BioWare Launches "Gay Planet" For the Old Republic 333
DavidGilbert99 writes "Labelled as an 'oddly regressive move,' developers of Star Wars: the Old Republic have decided that all gay characters will be stuck on a single planet called Makeb. The move comes with the release of the Rise of the Hutt Cartel pack and the Makeb planet will be the only place in the game where players can select 'flirtatious' dialogue options with characters of the same gender. From the article: 'BioWare executive producer Jeff Hickman apologised for same sex relationships taking so long to be added to the game, referring to the company's most famous title Mass Effect, where homosexual relationships are available by default:
"First of all, I want to apologize that this is taking so long to get in the game," wrote Hickman in a blog post. "I realise that we promised SGR (same gender relationships) to you guys and that many of you believed that this would be with a companion character. Unfortunately, this will take a lot more work than we realised at the time and it (like some other pieces of content we talked about earlier in the year) has been delayed as we focused on the changes required to take the game Free-to-Play. '"
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Inflammatory headline (Score:5, Insightful)
What actually happened:
New content will include will include same-sex options. It just happens that the new content only includes one planet. Future new content will also include same-sex options.
I don't understand why the submitter is taking such an offensive stance with their post. There is no conspiracy against gays, especially when it comes to Bioware who are one of the pioneers of same-sex relationships in their games (dating back to Baldur's Gate).
What would you prefer, that this content wasn't added at all? No let me guess, you'd prefer they revamp the whole game. Nevermind that their team has been cut down to a fraction of their original size due to the commercial unsuccessfulness of the game. Instead lets invent a big issue out of their good-faith attempt to add same-sex content even with their dwindling resources that would arguably better be spent on content like warzones, flashpoints, and operations.
Re:Go be gay over there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems more like "if this offends you, don't go there", since you neither have to ask nor be told to know what's going on there.
If there is no need to rub the GLBT issue in people's faces, why do it? If you ask me this is the reason places like California still do not have gay marriage. You can't make people change their minds, you arrange it so that they don't have to until it's too late.
Re:Go be gay over there... (Score:3, Insightful)
Would have been much easier to allow everywhere and let the individual players block incomming "flirtatious" dialogue for their own character(s). That way you could block or allow all such dialogue if you wanted, or just for your specific "female protocol droid" preference.
Re:Go be gay over there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Old Republic is still around?
Re:Go be gay over there... (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem is some people are offended merely by seeing same sex couples together, allowing them to stay in the same hotel room together or just thinking about it. Bioware took the cowards way out, instead of calling out the bigots for what they are.
Re:Acceptable (Score:0, Insightful)
No scientifically valid survey has ever found more than 4% of the U.S. population to be homosexual although there is a cottage industry of academics publishing pseudo-scientific "studies" claiming much higher numbers. Nowadays, most honest researchers avoid the subject since the radical gay activists savagely attack anyone who publishes studies which run counter to gay dogma. Nice try at spreading misinformation though, nosferatu.
Re:Go be gay over there... (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that this isn't about interactions with other players, right?
TOR is a very story-driven game, and thus this is all about NPCs having dialogue options which include romance options. Many such NPCs already have romance options, but up to now only heterosexual ones. What's been decided there is that apparently homosexual romance can only happen on this one planet, which is part of a paid-for expansion pack.
This isn't about other players doing unsolicited homosexual romancing. It's about the player having the ability to, if he/she so chooses, romance other characters of the same sex.
Re:"Regressive"? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying the gay community shouldn't be upset over how they're treated by the media, or the lack of romance options in video games.
But this article and summary attack Bioware, which is absurd. Bioware has gone out of their way for years to cater to all players. The fact that Bioware needed permission from LucasArts isn't Bioware's fault. Calling this regressive behavior on Bioware's behalf isn't fair.
And you're also mistaken. Gay players don't have their own planet. The article is misrepresenting the facts and spreading bullshit that is getting people outraged over lies.
All players are being directed to the new planet for new content. All future planets and all future content will include same-sex romances.
Re:Acceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Every group thinks theyre more insightful, wiser, and generally more intellectually mature than everyone else. I have no reason to believe-- especially after about 5 years on slashdot-- that this would be particularly true of the nerd subculture. If anything, it seems more clannish, because as people get progressively better in a niche area, they seem to progressively become closeminded and intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them.
Dont agree? Look for any article discussing Apple vs PC, or MS vs Google, or religion, or politics. As a conservative I tend to regularly get called interesting things here... "less judgemental" indeed.
Re:Acceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Or it could be because sexuality is a pretty complicated thing. While you have the majority of people who are "straight", and a minority of people who are just "gay", within both groups you have a ton of variation. How many "straight" people have had at least one homosexual encounter? Impure thoughts? How many of either group are actually "bisexual"? Where do gay people who are "closeted" and only have sex with the opposite sex fall? Where do people who can't figure it out yet fall (in high school in the early-mid 90's being gay was the big thing for some crowds, and now most of these people are happily married and straight). Pretty much every girl I know has had sexual encounters with another girl, but identify as straight. In my male acquaintances this is less common, but still it isn't terribly uncommon.
Also where do various nontraditional gender identifications fall? You identify as a woman, but are biologically male, and still only have sex with females? Or in the case of my dad's neighbor, you were born male, had operations and hormones to become female, but still only sleep with your wife of 20 years?
Sexuality is a thorny and hugely complicated subject. Any study will differ based on definitions, and sampling.
most honest researchers avoid the subject since the radical gay activists savagely attack anyone who publishes studies which run counter to gay dogma.
Who actually gives a shit how many gay people there are in the world? Why does it matter to anyone? I suppose I'm the wrong person to ponder this, since I don't actually care one bit, what people do in their bedrooms, consensually, is no business of mine. As long as people are happy, I don't care.
I am happy that there is a "gay dogma" but not a "intolerance" dogma. Which is odd, since last I checked the intolerant crowd was much louder than the other bunch.
Re:Acceptable (Score:2, Insightful)
What's sadly ironic is if Jesus was around today, I truly think he'd be deeply saddened by his supposed followers' discrimination of gays. If your neighbor is gay, should you not still respect them as a fellow human?
That's why I hate religion. The members.
Re:Acceptable (Score:3, Insightful)
"Called interesting things" means seeing posts indicating I (as a conservative) deserve to drown in a hurricane (post was clarified to indicate it was serious), that Im racist, bigoted, and quite possibly the greatest threat to world peace out there.
Is this supposed to be an indicator of tolerance and non-judgementalism? Am I being "reactionary" here for not thinking that this is the bastion of objectivity and rationalism that you seem to think it is?
Im not trying to warp facts here, Im saying what anyone who has been on slashdot, digg, or reddit for a while knows-- that Geeks like everyone else suffer from "im a genius and everyone else's values suck" syndrome.
Now I know that's a kind of intellectual fad with conservatives right now,
Case in point. Trying to have a discussion and you cant for one moment just hold off on the attacks? Is it really necessary to bust out the ad hominems?
Re:Acceptable (Score:2, Insightful)
Way to move the goal posts down to where the straw man is. Another reason I don't usually respond to people like you. Sorry your feelings got hurt, broseph. I'm constantly told I should hate myself for different reasons, and I don't care for it either. The advice I hear most often is to suck it up, cupcake.
Your original point was to dispute that geeks are more tolerant of gays. The only evidence you provided was your own incredulity. Then you changed the topic to how you're persecuted for your beliefs and declared victory. You're a huge hypocrite, and that bugs me no matter who you vote for.