increase in population that we are currently experiencing. If you view it as a population wide phenomenon rather than an individual success/fail scenario then homosexuality makes allot of sense.
While you could apply this logic to paedophilia as it effectively removes both parties from reproduction (as the child will develop emotional scarring probably meaning they will have difficulty in adult life), there is a huge difference between consent and rape. The only way for a paedophile to achieve their desire is through rape, where as homosexuals can consent. That's why logic in this situation is a pile of wank.

 

[ACman]

Also in referance to your earlier message, your far more likely to wind up getting banned for personal attacks than I am for saying things that have come up before over a number of years.

Hell I just reported myself to see what would happen. My forum health can take a few hits.

Yours on the otherhand....

Your forum health meter is actually pretty meaningless. I had pretty much a perfect record until around Christmas of last year when I got banned for making some critisisms of The Escapist itself that I shouldn't have but the ban was repealed and I was put on the current status for that where it was made clear that they weren't going to follow it digit by digit for offenses.

As this subject has recurred in one form or another for years now, and this isn't the first time I've taken a position like this one, I'm not paticularly worried about it. Those hits won't last you long though if you keep flaming people, especially if they decide your a trouble maker. I've been around quite a long while.

Feel free to disregard me, but I'm telling you, if you make it personal, it doesn't matter what your reasons are, you aren't going to last. Not everyone here is as laid back as I am.

This is not flaming.

You've decided to come onto a forum and denigrate an entire section of society. When you do that you're throwing yourself open this sort of response. My disgust is justified.

 

[ACman]

The point is simply that homosexuality is like any other form of arousal, it just happens to be deviant from the intended workings of the human body.

This is the sort of shit that we are talking about. You keep on wanting to talk about deviancy.

DEVIANCY IS LIMITED TO:

Non-human objects
The suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner
Children
Non-consenting persons

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE HOMOSEXUALITY.

Complain about flaming all you like but your opinions are disgusting.

 

[Boba Frag]

Considering the ending of this Jimquisition i think I will share my personal opinion.

Well now, I do have a problem with gay people. Aka they are sick in the head and whatever excuse medics came up in USA when they realized they can't cure them did not just made them normal... Look, curing schizophrenia is not easy either. If possible at all.

That said excuses debunked in this video are pathetic indeed.
And pedophilia and homosexuality are indeed vastly different things. That said, both are cases of mental disorder but vastly different ones.

But what's most important here is that developers, Bioware, don't owe anything to anyone. If they want to include whatever new content it is entirely up to them. Your only choice is to either buy their game or don't buy it. It's as simple as that. Attacking writers for example is childish and outrageous. You may disagree with them or consider their creation abysmal.. But the only thing you're entitled to is ability to skip their game and don't buy it.

Man, can I borrow your time machine?

*high fives Hookah*

Nuff said!

Lord Gremlin, I respect your right to express your opinion, I do. I can't respect your actual opinion, however, as it's just smothered in homophobia and, well, nonsense... It's the first time I've ever heard of homosexuality being referred to as a mental disorder, and while certainly a novel way of looking at it...

You're saying that potentially millions of people are all in the exact same phase and severity of that disorder in order to develop relationships with each other?
I think you should do some reading on mental illness before you make that assertion. It's not the full story at all.

But in any case, my Shepard won't be gay because that's not how I envisage my interpretation of him. My friend's Shepard, however is female and I'm not sure he even bothered with the romance options at all. It's as Jim said- it doesn't matter if the option to pursue same-sex relationships is in ME3.

What matters is that they give the player, any player, with any sexual orientation to explore the story how they want, or don't want.
I think that's absolutely wonderful, and a shining example of how games can tell meaningful stories.

For me, Mass Effect was less about exploring the galaxy (which I absolutely revel in!) than it was about exploring human nature by flinging it across the stars and out of its comfort zone.

And that, certainly, is worth any controversy.

Knocked it out of the park, Jim!

EDIT:

Lord Gremlin, I would like to emphasise that while I strongly disagree with your interpretation, your argument is actually mature and well mannered.
Please don't take my above statements as an attack, and I hope that you get the game and enjoy continuing your Shepard's story.

 

[secondcircle]

I agree with your video completely. Good show.

 

[mike1921]

OP: I don't really think Bioware are open and mature to be quite honest, let me give you 2 clear examples. First, you can go Lesbian in Mass Effect 1 and 2 but not gay. Also, the demo

Spoiler: Spoilered just in case

Wrex refers to the queen as "Women". First of all, SEXIST? ANYONE? Also this is inconsistent. For fucks sake! Wrex has always wanted to save the Krogan, this could be one of the last fertile females, and Wrex is the first one to want to fight the genophage, he would have utmost respect for this female, it may be his race's last hope.

So yeah, open and mature, I don't think so Jim.

Spoiler

Why is bioware assumed to agree with Wrex and think his actions are right? Having a character do bigoted things (although I don't really get the bigot vibe from wrex) does not make the writer a bigot.

It is not about biggotry, it about the inconsistency with the story and character. Remember in mass effect one where you had to kill Wrex (or convince him) because he wanted to save the facility for the survival of the species? He would have the utmost respect for the queen! why am I the only one to see this?!

Peoples' ideals don't always line up perfectly with their personalities. He could deep down respect the female Krogan and still want to be generally a dick to her. Just because he wants increased fertility so the species can breed doesn't mean he has entirely respectful interactions with female Krogan. It's not an assumption you can make and I see no reason this connection would be made.

You really think that's what the line reflects?

No I really think we should play the damn game until we get some more context before

Then explain to me this, if he had no other interaction with females before, and obviously not with other females from the other species' then why would he say that line? It makes no sense! He would A) not refer to her as a woman. And B) Would not know what to say in a situation like that.

Quite frankly I have no idea what you're talking about, wrex referring to the female krogan as woman? I don't recall that at all and it sounds like the most minor thing in the world. Here's the main and only things I remember about that: He tried to help her out of her case when she said she can help herself, him jumping off the Normandy in anger at what the Salarians are doing. Him caring about the future of his species is well reflected in the demo.