Was volcel a mistake?
Was volcel a mistake?
the study's age range was 10-24.
Article isnt even about video games
You're viewing a single thread.
I decided I would post something here just in case anyone was going to ping me with an assumed version of how I feel about this, and by this I mean Baldur's Gate 3, which isn't directly about the article but BG3 is in the thumbnail anyway so here we go.
Baldur's Gate 3 is good. The sex in it is fine. I'm ride-or-die for Karlach.
🔥 
🔥 
That said, it's a bit contrived that pretty much every character is technically pansexual just to be "into you" no matter what your chosen character happens to be. I think BG3 would have a tighter and less sloppy narrative overall if it did what predecessors did and actually gated romance potential behind plot milestones instead of having an avalanche of "uh oh, you're in camp, and pretty much everyone you didn't outright make an enemy of is batting their eyelashes at you again" invitations just for the sheer possibility of having them.
For me it actually damages the immersion a little bit for people I barely interacted with in camp to have the hots for me and more than that act as if I already intimately know them and they have a long pent up kindred spirit feeling for my character. Some of it is the limitation of a very complex story tree that the studio was working with, but for me that's exactly why I would have preferred some more direct and deliberate plot/story gating before romance/sex potential to at least hide the absurdity that my character is apparently universally hot and the potential soul mate of everyone I travel with.
There's some sanctimony in this thread already about how dialing back even the slightest notch of le sexy sex would make BG3, apparently, "for babies" and maybe even against art itself or that people that prefer less sex/nudity up front are (CW: "ironic" ableism)
spoiler
insane,
but I think that's excessively defensive bullshit. It's possible to have sex and full frontal nudity in fiction without it necessarily being exactly the presented amount as-is or more or else it's "for babies" in some ratchet effect "must be as horny as previous product or more horny at all times, or else it's badwrongfun" overreaction against treat criticism.
This wraps around all the way to my take on the actual linked article: it's kind of fucked up for some here to assume that Gen Z viewers of entertainment (or fellow Hexbears that have already stated their opinions here) are all, quote, "babies" or maybe "against art itself" or some fashionably "just kidding, unless" ableist term if they prefer less sex gimmicks in their fiction.
This wraps around all the way to the actual article's point: it's kind of fucked up for some here to assume that Gen Z viewers of entertainment (or fellow Hexbears that have already stated their opinions here) are all, quote, "babies" or maybe "against art itself" or some fashionably "just kidding, unless" ableist term if they prefer less sex gimmicks in their fiction.
I think it's actually more problematic to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is just barely restraining themselves from saying the r-slur, but maybe that's just me
I lifted quotes from this thread for everything I listed in quotes, including yours. No r-slur was present in anything I read already and listed, though (CW: ableism)
spoiler
"insane"
was and I count that.
Your overreaction to my post actually adds to what I was saying about overreactions against people that have different preferences than you.
EDIT: Here's my examples, from this thread.
i quietly whisper to myself they're just babies who've haven't seen how good movies handle sex
Art depicting a major part of human life? Well I never...
The idea that every scene needs to be advancing the plot or it is "unnecessary" and thus should be removed is deeply anti-art
The post that said people averse to as much/more sex in their entertainment were (CW: ableism)
spoiler
"insane"
(but added "but I love you all" to try to dodge retaliation) was removed. Fortunately.
lmao do you ever get tired of shadowboxing at people not at all saying what you think they're saying. "how good movies handle sex" is not about fucking game of thrones it's recognition of the hundreds of films that use or talk about sexuality on dimensions beyond a cheap titillation, that never seem to be relevant when people are railing against 'sex in movies' and asserting it's always unnecessary.
I stand by my comments although you have misinterpreted them completely, and I fail to see how they are ableist in any way
I stand by my comments and you have definitely misinterpreted mine. You didn't say anything ableist; someone else did.
You just hyperbolized the position of anyone that wanted even slightly less sex in their entertainment in any way, shape, or form, as "The idea that every scene needs to be advancing the plot or it is "unnecessary" and thus should be removed is deeply anti-art." Your words, assigned as a damning accusation to everyone (in the article, and in this thread) even slightly veering from your "this much sex or more, at all times, no excuses" apparent position.
Unless you were just pre-loaded to be mad at someone who had a take that as far as I can tell didn't post that take in this thread.
Lmao, what the fuck? I say exactly what I think is anti-art, and it's the idea that anything unnecessary to the plot should be excised. Wanting less sex in media is not itself anti-art, but arguing that everything in piece of media (including, but not limited to sex) needs to be in service to the plot is.
Unless you were just pre-loaded to be mad at someone who had a take that as far as I can tell didn't post that take in this thread.
I see this take all the time on Twitter. You don't think this entire discourse originated at this very minute, no? I wasn't responding to anyone in particular in the thread. Just because you feel obligated to make passive aggressive call out posts like this one doesn't mean that's what I was doing
In conclusion, fuck off
but arguing that everything in piece media needs to be in service to the plot is
Are there really that many people making that argument here or are you just assigning that argument to them to be mad at them? It's not my position.
I'll let my comments stand on their own for other people reading them, but otherwise I'm done. Nothing of value is being had with this exchange with you otherwise.
You want to talk shit and then duck on out huh
Edit:
Wonder who you were reporting
Is this what a struggle session looks like.
The whole thread is what a struggle session looks like lol
Yes sir, this thread is a certified struggle session. However, it's not a classicTM because it references previous struggle sessions.