Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

Autists who wish to have romances in videogames can go play katawaja shoujo or whatever else weird game they can find.

Why the nonsequitor / ad hominem?

[Nonsequitorian]

Hey man I heard my name. What's wrong?

But my Non Sequitor senses aside, homosexuality - though it may be something that should be added to the game (for many reasons) - should simply be left out until it's less taboo.

Hell, TALKING of putting it into a GAME with basically-genderless, marriageless mystical midgets is taboo! Maybe in five, ten years when we all look back and say "well wasn't that all silly," it should be talked about again, but right now I don't think a lot of people are ready. And I don't think Dwarf Fortress should be pushing those boundries. Just because Toady might not be afraid to make a game with controversial subject matter, it doesn't mean that DF needs to be that game. Not every body has to be a hero. Putting such material in Dwarf Fortress could hurt it, if only because of the amount of people who don't want it in.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Adding homosexuality would not add anything to the gameplay, while marriage is only a part of the succession simulation as of now.

Actually, marriage is pretty much only used for reproduction. Once romance is added, though...this could fit.

But my Non Sequitor senses aside, homosexuality - though it may be something that should be added to the game (for many reasons) - should simply be left out until it's less taboo.

Hell, TALKING of putting it into a GAME with basically-genderless, marriageless mystical midgets is taboo! Maybe in five, ten years when we all look back and say "well wasn't that all silly," it should be talked about again, but right now I don't think a lot of people are ready. And I don't think Dwarf Fortress should be pushing those boundries. Just because Toady might not be afraid to make a game with controversial subject matter, it doesn't mean that DF needs to be that game. Not every body has to be a hero. Putting such material in Dwarf Fortress could hurt it, if only because of the amount of people who don't want it in.

Well, a few things.
1. Toady's already pushing the limits.
2. Homosexuality is probably accepted by a majority of straight people as of now, as long as it doesn't directly involve them.
3. Including homosexuality isn't a political statement in any way.
4. Games already include homosexuality.
5. DF's not ready for it yet. When it is, the world will be even more ready.

[Helari]

Autists who wish to have romances in videogames can go play katawaja shoujo or whatever else weird game they can find.

Why the nonsequitor / ad hominem?

To voice out my contempt for said neckbeards.

[GoombaGeek]

Autists who wish to have romances in videogames can go play katawaja shoujo or whatever else weird game they can find.

Why the nonsequitor / ad hominem?

To voice out my contempt for said neckbeards.

This thread is going really well.

[Nonsequitorian]

1 Yes, Toady is already pushing the limits. He doesn't need to, and so I think it's good that he does so anyways.
2 But there are always people who don't want it. Until that population is much smaller, I think there's a chance that it could be a little risky. Dwarf Fortress needs all the support it can get.
3 No, it's not a political statement, but there is controversy about in many places - not to mention the US, which I'd assume holds the most Bay Watchers. Not including it and using the excuse that "you just haven't gotten around to it yet" isn't political or controversial, and could keep things a lot less flamy and wary.
4 Yes, they do. That's a good thing as I'm sure you'd agree (seeing as how your arguing for it). I hope more games, and more importantly people, accept and include it into their idealisms. It's just that #5.
5 Precisely what you said.

Besides, I wouldn't want to see it until the whole relationship thing got an update. I know a bit of that's going on now with births and stuff, but I mean, in fortress mode relationships beyond friends and stuff are pretty meaningless.

Until sex has been dealt with, sexuality doesn't mean much. We have women and men, but they're the same except for women have no beards and hold babies (iirc. could be other things). Hell, names don't have genders (which I find annoying when trying to pick male soldiers).

[Helari]

1 Yes, Toady is already pushing the limits. He doesn't need to, and so I think it's good that he does so anyways.
2 But there are always people who don't want it. Until that population is much smaller, I think there's a chance that it could be a little risky. Dwarf Fortress needs all the support it can get.
3 No, it's not a political statement, but there is controversy about in many places - not to mention the US, which I'd assume holds the most Bay Watchers. Not including it and using the excuse that "you just haven't gotten around to it yet" isn't political or controversial, and could keep things a lot less flamy and wary.
4 Yes, they do. That's a good thing as I'm sure you'd agree (seeing as how your arguing for it). I hope more games, and more importantly people, accept and include it into their idealisms. It's just that #5.
5 Precisely what you said.

Besides, I wouldn't want to see it until the whole relationship thing got an update. I know a bit of that's going on now with births and stuff, but I mean, in fortress mode relationships beyond friends and stuff are pretty meaningless.

Until sex has been dealt with, sexuality doesn't mean much. We have women and men, but they're the same except for women have no beards and hold babies (iirc. could be other things). Hell, names don't have genders (which I find annoying when trying to pick male soldiers).

I don't understand how people can be so uncomfortable and offended with matters like this.

You try to mold the ingame values into an image of familiar real world values (american values specifically) which they are not. (Why would you even use only male dwarves as soldiers while female dwarves will do just as fine? Even in real life there are women who have the necessary abilities and features to be a soldier, even though societal norms would encourage a more soft identity)

USA is a value backwater but I do not think that extends to most of the young generations who are the people who will play dwarffortress.

That said I find this feature unnecessary for now.

[GreatWyrmGold]

A lot of people choose to only draft male dwarves because females tend to have babies when they get married. Dwarves have not developed the subtle concept of a day-care center, nor have goblins developed the subtle concept of "Babies won't hurt you." Therefore, infants of soldier mothers tend to suffer high mortality rates. As with most creatures, dwarves don't like losing babies. Therefore, a female dwarf who is sent into battle has a much higher chance of going insane and chopping other dwarves' important limbs off.

[Nonsequitorian]

If men held babies too, I'd start recruiting eunichs or procedurally use my military to kill my military in a glorious battle of self. The scourge of fortresses is babies. Children are annoying booze and food wastes, but usually one makes too much food anyways. I have something of 100 dwarves, yet 1000 or so of every food thing (and who knows how much booze.). Children don't bother me. At least they can do things with constructions.

Babies though. When one dies... Tantrum spirals galore.

I don't think it extends to the young generations either, but Dwarf Fortress is also played by people who aren't so young anymore. The other day I started feeling

 It's not about the real world ideals, because I'll as soon murder all my kittens for leather as I would go and actually sort my military so they're all men, but about functionality. When they don't belong to anybody, I don't feel bad about killing kittens in game for something I could really use. When they don't hold babies, I don't really feel bad about making an all-male army in game because I could really use a lack of babies.

Thusly, it's not that I'm uncomfortable or offended with matters like this (which I can safely say I'm not offended or uncomfortable, having lived with a bi-sexual friend for a couple years before we moved), it's that I prefer not having the same Fun multiple times in a row because of extremely obtuse yet common problems.

Also, I don't live in the US.

[Lovechild]

The solution is simple... when more sexual orientations are implemented you could recruit only gays and lesbians for your army, and never worry about babies again.

[Rowanas]

The solution is simple... when more sexual orientations are implemented you could recruit only gays and lesbians for your army, and never worry about babies again.

Huh. I hadn't considered that homosexuality could have actual in-game uses.

[CaptainLambcake]

The solution is simple... when more sexual orientations are implemented you could recruit only gays and lesbians for your army, and never worry about babies again.

i love you.

[Cheedows]

The solution is simple... when more sexual orientations are implemented you could recruit only gays and lesbians for your army, and never worry about babies again.

Wow, this solves all our problems.

[Sutremaine]

Hey, I said that back on page 1.

[GreatWyrmGold]

The solution is simple... when more sexual orientations are implemented you could recruit only gays and lesbians for your army, and never worry about babies again.

i love you.

I'm starting to feel ashamed for associating with you people.