"No Brothels to be in DA4" as per Mark Darrah Tweet.

I actually said nothing of the sort. If you think I did, quote what I posted instead of paraphrasing it badly so that you have something to argue against.

The writer was NOT trying to write a rape scene, had accidently written one, so they changed it. 

Or he just didn't realize what he had written because men are generally conditioned to see sexual violence differently than women do. That was Gaider's point about the value of diversity. Not your "PC" nonsense.

The way that quote is worded makes absolutely no sense to me. First, In Hushed Whispers and not Champions of the Just? Second, how would the player be doing anything other than watching a cutscene? Do they mean the PC, not the player? They aren't the same thing.

Are you just trolling? They clearly said that the way that scene was originally written created issues with sexual consent that they did not intend to be there, so they changed it to better fit their intent.

First you label him a coward for not going forward on a rape scene he didn't want to write in the first place, now you're claiming there was never any rape at all, even though the issue originally raised was that the Inquisitor's actions in the original plan can easily be construed as using Leliana's body for sexual purposes against her will.

You would have a much easier time if you would just accept that part of the writing process is having it reviewed so that problems in getting intent across can be corrected.

1) Issues with sexual consent isn't the same as rape. It's why we need an actual full quote. There's a lot of meaningless words in that claptrap you posted, to the point it's basically worthless as a statement. It's 100% business speak, closely aligned with politic speak.

2) An inaccurate paraphrasing. If he was fine with the content he had written then changed it because it was labelled "rape", yes that was a cowardly act. I don't care how much you cry about it, in that period of time if that's what happened, he was a coward. Your statement that I claimed there wasn't any rape is also inaccurate, the "apparently" in my statement references another person's paraphrasing of Gaider's comment which stated there was no rape problem.

3) A very small part of the editing process is about correcting intent. 

1) It doesn’t matter that they were talking about a very specific scenario, what matters is the reason they changed it. “Didn’t come off as intended” is very vague, and is virtually worthless, the other comments about not wanting to write a rape story are far more telling.

I'm not sure but one thing I do know: I like how when you go talk to Iron Bull, you don't get pulled immediately into a cutscene. He says, "Hey, when you have a minute, I want to show you something," or "Let's have drinks some time." So, you can chitchat OR you can do the bonding scenes, your choice. Maybe something similar with Solas would have worked better. Or maybe make a big deal out of showing the Inquisitor their new quarters and you have the option to immediately go to sleep. Then you "wake up" and go talk to Solas and get the scenes we have in the game.

It does indeed matters why, when, where and for what reason the change was made, in fact that was the whole point of the issue. You can't just arbitrarily dismiss what they stated as 'vague' or 'virtually worthless' because it just doesn't fit your pet theory.

I am finishing only what you're clearly implying.

And you've just dismissed facts as not really mattering a paragraph above, and now you tell that 'facts suggest otherwise'? Which facts? Yours? Those you choose not to dismiss?

The only fact here is that you're trying to force a specific narrative and are going through some pretty impressive mental gymnastics, which go as far inventing nonsensical rules for creators to follow.

None of those writers write in a vacuum, nor any of their content, especially this big, goes into the game without the same peer review process as the one from that specific scenario for 'Champions of the Just', which is part of branching critical path. You can't just conveniently separate writing of one writer from another when writing a game like this is ultimately a team effort.

Which is a very significant point here. They are writing this thing as a team, and a team that obviously trusts one another and values each other's feedback. So if someone says 'hey, there's a problem here, maybe you should take a look at it' it certainly means more than 'hey, there's some rape here, change it!" and the reviewer changes it because "I'm scared of rape!".

The fact that it's common psychological knowledge has extremely little to do with the point I was making.

It wasn't about what label is - it's that you ultimately tried to put it in a separate basket from any other feedback creator can encounter, and - very conveniently and entirely arbitrarily, with no good reason for it - stated that if someone avoids a label, it means they are scared.

And it's just BS, pure and simple. There's just no separate category for labels as a tool for critique, nor separate judging criteria for a creator adjusting to them.

Again, this is not about labels per se. You're going off on a tangent that is wholly unnecessary. This is exactly why alan9 said you're confused and I agree.

Okay... you just went from "if a writer changed his work because of the label attached to it then he chickened out. And I stand by that 100%, if you, as a writer or an artist, change your work because it was labelled a certain way, then you were scared" to "labels aren't scary"?

.... Wut?

Talk about going off track. Nevermind that it's about as textbook of a strawman argument as it can possibly be. I never even claimed that "labels aren't scary" - I just vehemently opposed the idea that they're somehow separate from other critiquing tools or any definitions you can throw at us, and that avoidance of some sort of arbitrarily applied label means that the only reason it was avoided was fear.

Ultimately labels are just mental shortcuts. The fact that someone would label my work as "problematic" or "sexist" or whatever is meaningless without giving a context as to what the problem actually is - which ultimately means that we're going beyond labels and therefore entering the field of criticism that you're trying to separate labels at large from. For no reason than to say that changing the work that was labeled certain way means someone is scared.

Like... this wasn't even about sexism or misogyny. Or no-context 'rape' for that matter - in fact, it was entirely contextual, because the main issue was when and how it happened and what kind of elephant in the room it's created, that the writer just didn't notice.

Now you're just trying to separate content with how it was reviewed, deeming it as 'not problematic until it was deemed problematic'  ...

Like... we're reaching a very peculiar level of preposterous here that leaves me scratching my head. It's like you're trying to make an argument that there was no problem with original idea, because the writer himself didn't notice the problem. Which, as a creator, I can tell is even bigger BS than everything else combined.

If you don't believe me you can ask anybody who is working in any creative medium, they'll tell you virtually the same thing. You may laugh that 'welp, how he didn't notice that?' but - again - this happens more often than you think, especially during long, iterative process that can leave a person blind even to very glaring mistakes they've made, no matter if they've had no intention to do so whatsoever. This is why feedback is appreciated or necessary, even if it can't weed out everything. Heck, even fanfiction writers oftentimes have beta readers for that reason. It's not just about spelling or grammatical errors. I have had many mistakes under my belt myself - some just plain stupid, some problematic. Majority of them was "unnoticed until it was noticed", not that rarely by someone else.

...How do you even come to a conclusion that he was scared 'because it was a peer review'? One thing doesn't follow another. We're reaching the NUH-UH level of denial here.

@ midnight tea: I am impressed with your patience and forbearance here.