[R&F] Inevitable thread on "Flirtatious" and "Curmudgeon" straights-only traits

[miaasma]

no

he has an opinion, it is some thing expletive like you force down on others as you are doing now. no "gayness" was forced here tho just bad wording. Bioware dose/did have a agenda to push "forward thinking" in their games.

my post also applies to you, opinions do not exist in a vacuum and aren't immune from criticism, especially when they insist that inclusion of sexual orientations that aren't "straight" must be part of some agenda. this is borderline conspiracy theory, and it's worthy of being called out

 

[nzcamel]

If we're talking how personal relationships and national power have mixed, then heterosexuality was very relevant in history. Yes, to the point where some who were/may have been gay/bi needed to hide/downplay their sexual orientation *shrugs* This is a storm in a teacup.

 

[Karpius]

this is borderline conspiracy theory, and it's worthy of being called out

'Conspiracy Theory' sounds so nefarious and evil. The fact is, many companies these days (not just the game industry) have instituted policies to be 'more diverse' in their marketing strategies. Its actually the smart thing to do and no one should have any major issue with it. I suppose some will do it better than others - sometimes it feels a little false or forced, but thats the nature of the beast. (The 'beast' being Madison Avenue and all those marketing wunderkinds)

As far as opinions go, they are not immune to criticism (another word for opinion), but they don't always require a response either. Some just ain't worth it!

 

[miaasma]

don't know what madison avenue is

instituting policies to be more diverse is not an agenda, it is a response to (in this particular case) society in general being less heteronormative, with games reflecting their player bases, as well as the world, in more nuanced and accurate ways. it's on par with being a conspiracy theorist that anyone is "pushing an agenda" by doing this, aside perhaps from the sinister 'making money and selling video games' agenda

as for your last point, uh, sure? did my post require a response? i don't respond to every instance of ignorance i see, but sometimes i feel like it

 

[Karpius]

'Madison Avenue' is the mecca of advertising agencies that companies go to in order to get the message out that their product is the most wonderful and stupendous! They have armies of people who check the pulse of the buying public and design their ad campaigns around that. They don't always get it right, but sure try real hard. They *do* have an agenda, and that agenda is to make money for their clients. A policy is an agenda. Their policy is to go along with what is popular in order to sell more. The public is (and rightly so) moving towards being more diverse and inclusive. Companies certainly want to cash in on this. In fact, it is ratings gold right now to promote anything that is *not* what was considered average even a few years ago. Far more popular is displaying the atypical family, or the atypical anything. Personally, I think this is a good thing and exposes society to all these variations so they become more acceptable and less 'shocking' to those with different sensibilities.

The flip side is that sometimes it does indeed feel pushed and false and sort of in your face. "Here! Throw away everything you know and accept this now or you don't belong!" Like anything else, it can make people feel excluded. In the end, however, people do tend to get over it and things begin to find a certain equilibrium. Funny thing about equilibrium though, it still leaves elements on both sides on the outside, and the outsiders usually make the most noise.

 

[miaasma]

what an unsurprisingly uphill battle this discussion is

i'll leave it by giving you a hint: the use of 'forced diversity' as an argument is frequently a symptom of tone deafness

 

[Zaarin]

what an unsurprisingly uphill battle this discussion is

i'll leave it by giving you a hint: the use of 'forced diversity' as an argument is frequently a symptom of tone deafness

Whether it's forced or not is about context. If you're writing a story set in 12th century England and half your cast is LGBTQ or of color, then you're not writing historical fiction, you're writing fantasy with forced diversity; if that same cast is in urban 21st century America, it's still a little slanted but by no means stretching credulity.

 

[ZeroSuitSenpai]

Once I learn how to mod better I'll make a mod to remove these traits, and a mod to make historically bisexual leaders bisexual. Everyone wins!

Now if only I could mod better...lol....

EDIT: Oh wait, Firaxis is addressing it? Nvm. Let's see what they do then.

 

[nzcamel]

Once I learn how to mod better I'll make a mod to remove these traits, and a mod to make historically bisexual leaders bisexual. Everyone wins!

Now if only I could mod better...lol....

EDIT: Oh wait, Firaxis is addressing it? Nvm. Let's see what they do then.

All good
Yet you're still missing the point a little. Alex was probably bisexual (which wasn't all that uncommon in Greece & Rome), but that was his personal life. Politically (i.e. on a diplomatic level like in Civ) that would not have been raised. Yes, you aren't getting married to leader X in game...but to me the immersive element of these traits is hinting at Cleo's manipulation of various Roman leaders who she could have an official state relationship with; or Elizabeth's refusal to seriously engage in that at all.

 

[Kwami]

All good
Yet you're still missing the point a little. Alex was probably bisexual (which wasn't all that uncommon in Greece & Rome), but that was his personal life. Politically (i.e. on a diplomatic level like in Civ) that would not have been raised. Yes, you aren't getting married to leader X in game...but to me the immersive element of these traits is hinting at Cleo's manipulation of various Roman leaders who she could have an official state relationship with; or Elizabeth's refusal to seriously engage in that at all.

I'm not sure how Teddy Roosevelt calling me jealous of his relationships with women is immersive. Like, at all.

 

[legalizefreedom]

I'm not sure how Teddy Roosevelt calling me jealous of his relationships with women is immersive. Like, at all.

It's giving you a bit more of his personality. Sounds immersive.

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm not sure how Teddy Roosevelt calling me jealous of his relationships with women is immersive. Like, at all.

I have heard the Lyndon Johnson was jealous of John F Kennedy's conquests.

 

[Zaarin]

I have heard the Lyndon Johnson was jealous of John F Kennedy's conquests.

Then he must have been very, very jealous.

 

[nzcamel]

I'm not sure how Teddy Roosevelt calling me jealous of his relationships with women is immersive. Like, at all.

Given its not really something the real Teddy would likely have bragged about, then yeah I get what you're saying.

Actually I love that...just cos it means that you were lucky enough to roll a non environmentalist Teddy! And that's kinda the point with the secondary traits - they need to be random. So while it is thematic that Cleo says something like that to other female leaders; she won't always cos flirtatious won't always be her secondary.

 

[Kwami]

Given its not really something the real Teddy would likely have bragged about, then yeah I get what you're saying.

Actually I love that...just cos it means that you were lucky enough to roll a non environmentalist Teddy! And that's kinda the point with the secondary traits - they need to be random. So while it is thematic that Cleo says something like that to other female leaders; she won't always cos flirtatious won't always be her secondary.

Teddy isn't always an environmentalist, though. He just has a higher chance (33%) of getting that second agenda than any other. Cleo similarly has a fairly high chance to be flirtatious (30%), but it's not at all guaranteed. Ghandi is almost always nuke happy (70%) or populous (20%). Meh.

Bad agendas are still bad.

 

[nzcamel]

Teddy isn't always an environmentalist, though. He just has a higher chance (33%) of getting that second agenda than any other. Cleo similarly has a fairly high chance to be flirtatious (30%), but it's not at all guaranteed. Ghandi is almost always nuke happy (70%) or populous (20%). Meh.

Bad agendas are still bad.

So they've lowered Teddy significantly, but not Gandhi? That's great re the former and annoying re the latter. I always got environmental Teddy.

We will have to disagree over the agendas being bad.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Flirtatious Cleo: You say you're just negotiation in your people's best interest, but I think you're just jealous of my relationships.

(I was Gitarja in that game)

Woman's battle. This is fun, and sounds like a real gossip.
I suppose its more realistic in gender-to-gender reaction, rather than purely sexual discrimination.

I don't interpret it as a gesture of lower regard on females, at least for Flirtatious. It is just how they act like normally, in gaining/defending a relationship. Therefore I think its fine and interesting to see.

In a realisitc setting of LGBT, take an example of a gay man, he will dislike any rivalry, male or female, in a relationship. That will him dislike anyone in the game. Thus I don't think that it will be practical to add a homosexual agenda in Flirtatious.

That will be a mess for homosexuality:
"I hate you Cleo, because I sexually don't like woman.
I hate you Trajan, because you may seduce my man, but I like your strong arms."

That will be a whole mess for bisexuality:
"I hate you Cleo, because you may seduce my man, but I like your body shape.
I hate you Trajan, because you may seduce my girl, but I also like your strong arms."

If we force the sexual equality here, it will spoil the whole thing.
But these 2 agendas make quite an entertainment for me, so I am supporting these agendas over inserting sexual equality+fluidity in the game.

And for the issue that a Flirtatious/Curmudgeon leader hates you from birth, I guess we can change the agenda from :
"hating leaders of a certain sex" to "hating leaders allying with a leader of certain sex".
In this case, Cleo likes male leaders, and won't dislike me because I am born of the same sex, but starts to dislike me when I ally with her lovers. That will make more sense I guess.

 

[nzcamel]

Vicky lecturing me in 965AD on the destruction of the planet is a far worse agenda.

You know what they should do with late game agenda's? Add them in the late game! Have a third agenda that kicks in as a result of that leader researching the enlightenment; or something like that lol. You're anti-slavery/environmentalism/air-force/nuke/etc agenda's can come into the game then. Having another thing to juggle with each leader would make the late game more interesting; and keep valid agenda's in the game; but at a stage where it's not so jarring for immersion.

 

[Brian LeClaire]

i was on board until you wrote "frankly i'm getting really tired of developers forcing gayness into their games", and then the post just got worse with every word

to write something like this you really have to be tone deaf

and if there's something the world certainly doesn't need it's tone deaf self-described "history buffs"

Guys, seriously. I don't care what you think lol.

my post also applies to you, opinions do not exist in a vacuum and aren't immune from criticism, especially when they insist that inclusion of sexual orientations that aren't "straight" must be part of some agenda. this is borderline conspiracy theory, and it's worthy of being called out

You're correct about this. It doesn't change the fact that I seriously don't care what your opinion is. You can like it or not and it means nothing to me.

what an unsurprisingly uphill battle this discussion is

i'll leave it by giving you a hint: the use of 'forced diversity' as an argument is frequently a symptom of tone deafness

I am interested in what you think the phrase tone deafness means. You realize it's a phrase pertaining to a hearing disorder right?

 

[Zaarin]

I am interested in what you think the phrase tone deafness means. You realize it's a phrase pertaining to a hearing disorder right?

In a literal sense it can mean being unable to distinguish tone in music. In a figurative sense it can also mean failing to recognize the tone of a discussion (for example, making a joke at a funeral could be said to be tone deaf). While I disagree with miaasma's argument, they're use of the idiom is correct.