RuiOrey said:
No man it is not the same. |
1st part yes, it isn't about making sex. It's about buying something and the expectations that go with it, them having it changed and not liking. Not everyone that doesn't like is a bad person as people attacking OP seems to think.
2nd changing sex during encounter, versus changing sex in the middle of the franchise (some games the char being something and then the same char being changed) so it's equivalent.
3rd if a club is all man clubs then no female should be there as much as an all female shouldn't have men.
4th I wouldn't have a problem with a female or male char in a game or book being a trans that you discover during the game as long as it is meaningful for the game. There is a series where that is an possibility on the rumors.
5th I don't need the gender, color or religion of the char to be able to relate. We play even aliens, robots and animals no problem. So the excuse that they need to change char to make people happier (even when those aren't even their core markets) is silly).
6th for me changing one side or the other is the same.
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."