Originally posted by dar_es_balat

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think you need to read my post again. I never said that my beliefs were in line with a social evolution that evolved to one definition which was "my" definition. I did say that society has included an additional reason to marry which is love. I has evolved to "include" this. Though I probably said "broaden".

It can now be part of the equation for those who want a marriage based on something other than merging families.

So yes, society gets to evolve. Perhaps one day we will evolve to include other ideas of what marraige can be. Ah here we go.

That's a really easy question to answer.

Because though historically Marriage was a certain thing and though there are probably societies that follow that historical idea of marriage, in THIS society we now have a concept of marriage for love.

And because people love they have broadened the idea of marriage. Marriage is no longer looked upon as solely a business contract.

I think it's ok to accept the idea that society gets to evolve.

 I read your post the first time.  All of it.  Thank you for insulting my intelligence by re-posting it.  I highlighted in red exactly where you stated, very clearly, that the thoughts defined in your paragraph constituted social evolution.  By defining one set of thoughts as social evolution you define more tradtitional models of thought as objects only worthy of history.

You sir are quite wrong, as I have pointed out before.  I hope now that youve emptied your grab bag of lame excuses and are prepared to come to grips with the reality of exactly what youve said.  At least have the courage to stand by your convictions once they are challenged.

We clearly are not seeing the same thing in my post. And it speaks volumes about you when you see it as an insult if a person reposts one of his posts so that you don't have to go searching for it in order to reference.

You see it as an insult and I see it as being courteous. Interesting.

I stick by my post that society gets to evolve to include a more broad definition of marriage. I think it is a social evolution to have a society accept different ideas of marriage.

what type of evolution would it be?

edit: ah I see, you look at my post as one mode of thought completely replacing previous ideas. Look more to my use of "broaden". did you not like broaden? should I have used another word indicating an acceptance of other ideas?

If you dont' want to link that last line to the timbre of my post then so be it.

Evolution doesnot render previous iterations as history unless you are talking about genetic evolution. As society evolves it becomes something else . . . that evolution doesnt necessarily void or rend meaningless previous iterations of a societal concept. In this case as society evolves and develops a new meaning of marriage, that new meaning can inclusive of the previously "unevolved" concept.

Disagree 100% with this article.  Let's make MMO's politically correct? Stay away from my MMO's!

I can't comment further without getting in some kind of trouble, so I will leave it at that.

Honestly, I think that both sides of this argument are two taut ends of a rubber band.

On side wants complete equality, openess without bias or prejudice.

The other side wants the status quo, with an option of, 'live and let live, way the hell away from me'.

Couldn't there be a middle ground where both sides could meet?

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by dragonbrand

Originally posted by Horusra

 

 Evolution is not always good. 

 Then its called Devolution

nuts you beat me too it.

Horusra, evolution means to move to a better stage.

 You better check that definition....A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. 

Usually does not equal always.

and Devolution means:

dev·o·lu·tion

  AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.dictionary.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FD02%2FD0243000.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=ad490df7&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write(); /?d?v??lu??n or, especially Brit., ?div?-/ Show Spelled[dev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., dee-vuh-] Show IPA

Excellent article - and the exchanges in the comments prove well the point that freedom of expression leads to friction. 

The way I've looked at things, traditional stories are an arguement or explanation in the form of a metaphore while MMOs are (or at least in a sandbox should be) simulations.  Either can be used for escapism, either can be a textbook about the real world (although admittedly outside of some effort in simulating economies, I haven't seen a lot of effort in MMOs to really say much that is "real").

My advice to MMO designers would be that if you want to broach a controversial concept like marriage is to take the Star Trek approach.  Do a lore pass and have each race/culture in the game and have each have a different idea of what "marriage" means, exaggerated versions of the real world differences of opinion.

I'm always disapointed because I want to make a fat guy.  I had a really cool fat toon in SWG back before it was murdered.  I want to be able to make like a really slovenly guy, or maybe a guy with a limp!

I agree with a lot of folks here. Leave the RW stuff in the RW. If people want to RP marriage, let them do it. But, don't make it a requirement to access certain content. I uninstalled RoM because of the marriage junk. It is a definite game breaker for me when I feel forced to participate in nonsense.

Originally posted by bigsmiff

I agree with a lot of folks here. Leave the RW stuff in the RW. If people want to RP marriage, let them do it. But, don't make it a requirement to access certain content. I uninstalled RoM because of the marriage junk. It is a definite game breaker for me when I feel forced to participate in nonsense.

Wait, whaaa??  They're FORCING people to marry or attend weddings??  Man, I must have totally missed something.  Is that what you're saying here?  If that's the case....then I have to agree with you.

I'm not sure why games can't just continue to give players more and more CHOICES.  I'm good with choices.  I don't generally like being "forced" to do anything in a game.

Originally posted by Czanrei

This is a great article the OP wrote and I couldn't agree more. The problem is that there are just too many immature gamers(age doesn't matter) that like to hide behind the anonymity of the internet. Those same gamers will always be there to whine, flame, troll and try to stop any progress in the evolution of mmo's. A perfect example is the Blizzard Real ID incident recently.

Yes, it was done wrong by Blizzard, but brilliant in it's concept. The majorly sad thing about the incident was that the trolls and griefers of the net whined in unison until they got their way to shut it down without working with Blizzard to instead offer a better solution. Obviously, the whiners got their way and proved that unless devs take a stand and hold their ground, this same event will always prevail. 

of all else posted so far this.

I personaly do not want politics in my game. But like others have said, their can be many different games for different tastes, but could you imagine a mmo with politics similiar to our own? The game would simply implode! If you have ever read any of the comments below news articles posted online you would know this already. "Grown-ups" are bad enough.

Originally posted by just1opinion

Originally posted by bigsmiff

I agree with a lot of folks here. Leave the RW stuff in the RW. If people want to RP marriage, let them do it. But, don't make it a requirement to access certain content. I uninstalled RoM because of the marriage junk. It is a definite game breaker for me when I feel forced to participate in nonsense.

 

Wait, whaaa??  They're FORCING people to marry or attend weddings??  Man, I must have totally missed something.  Is that what you're saying here?  If that's the case....then I have to agree with you.

 

I'm not sure why games can't just continue to give players more and more CHOICES.  I'm good with choices.  I don't generally like being "forced" to do anything in a game.

There are perks that are given to those that participate in marriage or forced friendships.

http://forum.us.runesofmagic.com/showthread.php?t=44724

Originally posted by dar_es_balat

Racial Awareness?  Ethnic heritage?  Gay Marriage Online?

To be perfectly honest, this is all petty.    The lore is the lore is the lore.   Elves are pale skinned, with pale hair and fine features.   Dark Elves are purple skinned, with white hair and fine features.   An African heritage Elf while nice and politically correct, simply is not necessitated by the lore.   Neither is a Polynesian elf.   Im a Polynesian.  Im not upset about it.   Its not necessary!    My race isnt even represented amongst most human oriented facets of gaming.  Should I be insulted that Kupe isnt riding around in his wooden Katamaran discovering islands in the middle of Azeroth?   No, because the World of Warcraft is precisely that.   Theres a line between fantasy and reality.   These distinctions unnecessarily cross it.  Next thing you know we are going to have a portion of the online population in wheelchairs so that the disabled can be represented.   Or maybe some folks will be forced to play a retarded character so that the demographic with Downs Syndrome is represented fairly online.

This kid has the right idea.   Hippies and their utopian dreamworld where everyone gets along, is represented equally, all live the same, and all love each other are only one step away from cults like Heavens Gate and Jonestown.  

Jamie, your article seeks to ruin the fun of online gaming and in its place turn the MMO into a giant online Drum Circle, smelling of virtual patchouli.   If successful it will do nothing short of ruin what makes games fun:  the escape factor.

As for Gay Marriage online, why is this even necessary?  Just have people swear brotherhood or something and give them the same benefits.   People need to realize that cramming social agendas down the throats of individuals through all media outlets isnt going to change the world for the better, its going to wreck it.

 

I could not have said it better.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by dar_es_balat

Originally posted by Sovrath

I think you need to read my post again. I never said that my beliefs were in line with a social evolution that evolved to one definition which was "my" definition. I did say that society has included an additional reason to marry which is love. I has evolved to "include" this. Though I probably said "broaden".

It can now be part of the equation for those who want a marriage based on something other than merging families.

So yes, society gets to evolve. Perhaps one day we will evolve to include other ideas of what marraige can be. Ah here we go.

That's a really easy question to answer.

Because though historically Marriage was a certain thing and though there are probably societies that follow that historical idea of marriage, in THIS society we now have a concept of marriage for love.

And because people love they have broadened the idea of marriage. Marriage is no longer looked upon as solely a business contract.

I think it's ok to accept the idea that society gets to evolve.

 I read your post the first time.  All of it.  Thank you for insulting my intelligence by re-posting it.  I highlighted in red exactly where you stated, very clearly, that the thoughts defined in your paragraph constituted social evolution.  By defining one set of thoughts as social evolution you define more tradtitional models of thought as objects only worthy of history.

You sir are quite wrong, as I have pointed out before.  I hope now that youve emptied your grab bag of lame excuses and are prepared to come to grips with the reality of exactly what youve said.  At least have the courage to stand by your convictions once they are challenged.

We clearly are not seeing the same thing in my post. And it speaks volumes about you when you see it as an insult if a person reposts one of his posts so that you don't have to go searching for it in order to reference.

You see it as an insult and I see it as being courteous. Interesting.

I stick by my post that society gets to evolve to include a more broad definition of marriage. I think it is a social evolution to have a society accept different ideas of marriage.

what type of evolution would it be?

edit: ah I see, you look at my post as one mode of thought completely replacing previous ideas. Look more to my use of "broaden". did you not like broaden? should I have used another word indicating an acceptance of other ideas?

If you dont' want to link that last line to the timbre of my post then so be it.

 You think, and therefore thats exactly how it should be... because thats how you think it is.  See this is the problem.  You are concerned only with you.  You cannot see past your own viewpoints, and see that by pushing these agendas you espouse you are offering complete disrespect to those who would disagree with you.   And yet you still claim to be courteous and respectful.    I contend that you dont know the meaning of the words.

Your 'broad definition' of marriage isnt a definition of marriage at all.  Its soap opera garbage fit for tabloids and super market bookshelves.   If you want to take a good look at how it works all you need to do is look at the divorce rate, single parent increases, devolution of family value, and increases in youth violence.  Look at when all these things started occurring.  Its no coincidence that they all happened together, and its not the first historical documentation of such a thing occurring.   Rome had the same problems in its decline.  So did Egypt.   So did many of the dynastic periods in Chinese history.

Since this has happened before, in some regard, is it really evolution, or is that simply a label uneducated people slap on a trendy idea to make it sound appealing?

Food for thought.

To many people watch Glen Beck in here. There is a simple solution for this, if a game is created with options such as creating avatars that are not what you deem to be socially acceptable, or are giving an option that you don't approve of (such as gay marriage) then do not play that game. I for one welcome more choices to customize my character. Will I ever roll a gay character, probably not, but i'd love the choice. 

I don't think the author of the article or any of those evil 'progressives' are arguing that all games need to be now socially acceptable and push a liberal agenda down peoples throats. I think what people are saying is that it would be nice if 'some' games had the option of more then what we have seen for the past 16 years. 

What is wrong with a game that deals with racism, warcraft did it with the orcs and humans. Star Trek caused all sorts of problems for having a white man kiss a black woman on tv. Heck some of the best stories I have ever read in fantasy and sci fi have had to deal with racism as the root of the plot. I think most great stories touch on our own social experiences to influence our emotions. They become something that we just don't see or hear, they become something we feel. 

I think if this stuff is included in a game it will bring a new depth to the community and player base. I do have to say, I don't know if I agree to making games 'edgy' just to rock the boat. I also would be hesitant to any game that sought to influence my morals on an issue. But I am an adult and part of being an adult is knowing your limits.

Getting angry and throwing words like marxist, stalinist, nazi, etc... really don't validate anyone's point. If you really are bothered by people giving constructive ideas to how they think the genre could be infused with new ideas, then you will go a lot further by arguing your point in a well thought out and polite manner. 

You Know what i like about Lore.. It is completly made up, it can be what ever the fuck you want it to be. 

What i love about the comments , is that a fair amount of them , stress the fact that allowing people to do what they want will infringe on there rights some how.  I am completly lost on how allowing same sex couples would spell the end of the world for every one.  If you belive orcs can not be gay that is awsome for you, please kick me out of your RP guild.  

MMO's should be a place where people can act out, and do what they may not be able to do in real life, and for some people that is the escape. I find it very ammusing however that people start to throw around draconian social structures , in an effort to curtail people doing what they want to do.  On ewould think that it was the other way around.....

 +1 for the above poster and the ref. to ST

Welcome Home

Rev

Like in real life, gay elves should be allowed to marry.

They're paying 15 bucks for an experience, may as well have an equal experience. Unless we're still in an age where separate but equal seems like a fair deal.

Originally posted by dar_es_balat

Your 'broad definition' of marriage isnt a definition of marriage at all.  Its soap opera garbage fit for tabloids and super market bookshelves.   If you want to take a good look at how it works all you need to do is look at the divorce rate, single parent increases, devolution of family value, and increases in youth violence.  Look at when all these things started occurring.  Its no coincidence that they all happened together, and its not the first historical documentation of such a thing occurring.   Rome had the same problems in its decline.  So did Egypt.   So did many of the dynastic periods in Chinese history.

Since this has happened before, in some regard, is it really evolution, or is that simply a label uneducated people slap on a trendy idea to make it sound appealing?

Food for thought.

 

      I hate to say it since its quite grim, but this^ is sadly correct. Both history and even our current family law system support what is being pointed out here. I would suggest that if you doubt this, you spend some time looking into family law. I should warn you that looking into it will possibly leave you with no faith in government. Marriage is simply a pretty packaged idea that is desighned to lead to divorce. Baseing Marriage on love is a recipe for failure. If you want to be with someone for the rest of your days, then just do it. Talk is cheap so you can imagine how little saying "I do" is worth. If the gays were smart, they wouldnt want marriage in the first place. The advantages are nothing compared to the liabilities it creates. Even alot of us straights are finally coming around on this one. That being said i dont think they shouldnt have the option of being able to get married, of course i also dont think commiting suicide should be illegal either.

Being edgy is throwing political agendas out into the light of public? Why not add religion to that too? "Religion and politics are too things you should never discuss in public. " I am sure everyone has heard that phrase before and there are a number of reasons why it is true.

You will find if you spend too much time discussing either in public, you won't have too many friends afterwards. Both are things people believe in and have passion for. Both are things people have actually died defending, so it is clear that both of these things are a little more than "edgy".

When creating a mmorpg, it is important to remember the MM part. If you are going to create one with the political undertones discussed here, you are just creating something the majority of people do not want to see and completely forgetting the MM part stands for Massive Multiplayer. Simply put, anything the majority of people do not want to see will be avoided.

So to me, it looks like the auther wants "edgy" games that are empty and not really mmos but rather rpgs. They have consoles for that, you know.

The ideas in the OP and the debate are fascinating but I expect it all really boils down to this: games are ENTERTAINMENT intended to generate a PROFIT (most of them, at least).  

So it's simple: take whatever idea you have, like elves marrying orcs and having children, and ask 'Will it make the game fun for a large audience?'.  If not, it won't likely make it into a game, even if its a lofty social principle.  

I am sure exceptions will occur.  Some game designers seem to stick to their principles as much as they can.  But we'll always consider them to be the 'example everyone else should follow'...but noone does/

Very interesting article though my definition of edgier is different from Jaime's. What I would love to do in an MMO would be more on combat mechanics than RP or social stuff.

I like game world changes by players the most. Not enough games allow you do this. I know a lot of people hated Shadbow Bane, but I think kudos should be given to it for being one of the first games that allowed players to change the environment so very much.

Character customisation does need to be enhanced but I'm against breaking lore: elves in LotRO shouldn't have 'afro' or 'oriental' options since it doesn't fit the lore of the books. Elves are from Northern European folklore but most games follow the Tolkeinesque version of elves. There are spirits in African folklore too that share similarities with elves. If say we had a game that had Yoruban ijimere, I'd be disappointed if I could make a European-looking one.  If a huge change were to be made, I think that the game should be started over with completely new lore that goes away from the usual European elves, dwarves, trolls, etc.

I'd like to see a lot more options for making characters: skinny characters, fat characters, female characters who don't look like barbie dolls, male characters who don't look like they pump steroids into their veins, male characters with really long hair (that one is really rare actually), really short characters, really tall characters. It would be cool to have those options. The games that really stand out for that are CoH/CoV and SWG that I've played. I've read that CO has great customization as well as APB. AO was ahead of its time for letting people make African and Asian solitus characters and giving a 'fat' option.

For marriage, I am against putting systems in place that make it beneficial to hook up outside of role-play, especially if there is PvP in the game. If there is a benefit beyond good role-play, it does 'force' you to hook up with someone. As for who can marry who or how many partners are involved? I really don't give a damn. The more options the 'marrier'. It's none of my business unless it's one of my character's getting married.