hrn212

Um, dude...for one thing she made a general statement about a non-specific group of people based on their behaviour...rather than a personal statement about an individual or a statement about a group of people based on their identity (which is what the folks leaving her horrible messages are doing). So that, right there, is a huge difference. For another, her response is based on something that these folks have said to her, individually and personally...which gives her leave to be less-than-magnanimous with her response. Also, she said in the beginning of her post that she might be a bit aggro.

Plus, 'these guys must not have anything interesting to do' is not even remotely comparable to the expletive and slur-ridden insults and threats Quinn is sent. Like, come on, now.

I've not experienced the sort of targeted hate that Quinn has on as large a scale or with the regularity that she's faced it. But I have been the subject of targeted hate...and at some point, if only for self preservation, you end up writing those folks off. And then when you're in a better headspace (because the attack has let up a bit) you're able to come back and be a bit more magnanimous in your consideration of them. Sometimes. If you're lucky enough to ever get to a place where the attack has let up.

I don't think I'm misinterpreting what you said...just responding to something you said and responding to something you didn't say and perhaps not making that clear in my response...I'm getting nuance-y or nitpicky or whatever...not trying to black-and-white argue with what you're saying.

Anyway, it was really your use of the phrase "social agendas" that prompted my response to take the form it did. Though you didn't say it, the notion that social agendas should take a backseat to narrative is precisely the argument used to exclude diverse representation. Right? That it would "break immersion" for there to be women on a battlefield or that it would "break immersion" if there were too many gay characters running around...etc. etc. (This is also why I pointed out who the "you" was in your statement really matters...because what breaks immersion for one group of people won't for another...and in US AAA games the assumed 'you' is always white straight and male).

I agree, Bioware's treatment of gay relationships is meant to be idealised and are thus not-quite-realistic by today's standards (regardless of personal perspective). BUT, the potential issue with that isn't to do with whether that breaks immersion. The potential issue is whether that idealised world serves to mask and and paint an unrealistic picture of the realities of being gay in today's world.

There's a bit of dissonance, there, though between what the narrative is trying to explicitly say and what other aspects of the game say.

"It shouldn't be a big deal in the future," is what the narrative says...and yet they didn't have an option for MaleShep to be gay until ME3.

"It shouldn't be a big deal in the future," is what the narrative says...and yet the queer bits of the story were hidden from the player unless the player actively chose to find them. (Until ME3 where we had what's-his-face mourning his dead husband).

Mass Effect and Dragon Age are attempting to be (and largely succeeding) social commentaries and yet still often fall into some of the traps of the society they are commenting on. Personally I think that's part of what makes the idealised treatment of same-sex relationships in the game somewhat frustrating...it's not just that they are idealised, it's that they are idealised in some ways and problematic in others, thus making the idealised bits seem a bit hollow.

The thing I wanted to respond to is the bit where you say "social interactions behaving in ways you would not expect...screw up immersion" right after saying that "social agendas should take a backseat."

See, the thing is...every time I play a game with no lgbt characters that breaks my immersion. A world without lgbt folks is inherently impossible to me. A world with only one gay character, especially if that gay character is a hollow stereotype, is also impossible to me. It breaks my immersion.

The reasons you see lgbt folks and women and people of colour, etc. etc. demanding better representation isn't to further some abstract social agenda...it's a twofold issue of how the lack of representation affects our real lives (a la LeJacq's article) and how a lack of representation affects our experience of the game (i.e. that it actually breaks immersion).

An idealised bit of representation (i.e. where gay and straight relationships are treated equally) doesn't really break immersion for me, though...it just gets interpreted as fantasy.

The question to ask, I think, is who is the "you" in your statement of "social interactions behaving in ways you would not expect?" Because what you expect and what I expect might be quite different. And what you think of as a "social agenda" might actually be integral to an "absorbing narrative" for me.

(Sorry I'm a bit of a rambler).

Right so I think 30/50 is pretty much not likely if you haven't even started anything yet...unless you've got a bunch of platinum (gold) sitting in the bank. As far as I am aware, it is all mostly cosmetic stuff. It's not got an XP bonus or anything like WoW's heirloom gear. Along with the gear you get minis and different pets for a ranger...but again, they don't seem to give you anything special in game except for an appearance stuff.

But then, GW2 isn't really a gear-driven game like WoW is.

@Benny said:

Removing the level grind is madness to me. It's basically them admitting it's not worth playing through it.

Yeah this is what gets me too. The rest is all promoting the game and saying, hey come play. But this just seems to be saying that the only reason to play is endgame stuff. What the heck happened to the whole Cataclysm-has-great-new-levelling?

Why can't this be on PC too?! Whyyyyyyy!?

Alrighty I think I'm moving to the 2nd congressional district of Chicago.

Fuckin hell...I am really hoping this isn't the beginning of a trend in totalitarian countries.

@Video_Game_King said:

Wait, that was Ivy in the other ad? Looking at it now, she looks like a particularly slutty Cat Woman. (Or maybe I've played too much Arkham City.)

How can you even tell? It could be almost anyone with big breasts and plump lips, and therein lies the problem.