46 réponses à ce sujet

[Saibh]

What would you like to see for a male Hawke's gay romance, or bisexual romance? Personally, I want to see a human male. Elves are nice, but we had Zevran already.

Everyone, please be civil, and mind bigotry. Having an opinion is great, but hate speech is not. I'll warn first (or someone else shall), as politely as possible, and then call attention to moderators.

Romances are optional, and we're getting an icon to deduce intent, so no more accidents. Other thread was locked, so I'm reopening it. I'd hate to see the Lady Hawke thread locked because of sexism, and am applying the same attitude here.

S/S ROMANCES CONFIRMED!

According to the RPG French interview with Mike, Dragon Age 2 will feature romances "for all genders and orientations." 

Here's the thread with the translated interview.

Q: Concerning the romances and love interest, are all the followers subject to this if I take in account the two genders of Hawke?

A: Not every follower is interested romantically in Hawke, though there are options for players of all genders and orientations.

Modifié par Saibh, 21 décembre 2010 - 07:24 .

[David Gaider]

I'm almost tempted to find my last post on this topic and simply cut-and-paste it into here... but maybe not. I'll just say the following:

Romance options are just that-- optional. They're an extra part of the game and not really central to its purpose. Perhaps you think they should be, but that's beside the point. They're not. Being an option means that they're essentially a luxury, and while people may argue as to exactly who's luxury they get to be they don't go beyond that. They're not a right, and treating them like one is taking it a step too far. We put in content as we can afford it, based on the size of the audience that content is likely to be used by-- not according to what's "fair".

This comes with a few caveats, however:

1) We'll always put in content for smaller portions of the audience, whenever we can. In essence, anything that's available as an optional choice only applies to a smaller portion of the audience and really it's just a matter of degrees. If we only put in content that 100% of the audience would see then you would have no choices at all. That's not really what we're about, even if we do have to be realistic.

2) You don't get to argue that an option you don't like and don't intend to use shouldn't exist at all, for anyone. Sorry, but our only concern here is that there are people who will like it. If you don't, then opt not to use it. That's why it's a choice.

3) Persuant to the above, beware of majority privilege. It's very easy for people who don't have an issue that the minority feel (and this applies to race and gender-- in gaming, particularly-- as well as to sexual orientation) to believe that something is "not a problem". "I don't see why you're so uptight about it!" Realize when you make these sorts of comments that you have no idea what you're talking about, for all our sakes. You don't know what it feels like to be marginalized, and it behooves those in the majority to use at least a modicum of sensitivity when it comes to addressing such issues. No, games aren't a platform for social change, but that doesn't mean we are also absent of responsibility when we include content in our games where such issues can arise. If we were to claim "majority privilege" as our only guide, we do nothing but add to the problem. That said, we do face other limitations-- not least of which, as I said, is that this isn't the point of the game and thus is only ever going to get limited resources.

Insofar as the male-male romance content goes specifically, there's no evidence to suggest it affected sales in the slightest. In fact, our own telemetry shows that the content was used by more players than most people would assume (you can draw your own conclusions from that). If the only objection someone can muster is "it makes me uncomfortable" then there's not too much to say-- there's lots of things in a Mature-rated game that could potentially make someone uncomfortable, some of them not even optional. That's the risk you take, I guess, when you play something that is not, by design, intended to be inoffensive to all. Trying to object from an economic standpoint, however, really doesn't wash.

What does this mean for DA2? Well, we haven't talked about any romances yet. So you'll have to see-- we're not making any promises, in particular because of the limitations I keep bringing up. If we don't include same-sex content, however, it's not because we assume too many people will think it's "icky" or because we fear a backlash, economic or otherwise.

Please return to your regularly scheduled debate.

[David Gaider]

Arrtis wrote...
Gaider....you....killed this thread....eh nevermind it seemed to slow down before you arrived.
Also Now that you know I am for equality is making the romances into a patch a bad thing?

I'm assuming you're referring to the idea that we would incude same-sex romances in some kind of patch or DLC content? I think the idea for DLC is that it applies to as many players as possible-- the audience for DLC is already only a portion of the whole as it is-- so that seems unlikely. Not to mention that, if we intend to include this kind of content, there's no reason at all not to include it with the main game. Why we would purposefully segregate content or make it appear punitive in its nature is beyond me.

[David Gaider]

Arrtis wrote...
What was the reason for shale again?
I am thinking so much more than just ROmance.
I am thinking a number of other things allowing players to customize their playing experience.

Err... Shale was a follower available to all, and not a romance. It was also a salvage of content that was originally cut, and designed to be an incentive for players that bought the game at retail rather than used. What's your point, exactly?

[David Gaider]

Adriano87 wrote...
I'm serious about it ... If Bioware Put ******-Bi Sexual Content in DA2, so many of straight People [Absolute Majority of People] won't buy it at all , including me.

People threaten to not buy games all the time if they don't get what they want, or if we include something they don't want. Considering that this is content that some people do want, we're not worried about the possibility of including it. But you're welcome to express your opinion, so long as you do so politely-- just remember that "it's just my opinion" is not an excuse for expressing intolerance.

Modifié par David Gaider, 31 août 2010 - 04:16 .

[David Gaider]

Shiroukai wrote...
I guess I could read in this that the reason why Bethany isn't a romance option, is because you're planning something big with her that makes it impossible, and don't believe that incest is the work of Satan?
The reason why I would have liked Bethany as a romance option is because I always thought that incest in romans can really turn up the drama level.
George R. R. Martin's ' A Song of Ice and Fire' did this really well for example.

We might bring it up as a plot point, if we cared to-- just as George R.R. Martin does.

Bringing it up as something for the player to indulge in? We're not interested. Not because it's "wrong" or anything of the sort-- we're just not interested. I suggest fanfic.

[David Gaider]

Adriano87 wrote...
We don't hate, We don't love ... We are Legion

And I think it's time for you to take a brief vacation.

If you cannot add to the discussion in a sensible manner, I suggest avoiding it. Thanks.

[John Epler]

Occasionally, people will flirt with you even if you haven't indicated interest. I would say that most everyone experiences this at some point in their adult life. That doesn't mean you're forced to reciprocate the feelings, of course, nor does it mean that you can't turn them down - whether gently or harshly will depend both on you and on the situation you find yourself in.



This kind of behaviour is by no means determined by one's sexual orientation. It's not something associated with being a gay or bisexual person, but rather being a person, full stop. The only thing sexual orientation determines is who you're attracted to, and I'd say it's a little silly to suggest that a character should be more or less prone to uninvited flirtation based on sexuality as opposed to personality.

[David Gaider]

As John suggested, there is some flirtation. With the icons, however, it is now very clear which responses will respond to that flirtation and encourage the romance and which ones will stop it cold. And if you're on the receiving end of some unwelcome flirtation, you need only shut it down.



Are we going to arrange things so you need never be exposed to any evidence of homosexuality in the world whatsoever? No, we're not. The characters are just people, and will act as their personalities dictate, no more.

[John Epler]

iamthespark wrote...

I have to say a thanks to David for clearing up all this mess on homosexuality and where the company/Dragon Age stands on it, it makes me happy.

As for this new question of "will the NPCs initiate/flirt with you" I can only hope they *do*!! Just like in the real world. We get flirted by lots of people - people we like, people we don't like, etc. I think any time a NPC initiates a conversation with the player it adds a level of immersion to the game. Loved that about DA.

Heh. When I made my comment, I was actually referring to the real world! I didn't mean to imply anything about our LIs or DA2.

Thus why David is the lead writer and I'm a cinematic designer. My ideas are not always communicated as clearly as I might wish

[David Gaider]

Minxie18 wrote...
That annoys me a bit too. I understand why they do it because there are only so many companions they can make so it saves time to combine male and female love interests into a bi-sexual character.

It's not time so much as trying to get the most bang for our buck (innuendo unintentional). I'd love to have a romance interest specifically homosexual, but that's unlikely to happen anytime soon simply because it's content already geared at a minority of players. But we'll see.

Until then, however, if one's opinion on the matter is "all or nothing" then I'm afraid the answer would ultimately be nothing.

[David Gaider]

Chris Readman wrote...
This is totally true, but unfortunately, most people won't see that. They'll probably just notice the fact that he is bisexual, and that he is loose, and just jump to conclusions.

I've noticed some people also think that once they've slept with Zevran the romance is over. Unlike with, say, Alistair at that point the romance is only really beginning.

He's not everyone's favorite, of course, but then again no romance ever is. I sometimes find the "he wasn't the right type of gay" comments irritating, especially those who made outraged comments on the forums at the time because clearly he represented my/our ideas on homosexuality/bisexuality as a whole rather than being simply a single character-- like he was social commentary.

If I ever did another romance like that, I doubt I'd do the same thing-- I'd tend to want to try something new each time I'm working on a romance (or any character, really) but some of the inane comments do make me want to do the exact opposite sometimes. Just out of spite.

Anyway, most people here seem to like the idea of a male love interest who is quiet, and preferably not a rogue. I actually do agree that it shouldn't be a rogue again, but to be fair to Bioware, we've had only 3 bisexual rogues that I know of (Leliana, Zevran and Sky).

I'm not sure why people would assume we'd do another character exactly the same as the one before.

And as for the type of character people think they want, I suspect there's a difference between what people think they'd want and what they'd actually like if they got it. But maybe that's just me. Personally, the worst characters I've written or that some of the other writers I work with have written have been the ones that other people thought we should write rather than the ones we felt inspired by.

But I find it strange that people like someone quiet and shy. I mean, how would conversations with this person go? I actually don't mind the idea, but I really wonder how you script such a romance or friendship in a non-boring way.

That'd be my take on it. I think sometimes people project the kind of romance they'd like to have in real life onto the kind of romance they'd like to have in a game-- that's where comments like "can we date?" come into play. I don't doubt there's some overlap, as you'd want a character that appeals to you personally on some level (which they never will for everyone, so I don't worry about that aspect myself) but until people in real life start meeting friends and potential romance partners by heading out into the world and slaughtering foes at each other's side I don't think there's a great basis for comparison.

Modifié par David Gaider, 15 septembre 2010 - 02:47 .

[David Gaider]

Optimystic_X wrote...
No, not "exactly..."

I'm not trying to rock the boat in the slightest Dave - I think your posts here have been awesome and insightful and definitely would like to see more of them - but I do have to note that "bisexual rogue" seems to be a trope over at Bioware, for all the other differences those characters had among them. Sky, Silk Fox, Leliana, Zevran... you can't blame people for wanting to "head it off at the pass," as it were, while there is still hope of getting something else.

Ah. Well, if you put it that way-- yes, they are indeed all rogues. But they're also very different personalities. The fact that they are all rogue class (or similar? Jade Empire didn't have rogues) doesn't strike me as particularly relevant, but I guess I can sort of see what you're saying.

Still, characters can be broken down into archetypes very easily. You just need to reduce a character (or a plot) enough and suddenly you're going to see commonalities between them. If you do that, essentially we write the same characters all the time (there's a chart someone did recently, and while you really have to stretch to make some of those categories fit it does more or less apply). Thing is, I'm not sure what that gets you. To me, Zevran is more "flamboyant assassin" and that distinguishes him from any other character I've done more than the fact that he also happens to wear light armor and use rogue skills.

And I know this is meaningless to you guys, but we don't really look at characters from one BioWare game to the next. I write characters based on what characters I've done previously, and what new ones I want to try. If a character I make has some commonalities with, say, a Mass Effect character or a Jade Empire character it doesn't mean much to me because I didn't work on those games. If anything you can be certain we'll try some new things in DA2 simply because it's the same writing team, and thus the writers will be interested in trying new stuff. That's simply how it is.

And if anything I just said makes you want to spite us with another bisexual rogue... then I will shut up immediately and eat my shoe.

I only get that way when people whine about how flamboyant Zevran was, or complain about how he wasn't the "right type of gay". That makes me want to dress him up in sparkly armor, talk with an extravagant lisp and be even more kick-ass than he was before. But I am simply perverse that way.

Modifié par David Gaider, 16 septembre 2010 - 02:49 .

[David Gaider]

Russalka wrote...
Anyway, of course very few people are truly unbreakable emotionally, but would definitely like a romance that didn't revolve around a dark dramatic past and/or trying to mend the person. But then again, what kind of a relationship isn't that way in a war-torn medieval world?

I suspect that if I ever wrote a quiet, "normal" romance people would probably hate it.

That doesn't mean someone else might not be able to pull it off, but I don't think I could. I just don't find that interesting-- and I imagine that most people who express a desire for it do so because they believe it might be interesting in a theoretical sense (as something they haven't seen before). The reality in a game would be significantly different.

[David Gaider]

Optimystic_X wrote...
There's also the much smaller unfortunate implication that being gay makes you less of a fighter; e.g. Zevran needs to backstab to win because he can't parry properly with his limp wrists in a face-to-face fight. Rogue appears to be a "safe" character class for gay NPCs because all the "real men" like Sten and Oghren are still straight. This one doesn't bother me nearly as much, because my gay Warden is more than capable of wielding a Claymore and wading into the thick of battle in his Dragonhide full plate; I'm just including it for posterity's sake as one of the points I've seen raised on gay gaming forums and threads similar to this one.

I think you may be seeing a pattern where none is intended. I don't think it's ever come up that a gay/bi character needed to be a rogue. Indeed, follower classes tend to be pretty fluid during development-- I recall Sten's class and specialization changing two or three times during development. Even Leliana was once a warrior.

But I can see how that might be perceived as a pattern, sure. I don't think anyone needs to worry that it's some subliminal commentary on the gay mindset, however. I would resist turning any character into a soapbox, even regarding issues that I believe in personally. I think those stop being characters when that happens. Still, pointing out these things to us, even when it's circumstantial, is worth doing just so we're aware of how it's perceived-- so thank you.

[David Gaider]

Slidell505 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I recall Sten's class and specialization changing two or three times during development.

But Sten doesn't have a spec.

Exactly.

[David Gaider]

Ninja Mage wrote...
I need this in the GAME!

You shouldn't. If you do I advise therapy.

[David Gaider]

LostSoulsOfWoe wrote...
I'm in agreement with quite a few people in this thread, I would definitely prefer a masculine warrior archetype. However, at this point in time I'd be happy with anything as long as we get a s/s LI as I have faith the writers will make them interesting regardless of what the archetype is.

Not that I object to the spirit behind the request, but I gotta say that would be the day when I design a character based primarily on how much a novelty they'll be for the jaded (whether this is in regards to romances or not). Trust me when I say that, if I did that, you'd probably get what you think you want and still not be very happy.

[David Gaider]

Ninja Mage wrote...
But for him to say I need therapy because I wanted a Qunari romance was just silly. Yes I was being sarcastic, I didn't NEED the Zevran romance but I enjoyed it. It would be a matter of ''lightening up,'' but considering this issue is so taboo, it makes more of an impact when he says it to me and not some other person. This issue may be trivial to you, but it means alot to me, so ofcourse I'm going to have a certain opinion about it.

My comment was only with regards to you saying you needed that in your game-- which is what you said.

I figured you didn't actually need it. I was just teasing you, hence the smiley face. Sorry if it seemed callous.

[David Gaider]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
I am sorry but the whole "the wont do it for marketing reasons" arguement no longer works. It Is Fail.

Fallout New Vegas - which last I checked was the best selling game in the charts across the board (PC, Xbox, and PS3) up until Call of Duty was released earlier this month (here in the UK).
It is 7th place (down from 3rd last week) on Xbox 360 chart,  3rd place (up from 4th last week) on PS3 charts, and 5th place (down from 4th) in the PC chart. Given that is nearly 2 full months of sales and many many new releases in that time the fact that the it remains so high (where Fable 3 that was released at the same time has nearly totally dropped out of the charts) after so long a time says summit.

I point this out because Fallout New Vegas has prolific (and exclusive) same sex encounters throughout the game and it doesnt appear to have hurt sales AT ALL. In fact Everyone on the Bethesda and Obsidian forums seems to be appreciative of these additional options.
Examples the NPC companion Arcade Gannon is gay. Exclusively gay.
You can have sex with male prostitutes (as a dude) and female prostitutes (as a girl) exclusively. Some are bi. Some arent.

Given Fallout New Vegas' success I think it fairly safe to assume that a company CAN include fully gay options and NOT damage sales.

If Bioware insists for DA2 and ME3 that they cant include gay options becuase it might damage sales I will point them straight to New Vegas.

Win for Obsidian. lol.

Two things:

1) We've never said "we won't do strictly-gay romances because it would hurt sales" or anything like. I don't think it would hurt sales any more than including them (like in FO:NV) necessarily helps sales. There are lots of reasons a game succeeds or fails that go way beyond what kind of romances it includes.

2) What we have said is that our content is expensive-- in particular our romances. If you'd really like to point to FO:NV's followers and say that that's the preferred way to do romances... well alrighty. I would point out that you're talking about far less interaction than you had with DAO followers. Any DAO follower, actually, romance or no. If you want to pretend they're comparable, that's fine, but don't pretend that the amount of work that went into the romanceable characters-- bi or straight-- was cheap and that we needed flimsy excuses to suggest that we wanted that content to be accessible by as many people as possible. That's just ignorant, and involves pushing an agenda I'm not entirely comfortable with.

Modifié par David Gaider, 18 novembre 2010 - 03:46 .

[David Gaider]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
Given that and given that DA2 seems to be following more the ME model - ive heard some people call DA2 Dragon Effect in a sarcastic and condescending manner - its not entirely unreasonable that those of us who are gay and are fans of Bioware are worried that we might suddenly find ourselves excluded by a company we have always had the utmost respect and love for. After all they did it with ME.

We haven't said what we're doing for romances at all yet, I think. I'm also not sure that the ME team has ever said what their reasoning is behind their choices, either-- whatever it is, I'm certainly not privy to it.

I would say, however, that I can't fault them for what they did.

Consider this development dilemma: if part of the enjoyment of players in RPG's is having choices, is it better to offer more choices to most players or fewer choices to all players? ME2 clearly took the "more choices to most players" approach-- most players have three romance options. DAO took the "fewer choices to all players" approach-- the players had two options... or one, which isn't really a choice.

Which is better? For the gay players, some of them weren't happy at their lack of a choice either. For the straight players, some of them would have been much happier to have more choices than they had. We're never going to be able to make everyone happy, obviously, and while this particular issue goes a bit beyond content (and ventures into social issues, and therefore uncomfortable territory that some teams would simply rather not go into) for a development team the primary concern is about content and how it's best to create and use in a game where every player needs it. Nobody has a "right" to content, but we need to figure out how to spread it out and I say there are no easy answers.

Of course I recognise that an awful lot of work goes into the romances - i wasnt comparing the FNV characters to DAO characters. They just dont compare. My point was more the fact that exclusively gay people were there, seen and acknowledged and not ignored or swept aside or dressed up as "bisexual" even if the interactions with them dont quite come up to the professionalism of Bioware's NPCs.

And my point is that it wasn't about ignoring or sweeping aside anything. Speaking from a content point of view, it's easier to provide content for a small audience when it's cheaper. I'd love to do a gay-only romance-- but considering how expensive our romances are it would either need to a shorter/less expensive romance or we'd have to be okay with having that much content for a small audience (and "small" here is by degrees, and has nothing in relation to "insignificant") which is exclusive to that audience.

And that's as tough a decision to make as it would be to exclude that audience entirely. These are not easy choices to make, and I think it's over-simplifying it to forget about the costs and think only about the emotional issues behind them-- if only it were that easy.

I am not complaining about having bisexual characters - id rather have a well written deep and engaging bi character than a shallow boring gay character or none at all of course - but it would be nice if we could have a chracter who was exclusively gay and exclusively a lesbian. Really really nice. Just so that we could feel more included, so we can more properly express who and what we are through the medium we enjoy like the straight fans of Bioware get to do.

I understand. The fact that something might be nice, however, doesn't mean it's something we can easily do-- or that us not doing it means that we have ulterior motives. Consider that.

Modifié par David Gaider, 18 novembre 2010 - 04:46 .

[Stanley Woo]

Let's not go there, please, Eromenos and Bryy_Miller. Let's try and keep this Dragon Age II related. THank you.

[Stanley Woo]

That's enough, Eromenos. We try to stay away from outright sociopolitical commentary in our games and in the forums. We acknowledge that there are many kinds of people in the world, but unfortunately, since they fall on a spectrum of beliefs, tolerances, biases, and opinions, it is impossible to fall anywhere on the spectrum without offending or annoying someone, no matter what we do.



So let's try and keep this discussion to the fictional world of Thedas and Dragon Age II, and leave the real-world social and political advocacy to real-life organizations, which you may wish to join or in whose communities you may wish to participate. Thank you.

[David Gaider]

Eromenos wrote...
ETA: Oh, I think I get it. They fear that having exclusively gay LIs might force them to play at something that makes them feel funny inside. That's too bad. But if all they care about are achievements anyway, the best I can offer is that they should suck it up in that instance.

The only issue with exclusively gay romances ia that an individual romance is a lot of content-- content that is a tad too expensive to justify making it exclusive to a minority of players. So we get some of the romances to do double duty in order to reduce the expense.

It's not a political statement, simply economic reality. If you want to see homophobia in that, by all means knock yourself out-- but the alternative, as I've said elsewhere, would be nothing. Which would be too bad. I enjoy including such options whenever I can, and I think being inclusive makes for a better game, but translating that into a statement on homosexuality on our part is taking it a bit far if you ask me.

[David Gaider]

Eromenos wrote...
Where you mentioned that some of the romances pull double-duty but not all of them do, why is there a division? Why only some, but not all? It's not as if any of the DAO LIs held lesser interest for particular groups of people. They were all sought after by somebody or another, and I think that counts for much more than a homophobic requirement that the leading characters need always be strictly hetero.

If they were all pulling double-duty, no one would be left out on this aspect of gameplay save for those who inexplicably cry for "realism" in a fictional fantasy setting. And really, now...who is to even say that it'd be impossible to end up traveling with a group of companions who we might deem as functionally bisexual using only our Americanized methods of thinking?

We could make all the characters bisexual, sure, but that would take extra content-- we'd need to include the gender-specific variant lines (which both Leliana and Zevran had) as well as do the work on the cutscenes. The fact that we didn't do so is not homophobia. In fact, I find the accusation ridiculous. Just because some people might have wanted to romance certain characters does not mean that we wish to or even could include the content to do so. I'd like the opportunity, sure, but the ability to include such options at all for players is a plus. If you want to turn that into some kind of restriction on your right to content, then I don't really know what to say to you.