258 réponses à ce sujet

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
I guess if you weren't listening for it, you missed it.

Perhaps.

But here, let me throw the flip side in this for a moment. Keep in mind what follows is satire that is made to illustrate a particular point.

Why aren't there any straight characters? I feel so left out. There is no one there that really fits with what I was hoping to see in a LI. This is almost like discrimination. They only wanted to make the people happy who wanted to see gay relationships and they completely ignored those of us that just wanted a plain straight relationship. Totally unfair. Why couldn't they make just one straight female? That's all I would have needed.

Your relationship with Merril is "a plain straight relationship". You'd only know she was ready to set sail on the Ocean Lesbonica if you played as a woman and persued it.

So in a game played by a male character, she *is* straight. It's like a choose your own adventure book.


I think you should play through the same-sex options, and you might be surprised. It's not just a copy-paste of the different-sex relationships with different pronouns. Anders is clearly this love-the-soul-not-the-body sort of man (and we all know people like that), which is a pretty clever play on the fact that his soul and body are radically different. Fenris essentially freaks out and sulks for a long time after touching-balls (and we all know people like that too). The characters are realistic, in that sense.

They don't come across as bisexual for bisexual sake (although I'm sure artificail time constraints that have ruined much of the game also impacted to option of having "just gay" characters).

[City6]

Iamnotahater wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Iamnotahater wrote...

It's not homphobic or homophobia. It's about uncessary uncomfortable situations detracting away from an end-users gaming experience and the laziness surrounding reusing romantic dialog for both genders and making everyone bi.

I also think it presents them as weak and unable to make up their mind. At least Merill projects that personality already it doesn't really fit with Anders. Who seems extremely decisive when it comes to blood magic and mages.

As I said, the OP is not being homophobic. You, however, are toeing the line. Don't force this thread to get locked too.

Well I'm sorry it does. At least with Isabella it sorts of fits in with her character (filrty - using a colleqouism here), Merill suggests within dialogue a resentment for Isabella and willingness to expolore romantic boundaries.

Anders just doesn't fit. He is obsessive and determined about everything he does (mages, blood magic, templars) and there is no middle ground (ie peace). But he can't doesn't decide whether he likes boys or girls? Sorry doesn't fit.

Bisexuals are not people who "can't decide if they like boys or grls". For them it isn't either/or. They like icecream *and* chocolate cake.


The question would as seem as daft to a bisexual as saying a straight or gay person can only like blondes or brunettes.

[Iamnotahater]

Strangely Brown wrote...

Why is this argument about your character being forced into uncomfortable situations? First of all, as an RPG don't you think it is a good thing that your character has to make difficult choices or ones that they may find uncomfortable? Second of all, if you are uncomfortable simply don't choose the romance-able option dialogues.

I only wish that not all of the Li's were bisexual but rather had a more realistic mix of plain out straight/gay/bi.

But really is this really an issue?

Don't you think your choices in the game to outright kill some people is far more (or should be) disturbing than weather or not to shut down someones romantic interest in your character?

For me the issue is twofold. It should have/is not only been uncomfortable for me but my character as well. Can't I be nice to one of my companions without them thinking about sex and a relationship.

Why don't I have the choice to kick them out of the part for creating an uncomfortable atomsphere. Instead I'm given three option TWO of which were romance.

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...
Your relationship with Merril is "a plain straight relationship". You'd only know she was ready to set sail on the Ocean Lesbonica if you played as a woman and persued it.

It doesn't work that way. I am not a character in a game. I am playing a game. Like reading a book or watching a movie. I know what is going on behind the curtains even if the characters don't.

City6 wrote...
So in a game played by a male character, she *is* straight.

And that's even worse. That's what makes it lazy writing. Instead of writing one straight character and one bi or gay character, they took a shortcut and said "her sexuality is based on your sexuality."

City6 wrote...
They don't come across as bisexual for bisexual sake (although I'm sure artificail time constraints that have ruined much of the game also impacted to option of having "just gay" characters).

And here we hit the very root of the problem.

They should have taken more time and just done a better job of presentation.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 mars 2011 - 08:29 .

[Ryzaki]

So how exactly did you deal with the Couslands being slaughtered completely in a non HN origin?

The game changed based on a decision you made to play as a certain origin.

Fergus (I'm pretty sure he's killed in every origin except HN).

Did that break your believability?  

Did Duncan always magically making it to the PC (and only the PC) in time during the origins break your believability? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 mars 2011 - 08:31 .

[the_one_54321]

Ryzaki wrote...
So how exactly did you deal with the Couslands being slaughtered completely in a non HN origin?

That's very appropriate. Your character as  HN doesn't exist if you play one of the other origins. So everything else plays out as if that HN character doesn't exist.

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
Your relationship with Merril is "a plain straight relationship". You'd only know she was ready to set sail on the Ocean Lesbonica if you played as a woman and persued it.

It doesn't work that way. I am not a character in a game. I am playing a game. Like reading a book or watching a movie. I know what is going on behind the curtains even if the characters don't.

City6 wrote...
So in a game played by a male character, she *is* straight.

And that's even worse. That's what makes it lazy writing. Instead of writing one straight character and one bi or gay character, they took a shortcut and said "her sexuality is based on your sexuality."

City6 wrote...
They don't come across as bisexual for bisexual
sake (although I'm sure artificail time constraints that have ruined
much of the game also impacted to option of having "just gay"
characters).

And here we hit the very root of the problem.

They should have taken more time and just done a better job of presentation.

You also know that if you die you can reload, and that whatever happens, the hero will win, and in 2 years you'll have another adventure.

Does the fact that in some people's games Alistair appears annoy you, when you know he's been executed two games previously?

Does this ruin the game too? It's odd that the only meta-knowledge issue you take issue with is sexuality, when it's so minor in comparison.

[BeljoraDien]

highcastle wrote...

BeljoraDien wrote...

If my sarcasm is still not apparent, then allow me to state clearly: I'm being sarcastic.

highcastle wrote...

read Kinsey. Read Winterson. Read Woolfe. 

Yeah, we all took anthro 101. Personally, I don't agree with those conclusions, but I'm not opposed to them as a matter of principle. Either way, having characters change their sexuality (whether clearly defined or more of a sliding scale) is, in fact, unrealistic.

Sexuality is fluid. You may not believe so. You don't have to. Maybe you've never had a moment of being attracted to someone of the same sex. That's fine. And it's hard for many people to consider being attracted to someone without taking into account their sex. Also fine. These are difficult concepts to wrestle with because we in the West (I'm assuming you're in the West here, so apologies if that's false) are generally ingrained with these two binary distinctions. Gay or straight. Male or female. We can't concieve of people who live outside those roles.

That doesn't mean they don't exist, though. And this may be a small portion of the game, but it matters to those of us who identify as queer in some way. I brought up Woolfe and Winterson because they both encompass most of my personal beliefs on the matter. And they're also post-modernists whose ideas don't typically make it into mainstream tv, movies, or games. So it was refreshing to see something straight out of Orlando or A Room of One's Own coming out of Anders' mouth.

You're free to disagree with me. I said in another post, reality is subjective. What you think is realistic may not be what I think is realistic. There's really no blanket term for realism here because we all bring are own presumptions and biases into play. But for me, DA2's exploration of sexuality was one of the more intelligent examples I've seen in modern media and definitely matched my own personal expectations of reality.

Believe me, I want to agree with you; you have just about the most well-thoughtout posts I've seen (probably wasted here, to be honest). The implications of a fluid sexuality among the whole of the human race is a bit too much for me, however. The truth is probably somewhere in between, with a large majority of people falling into a pure opposite-sex attraction (as a result of evolutionary necessity) and a minority having a more fluid sexuality. That's my subjective take, anyway.

Edit: Re-reading your post, perhaps we actually agree. Like I said, DA2's handling of sexuality or romance is a very low priority to me. They can keep it the way it is for all I care.

Modifié par BeljoraDien, 23 mars 2011 - 08:39 .

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
So how exactly did you deal with the Couslands being slaughtered completely in a non HN origin?

That's very appropriate. Your character as  HN doesn't exist if you play one of the other origins. So everything else plays out as if that HN character doesn't exist.

Except your HN character did nothing to change Fergus' fate other than you picking the HN option. Just like Anders relationship with Karl is only changed by you picking a male Hawke. 

Either way Fergus left at the same time. The only difference is for some strange reason Duncan magically was there. 

Your choosing of PC changed where Duncan went, what he did, and how someone managed to survive. This doesn't bother you? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 23 mars 2011 - 08:34 .

[rubydog1]

Iamnotahater wrote...

For me the issue is twofold. It should have/is not only been uncomfortable for me but my character as well. Can't I be nice to one of my companions without them thinking about sex and a relationship.

Why don't I have the choice to kick them out of the part for creating an uncomfortable atomsphere. Instead I'm given three option TWO of which were romance.

So, turn him down, dump him from your active party, and let him stew in his clinic for most of the rest of the game. Your game will be shorter without his companion quests, but that's your call.

If you feel he's stained your honor irreparably, the story does give you an opportunity later in the game to do something about that.

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...
Does the fact that in some people's games Alistair appears annoy you, when you know he's been executed two games previously?

Do you mean does it annoy that other players can make other decisions? That's completely irrelivant. This is about what choices are available and why and how. Not what choices players make while they play.

Ryzaki wrote...
Either way Fergus left at the same time. The only difference is for some strange reason Duncan magically was there.

I didn't know about that. Yeah, that sounds pretty dumb too. There's no need to change things like that.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 mars 2011 - 08:37 .

[Ryzaki]

the_one_54321 wrote..
I didn't know about that. Yeah, that sounds pretty dumb too. There's no need to change things like that.

It happens for every origin pretty much. Duncan always magically shows up at the right time and people magically die/live just because you control the PC. It's not even your actions because you can choose some pretty stupid actions. 

Duncan's magical rescue makes little sense if you use metagame knowledge to determine what he's doing there, why he's there and try to mesh it with the other origins. 

[City6]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
Does the fact that in some people's games Alistair appears annoy you, when you know he's been executed two games previously?

Do you mean does it annoy that other players can make other decisions? That's completely irrelivant. This is about what choices are available and why and how. Not what choices players make while they play.

Ryzaki wrote...
Either way Fergus left at the same time. The only difference is for some strange reason Duncan magically was there.

I didn't know about that. Yeah, that sounds pretty dumb too. There's no need to change things like that.

But your issue seems to be not what happens in your game, but the meta-knowledge of how other games play out (ie you can't take Merril as straight, because you are aware that in another game she isn't, even there's nothing in your game to make you even consider that).

Yet this "meta-game panic" only seems to apply to sexuality, and not the thousands of other things which are different in other people's games 

[the_one_54321]

City6 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
Does the fact that in some people's games Alistair appears annoy you, when you know he's been executed two games previously?

Do you mean does it annoy that other players can make other decisions? That's completely irrelivant. This is about what choices are available and why and how. Not what choices players make while they play.

Ryzaki wrote...
Either way Fergus left at the same time. The only difference is for some strange reason Duncan magically was there.

I didn't know about that. Yeah, that sounds pretty dumb too. There's no need to change things like that.

But your issue seems to be not what happens in your game, but the meta-knowledge of how other games play out (ie you can't take Merril as straight, because you are aware that in another game she isn't, even there's nothing in your game to make you even consider that).

Yet this "meta-game panic" only seems to apply to sexuality, and not the thousands of other things which are different in other people's games

No, I apply that to every instance of this that I am aware of. For example, even if I didn't already think the elves look stupid now, I still would have been unhappy that they were chaned. Though I do think the Qunari look pretty cool with horns, I think it was a bad decision to retcon. It's always always a bad decision to retcon.

Also:

SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
If you are talking about the way Leliana and Zevran pop up in the game, I'm not yet entirely sure how that works out. I will say this much for certain: in my game where I romanced Leliana and left with her to adventure in the world, she ends up working with the Seeker instead of being off adventuring with my Warden, this game is garbage. If Zevran shows up anywhere except face down in a ditch in any of my games, this game is garbage.
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS
SPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERSSPOILERS

Modifié par the_one_54321, 23 mars 2011 - 08:42 .

[Sabariel]

This is not a new-out-of-the-blue thing. Zevran and Leliana's sexuality changes based on the Warden's gender. If you're female they swing more toward the female side of the bisexual arc, both admitting that they prefer women more than men. If you're male both stay resolutely in the middle of the bisexual arc, neither saying anything about a preference. Did this weaken them as characters? To quote my two favorite characters from DAO and DA2: "No."

[the_one_54321]

Sabariel wrote...
This is not a new-out-of-the-blue thing. Zevran and Leliana's sexuality changes based on the Warden's gender. If you're female they swing more toward the female side of the bisexual arc, both admitting that they prefer women more than men. If you're male both stay resolutely in the middle of the bisexual arc, neither saying anything about a preference. Did this weaken them as characters? To quote my two favorite characters from DAO and DA2: "No."

No matter what gender you play they make it clear that they swing both ways.

[17thknight]

I find that Bioware's recent trend of having no gay characters in their game, whatsoever, to be a bit off-putting. Rather than having the guts to simply have gay characters, they simply make anyone **** anyone. It's...unrealistic and a bit offensive.

I remember the Bioware forums back when it came out that Juhani was a lesbian. I got the first dev response about it and it created a long discussion about gay characters in video games. What we all liked about Juhani was that her lesbianism was muted, it wasn't the "oh look I'm a sexy lipstick lesbian with a huge butt, I'm so lesbian, teehee!" It was realistic, and the only disappointing thing was that they didn't carry the romance possibility with her as fully as they did with Bastilla and Kaidan 0.1

But now it's just "well, we'll throw in a bunch of people and anyone can bang them". It's very lazy, which is bad enough. Far worse, however, is that they don't (at least with DA) feel the need to make an actually homosexual character.

That was what made Juhani so interesting and why we applauded them for what was (at the time) a bold decision. This could have allowed them to skirt gay rights, loneliness of being 'different', OR simply to show a gay character in a positive light.

Instead they copped out, and are just making characters straight or "I'll bang anything that walks". My gay friends' complaints with the DA:O romances weren't that there were limited options, it was that there were no gay characters whatsoever. Make characters have dedicated personalities. Make some straight, bi, gay. Don't do this mishmash crap, it's lazy and offensive.

[optimates0193]

city6 wrote...

But your issue seems to be not what happens in your game, but the meta-knowledge of how other games play out (ie you can't take Merril as straight, because you are aware that in another game she isn't, even there's nothing in your game to make you even consider that).

Yet this "meta-game panic" only seems to apply to sexuality, and not the thousands of other things which are different in other people's games 

I think you're mistaking what the actual issue is. I don't think many people against this are upset for some meta reason. I know I could care less if someone has a homosexual relationship in their game. The problem is that by designing the characters in this way (That they can flip a switch on their sexuality to match Hawke's) it weakens the character. Sexuality should be a core component of the character's identity. It's part of what defines them. By designing the character to essentially have no sexual identity, it helps to make them bland, unbelievable, and boring. 

As for sexuality being fluid, I can't say I fully agree with that. For some people, I'm sure it is. For most, I don't feel that it is. Either way, whether someone's sexuality is fluid or not, it DOES NOT change the point. If someone believes that their sexual identity is fluid and can change, then that defines who they are and affects how they act. In Dragon Age 2, the characters are simply opportunistic. They have NO sexual identity - they just follow in step with whatever Hawke wants. It's an issue, because it makes the characters far less interesting and believable.

We all want options. Options can be great. The problem is if you try to make an option for EVERYTHING, you'll end up accomplishing nothing.

Modifié par optimates0193, 23 mars 2011 - 08:53 .

[the_one_54321]

"Metagame" does not exist with this issue. It is an issue of the quality and consistency in the writing. It doesn't matter if it counts as in character knowledge or not.

[optimates0193]

17thknight wrote...

I find that Bioware's recent trend of having no gay characters in their game, whatsoever, to be a bit off-putting. Rather than having the guts to simply have gay characters, they simply make anyone **** anyone. It's...unrealistic and a bit offensive.

This. Really, Bioware's approach to gay relationships seems extremely weak to me and I'm surprised more don't find it offensive. I would love to see a truly homosexual character, who has to struggle with what that entails. That would make for a compelling addition to the story AND help broaden a person's perspective in a meaningful way. Right now, what we have are superficial, meaningless, and in my opinion, nonsensical relationships with character's that have no identity of their own.

[mesmerizedish]

the_one_54321 wrote...

City6 wrote...
So in a game played by a male character, she *is* straight.

And that's even worse. That's what makes it lazy writing. Instead of writing one straight character and one bi or gay character, they took a shortcut and said "her sexuality is based on your sexuality."

But that's not the case. If you play a male character, she might as well be straight, because the PC is the only person in whom she expresses an interest. But that doesn't mean she is straight.

City6 wrote...
They don't come across as bisexual for bisexual sake (although I'm sure artificail time constraints that have ruined much of the game also impacted to option of having "just gay" characters).

And here we hit the very root of the problem.

They should have taken more time and just done a better job of presentation.

I thought the presentation (as far as orientation is concerned) was perfect. This idea of their sexuality being a "switch" that flips on or off is just not necessarily the case.

[City6]

optimates0193 wrote...

city6 wrote...

But your issue seems to be not what happens in your game, but the meta-knowledge of how other games play out (ie you can't take Merril as straight, because you are aware that in another game she isn't, even there's nothing in your game to make you even consider that).

Yet this "meta-game panic" only seems to apply to sexuality, and not the thousands of other things which are different in other people's games 


I think you're mistaking what the actual issue is. I don't think many people against this are upset for some meta reason. I know I could care less if someone has a homosexual relationship in their game. The problem is that by designing the characters in this way (That they can flip a switch on their sexuality to match Hawke's) it weakens the character. Sexuality should be a core component of the character's identity. It's part of what defines them. By designing the character to essentially have no sexual identity, it helps to make them bland, unbelievable, and boring. 

As for sexuality being fluid, I can't say I fully agree with that. For some people, I'm sure it is. For most, I don't feel that it is. Either way, whether someone's sexuality is fluid or not, it DOES NOT change the point. If someone believes that their sexual identity is fluid and can change, then that defines who they are and affects how they act. In Dragon Age 2, the characters are simply opportunistic. They have NO sexual identity - they just follow in step with whatever Hawke wants. It's an issue, because it makes the characters far less interesting and believable.

We all want options. Options can be great. The problem is if you try to make an option for EVERYTHING, you'll end up accomplishing nothing.

But for most people, sexuality *isn't* a defining characteristic. For the majority of people, sexuality defines who they are likely to fall in love with and who they find attractive, and absolutly nothing else. This is even more true in the game world, where it's been established people care little with what gender your partners are.

Any of the characters could be any sexuality, and it would have zero impact at all on their personalities.

The only impact it has is on romantic relationships in the game, and the only impact is eith "you can try or you can't try". I can't see any benefit in *removing* that option.


(I actually think the best written relationship in all of Dragon Age is a male warden and Alistair, as it's an absolutly perfectly pitched bromance, right on the tipping point of something more. Some of the best writing in the series)

Modifié par City6, 23 mars 2011 - 08:59 .

[the_one_54321]

optimates0193 wrote...

17thknight wrote...
I find that Bioware's recent trend of having no gay characters in their game, whatsoever, to be a bit off-putting. Rather than having the guts to simply have gay characters, they simply make anyone **** anyone. It's...unrealistic and a bit offensive.

This. Really, Bioware's approach to gay relationships seems extremely weak to me and I'm surprised more don't find it offensive. I would love to see a truly homosexual character, who has to struggle with what that entails. That would make for a compelling addition to the story AND help broaden a person's perspective in a meaningful way. Right now, what we have are superficial, meaningless, and in my opinion, nonsensical relationships with character's that have no identity of their own.

Like these two, I don't understand why anyone see's "make all LIs bi" as a good thing, instead of a short cut. Why wouldn't you prefer that they write more characters that fill more roles?

[Lulia]

I have nothing wrong with homosexuality at all, but sexual orientation is a fundamental element of someones personality. It defines them.

In the real world (i think it still exists) gay people might inadvertantly try it on with a straight person and alternatively a straight person might try it on with someone that is gay.

There is nothing offensive about people being told "sorry, i am gay" or "sorry i am straight".

You don't find people saying "Oh well actually i'm usually straight/gay but you are a really nice person so i'll make an exception".

So, why Bioware don't feel that they can actually have some 100% straight characters and some 100% gay characters i have no idea.

We just need two straight male characters, two straight female characters and then a lesbian and a... what are male gay people called?

I find bi-sexual characters much more unrealistic and that is what offends me.

[the_one_54321]

Lulia wrote...
what are male gay people called?

I've only ever heard them called gay. I'm not sure why there's a whole other word for gay women.