So andromeda initiative is all about girlpower?

Mar 5, 2017 21:19:21 GMT zeowik said:

Presenting all story from a position that tries too hard to be neutral on everything really wouldn't tell a very good story in my opinion.

Let's be real here.  To some people a woman so much as existing in a position of authority is preaching, or LGBT people existing at all for that matter.  I think it's a bit of a reach to draw up a straw man argument declaring Bioware's intentions and then be upset about that straw man all before the game is even out.

Realistically, let's assume that the likeliest possibility in this scenario would be a more or less balanced roster when it comes to genders.

(I say "let's assume" because I don't find it too far fetched that less women choose to go into these fields than men)

BW ignoring that likelihood practically serves no purpose other than, what? Virtue signaling? Preaching?

Making a command roster of mostly women isn't going to make the story "interesting"... In fact the gender of the people in charge has nothing to do with the quality of the story.

Bioware will either make a good story, or it wouldn't. This story will either contain political statements or it wouldn't.

I don't have anything against women or gays. I do object to insertion of women and gay characters (or anything else) in any unrealistic capacity, for a political purpose.

I'm buying my entertainment because I want to have fun, not because I want someone to preach at me their political opinions, anything that is there for another purpose than just making the story better,

has no business being in that story.

As for a my claim being a straw man argument, I highly doubt it. "Realistically" such a roster is unlikely. Taking the fact that the writers control everything about the story, and that the writers are BW,

I think that it I very reasonable to assume that this is yet another political statement.

Again, I don't actually care about the number of women in the AI. However, I find their incessant need to virtue signal their enlightened political opinions to be annoying.

Mar 6, 2017 5:01:44 GMT laughingbanana said:

"anything that is there for another purpose than just making the story better"

And who gets to decide that? You? What if there are women, or men like me, that find the inclusion of many females in various leadership/major roles in the game as refreshing and actually *do* make the story more interesting and thus better? Who gets to become the true arbiter of what makes the story better then?

And even if it's for "political purpose", so friggin what? It's a good and even GREAT thing for women and minorities to be put forth in a major art product like Mass Effect Andromeda to point that, holy shit, women can become as capable as men too in leadership/major roles! Why is an effort to point this simple statement out seem to hurt so many? I don't understand. For many who seemingly positioning themselves as the defenders of men's virtue, it just seems so funny for me that all that say about them is how fragile and insecure they are, surely an antithesis of the "image of men" they're so proud of?

I will say it as it is: people who said "but it's not realistic!" "but it makes the story weaker!" are saying it not because they genuinely think so; they're saying it because their egos can't possibly stand the thought that people who have different gender than them might be as capable as the gender they're identifying with: a sexist, to be precise. A foolish sexist who can the view the word as "correct" so long as the situation conform to their notion that one gender is inherently superior to the other, which is just bollocks.

"Who gets to decide what makes a story better":

No, not me. The point is that what makes a story great and interesting is not a political message shoved in. Sure, you might be happy if you happen to like that political message,

but that has nothing to do with the actual story, and more with you wanting to have your opinions validated.

"And even if it's for "political purpose", so friggin what?":

I don't object to women or "minorities" getting a representation, I never did. But I think that first and foremost writing a story should be all about making characters that make the story great and interesting.

That means that a character should first be interesting and tied into making the story great, and only distant third whatever token representation the character is supposed to be.

And the same goes for something like the current topic, which I don't particularly care about on it's own, things should make sense first.

I'm interested in a story about exploration of an unknown galaxy, about Sci-fi themes, about strange aliens, about cool planets. I don't need you to shove current politics into it,

that goes counter to the basic idea for a story about a fantastic universe which is distinctly NOT about current political affairs.

"I will say it as it is: people who said "but it's not realistic!" "but it makes the story weaker!" are saying it not because they genuinely think so; they're saying it because their egos can't possibly stand the thought that people who have different gender than them might be as capable as the gender they're identifying with: a sexist, to be precise. A foolish sexist who can the view the word as "correct" so long as the situation conform to their notion that one gender is inherently superior to the other, which is just bollocks":

This part is very ironic. You are essentially making an assumption about my motives, and accusing me of sexism, which is a rather presumptive attitude to take, something which you need a rather large ego for...

I'm not sexist. You are either overly excitable or an ideologue that can't distinguish between someone with a nuanced libertarian approach that is merely all about being hands-off in regards to political preaching,

to someone actually sexist that objects to the inclusion of characters merely based on gender.

I support egalitarianism. You don't fix one wrong by making another, you fix imbalance by implementing balance, not a new type of imbalance.

There is nothing to be gained by making a hamfisted political statement aside from virtue signaling to people that already agree with the writer's political opinions.

How about instead of a dumb and hamfisted statement like making most persons in charge female, you just make SOME of them female,

and make their characters memorable, interesting, deep, likable, etc.

You would achieve much more with the second subtler approach, than with the first.

Mar 6, 2017 6:03:25 GMT alanc9 said:

It's unclear how you're using "realistically" here. Since Bio hasn't adopted your ideas of career probabilities, several top leadership posts being filled by members of a particular gender isn't particularly improbable. Four top ME:A leaders being female is somewhat more likely than six top trilogy leaders being male. Though we have to cut the trilogy some slack because they didn't have turian female models.Wulfram already cleared this up for you upthread.

Since the rest of your argument depends on this, I don't see how it works.

Again, you don't fix one imbalance by introducing another imbalance.

I don't think either example is particularly realistic, I don't remember defending the choices in original trilogy.

All I'm advocating for is balance, and things that make sense.

The simple reality is that the writer shapes the world by making decisions, not by throwing dice.

Having the top positions filled with females is a deliberate decision, not something which happened by chance. Realistically, you are much more likely to get a mixed roster if this was a real situation.

Pretending otherwise is rather useless. Doing so just for the sake of political preaching is annoying.

I could have believed that this was something that just happened during writing without anyone meaning to do it if the writers were NOT from Bioware.

Mar 6, 2017 6:05:31 GMT Fredward said:

When it's mostly men it's fine/normal/quotidian, when it's a perfect 50/50 split it's contrived but fair, when it's mostly women it's soapboxing. Heh.

Fine? Maybe not.

Why is the answer to something which isn't "fine" or rather unbalanced, is always introducing a new type of imbalance?

Mar 6, 2017 6:31:03 GMT alanc9 said:

Because there's nothing wrong with meaningless imbalance. Imbalance in favor of females in ME:A establishes nothing beyond that the imbalance in favor of males in the trilogy was simply random chance. Since we knew that anyway, nothing's changed.

Put another way, the ME:A imbalance serves to indicate that your ideas on career probability don't apply to the MEU. That's useful.

There is nothing wrong with imbalance? So all the rage about not including enough "minorities" or females in games was completely unsubstantiated and unjustified?

The point is not "my ideas on career probability", the point is that any skewed and unrealistic representation is not ideal, and when done as a political statement (which is rather likely with BW) is simply annoying.