506 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser_Wilhelm]

Siansonea II wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...
The first problem is not "four people". The problem is "four out of four". It just feels not believable.

It's not four out of four, it's as many as you choose to romance with a same sex character out of four. That makes two out of four for each gender, potentially.

It's like Schrödinger's cat. Their sexual orientation is in superposition.

This is most especially true of Merrill, from what I gather she is a virgin, and if Hawke doesn't try to hit that, who knows which way she would go? Merrill is lonely, and she might be less about genitals and more about personal connection with Hawke. If anyone fits the definition of the term "Hawkesexual", it's Merrill. No one else ever reaches out to Merrill, she's been shunned by her clan, and she is an apostate in a city of templars. The only people besides Hawke who do take Merrill under their wing are Isabela and Varric, both of whom espouse a "carpe diem" lifestyle. You don't think these factors might override some general preference for innies or outies Merrill might have?

Anders and Isabella seem emphatically bisexual to me, though they might not be equally attracted to both sexes. I always felt like Izzy has a slight preference for women, and that Anders mostly prefers men. And Fenris is an amnesiac former slave—if you look in the dictionary under "damaged goods" you'll see Fenris' picture. So even if Fenris might prefer men, let's say, he might go for a woman anyway, just because she offers him something he isn't getting elsewhere in his life, somewhat in the same way as Merrill.

We can't look at these characters sexual "flexibility" apart from their other characteristics. From my observation most of them would overlook something as minor as gender in a potential mate, given how empty their lives are otherwise.

Makes sense, but I think there is also another problem. In DA:O, most characters in your party simply were friends, nothing more. It built a sense of camaraderie. In DA2, it seems every character tries to flirt or initiate romance with you, depending on approval. It's very strange when you get "hit on" by every party member because their approval went up. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it doesn't have that same sense of comradeship when you know everyone wants to get it on with you. It, in essence, kills the sense of friendship, and your party becomes this romance mechanism where no one focuses on alliance, instead focusing on romance.

Modifié par Kaiser_Wilhelm, 04 juin 2011 - 05:38 .

[Akka le Vil]

slimgrin wrote...

Alright. Take two:

Ideally, I'd like each character's sexuality to be unique, but if the resources allotted to the project don't allow that, then I guess the Bi option, and being inclusive, makes sense.

First, lack of ressources is a real argument, but it's widely overused for everything.
Second, I prefer artistic integrity to bland content - I prefer less but better (within reason, see the line above).
Third, with EA backing Bioware and the budget in the millions, "not enough ressources" for this is just laughable.

[Akka le Vil]

Siansonea II wrote...

This is most especially true of Merrill, from what I gather she is a virgin, and if Hawke doesn't try to hit that, who knows which way she would go? Merrill is lonely, and she might be less about genitals and more about personal connection with Hawke.

Yeah, because sexual orientation is just about being obsessed by genitals <_<

If anyone fits the definition [...] From my observation most of them would overlook something as minor as gender in a potential mate, given how empty their lives are otherwise.

Though your reasoning has some superficial sense in it - I'll concede that, at the very least, you could built believable personnality upon it - in the end it just feels more like rationalizing to find a way to explain rather than in-game organic development.
It doesn't help that your several attempts at showing sexual orientation being a minor after-thought for shallow people tends to give the impression that all this rationalization is made with a very specific biased agenda from the start.

[jlb524]

Kaiser_Wilhelm wrote...

Makes sense, but I think there is also another problem. In DA:O, most characters in your party simply were friends, nothing more. It built a sense of camaraderie. In DA2, it seems every character tries to flirt or initiate romance with you, depending on approval. It's very strange when you get "hit on" by every party member because their approval went up. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it doesn't have that same sense of comradeship when you know everyone wants to get it on with you. It, in essence, kills the sense of friendship, and your party becomes this romance mechanism where no one focuses on alliance, instead focusing on romance.

Did we play the same game?  I only romanced Merrill in my last pt and didn't have any one else flirt with me (not even Anders that time).  I've always felt that my Hawke had a closer friendship to each of the DA2 companions than my Warden did with the DA:O ones...I only felt she was really close to about two or three of them.  They never brought up romance and she was there just to help them/listen to their problems/etc.

Akka le Vil wrote...

Though your reasoning has some
superficial sense in it - I'll concede that, at the very least, you
could built believable personnality upon it - in the end it just feels
more like rationalizing to find a way to explain rather than in-game
organic development.
It doesn't help that your several attempts at
showing sexual orientation being a minor after-thought for shallow
people tends to give the impression that all this rationalization is
made with a very specific biased agenda from the start.

I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why the Origins companions seem to be abnormaly materialistic and shallow (100 dog bones )

Modifié par jlb524, 04 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[slimgrin]

Akka le Vil wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Alright. Take two:

Ideally, I'd like each character's sexuality to be unique, but if the resources allotted to the project don't allow that, then I guess the Bi option, and being inclusive, makes sense.

First, lack of ressources is a real argument, but it's widely overused for everything.
Second, I prefer artistic integrity to bland content - I prefer less but better (within reason, see the line above).
Third, with EA backing Bioware and the budget in the millions, "not enough ressources" for this is just laughable.

Keep in mind that project leads probably determine how resources are divied up. There might be a ton for the art dept and a pittance for the writing team. That's just an example of course, but when Bioware devs repeatedly cite this as an issue, I believe them. 

[Akka le Vil]

jlb524 wrote...

I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why the Origins companions seem to be abnormaly materialistic and shallow (100 dog bones )

I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why the jumping ninja templars in DA2 are a good idea.

[FieryDove]

Zjarcal wrote...

And you would be wrong.

David Gaider wrote...

I will say that one element of the reaction to this I find interesting is the idea that so many people believe a character's sexuality actually changes because their exposure to it changes.

Anders isn't any different a person in a game with a male PC or a female PC, for instance, yet some people seem to think that because he doesn't mention his relationship with Karl to a female player it must never have happened... and he is therefore 100% straight as opposed to being 100% gay if it is mentioned.

I believe David is wrong this time. Sorry David.

If a female hawke romances Anders she has to bludgeon him on the head…constantly to progress in the relationship. (At least it feels that way).

As a male hawke Anders *talks* and seems to really enjoy/want a male romance.

Breaking it down:
Female hawke: it’s all I’ll hurt you x many, I’ll break your heart, this will be a disaster.

Male hawke: Conversations.
That’s the reality of it.

As someone said for a lady’s man (Awakenings Anders) he sure did an about-face.
I think changing writers and voice talent is not maybe a good idea on returning characters. Having connections between games is great but not with the amount of change/loss of a character.
Justice/Vengeance aside Anders could have been a great romance for the ladies, but its left some like me cold. I adored Anders in awakening, snarky mage x1million. sigh

I’m all for opening up romances to everyone, just wish it was more level…if that makes any sense.

Modifié par FieryDove, 04 juin 2011 - 06:01 .

[Akka le Vil]

slimgrin wrote...

Keep in mind that project leads probably determine how resources are divied up. There might be a ton for the art dept and a pittance for the writing team. That's just an example of course, but when Bioware devs repeatedly cite this as an issue, I believe them.

They cite ressources limitations as an issue for EVERYTHING.
I believe them when they say that they can't just go on a rampage and include everything they could imagine because time and money are finite.
I'm more cautious when every single problem under the sun is answered with "ressources limited !" when smaller teams manage to not do the same errors, and they themselves didn't seem to have such issues in previous games.

[Bejos_]

Dear God(s)

[Siansonea]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

This is most especially true of Merrill, from what I gather she is a virgin, and if Hawke doesn't try to hit that, who knows which way she would go? Merrill is lonely, and she might be less about genitals and more about personal connection with Hawke.

Yeah, because sexual orientation is just about being obsessed by genitals <_<

If anyone fits the definition [...] From my observation most of them would overlook something as minor as gender in a potential mate, given how empty their lives are otherwise.

Though your reasoning has some superficial sense in it - I'll concede that, at the very least, you could built believable personnality upon it - in the end it just feels more like rationalizing to find a way to explain rather than in-game organic development.
It doesn't help that your several attempts at showing sexual orientation being a minor after-thought for shallow people tends to give the impression that all this rationalization is made with a very specific biased agenda from the start.

Oooookeeeey. Biased Agenda? Welcome to the Biased Agenda Social Network. If you're supposed to be the tentpole for Dispassionate Neutrality, I'd say you're really bad at it.

The thing is the characters' sexuality for me was not the bold and underlined facet of their characters. Fenris never flirted with any of my Hawkes, unless they flirted with him first. And even then, it never went anywhere, just like flirting with Aveline never went anywhere. Likewise, Merrill only flirted with the Hawke that actively pursued her, my other Hawke's didn't even have to turn her away. But even in that situation, Merrill's desire to reach out to someone makes sense, given everything else we know about the character—the really bold and underlined theme of isolation Merrill shows. For all we know, Merrill also made similar overtures to Varric, Aveline and Isabela (okay, probably not Aveline). Varric feels too 'fatherly' toward Merrill, and Izzy sees her as a kid sister, so they would have tried to let her down easily, no doubt. Really it's skeevy of anyone to take advantage of poor, fragile Merrill. Honestly, and without any sort of agenda, it would make less sense for Merrill to be limited by her "sexuality" given her character, because Merrill is desperately looking for acceptance and personal connection. Any port in a storm, as they say.

Anders and Isabela come on pretty strong with Hawke, but Izzy is easy to bed and hard to woo. Izzy will sleep with anyone who's interesting and attractive enough, but her heart? Off-limits. That's what makes her romance storyline so interesting. Some metagame notion that it plays out the same regardless of Hawke's gender doesn't really kill the quality of the story for me. With Anders, he's an apostate in a city of Templars, and an abomination at that. Anders' personality has fused with an asexual spirit of Justice. They became a fused personality, with aspects of each personality combining to create a NEW entity. Anders is really Anders-Justice now, not a house with two tenants. Justice was a spirit that saw things in black and white, and didn't distinguish among persons the same way Anders did. It stands to reason that the hybrid (not multiple!) personality might have a more neutral attitude toward a potential love interest's gender than Anders originally did (IF that was the case with Anders originally). But everyone always says "Anders is so different than he was in Awakenings", without stopping to realize that Anders is very much a different person altogether in DA2. Honestly, Anders implacable hatred of Templars was much more of a bold and underlined story element than the notion that Hawke's gender plays no role in Anders' attraction to Hawke.

[jlb524]

Akka le Vil wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why the Origins companions seem to be abnormaly materialistic and shallow (100 dog bones )

I'm still waiting for a rational explanation as to why the jumping ninja templars in DA2 are a good idea.

We can sit here and pick apart every game design decision.

I like their gameplay choice to make all LIs bi..no wait, I love love love it.  No one has convinced me yet that this is a bad thing/needlessly unrealistic/leads to poor characterization/etc. and all I see is people wanting to have a larger slice of the pie so they can feel more special than those that don't get it.  It reminds me of my nine year old sister who thinks she's entiled to more dessert than the rest of the family for some reason

Though, in that case, if I get more, she gets less, so I can understand that.  My Lady Hawke having more female romance options in DA2 didn't affect the amount of female romance options available to Man Hawke.

I have yet to hear one good argument against it that cannot be easily shot down with a counter-example from another BW title.

Plus, dropping ninjas isn't optional content that can be ignored, while romances are....I hate the DA:O gift system but I just don't use it...limiting gifts to 'special' items for each companion.  I don't like feeling as if I'm buying someone's affection...which is part of the reason I avoid romancing Morrigan entirely, as I tend to play 'good' characters.

Modifié par jlb524, 04 juin 2011 - 06:33 .

[SilentK]

jlb524 wrote...

We can sit here and pick apart every game design decision.

I like their gameplay choice to make all LIs bi..no wait, I love love love it.  No one has convinced me yet that this is a bad thing/needlessly unrealistic/leads to poor characterization/etc. and all I see is people wanting to have a larger slice of the pie so they can feel more special than those that don't get it.  It reminds me of my nine year old sister who thinks she's entiled to more dessert than the rest of the family for some reason

Though, in that case, if I get more, she gets less, so I can understand that.  My Lady Hawke having more female romance options in DA2 didn't affect the amount of female romance options available to Man Hawke.

I have yet to hear one good argument against it that cannot be easily shot down with a counter-example from another BW title.

Plus, dropping ninjas isn't optional content that can be ignored, while romances are....I hate the DA:O gift system but I just don't use it...limiting gifts to 'special' items for each companion.  I don't like feeling as if I'm buying someone's affection...which is part of the reason I avoid romancing Morrigan entirely, as I tend to play 'good' characters.

Jupp.... Very much this     

Someone being able to start a s/s-relation does not mean less opportunities for a m/f-relation. If you don't wish to see this in your game then don't flirt with them. It's really up to bioware but I'm guessing that if enough people pursue s/s-relations they will keep it in the game. If it is a feature that is popular in the game it doesn't make sense not to have it. lol, I'm doing my bit to keep the numbers up. Next time I'll do the rivalmance with Merrill    

[Akka le Vil]

jlb524 wrote...

We can sit here and pick apart every game design decision.

My point seems to have flew ten meters above your head, so I guess I'll have to explain it more plainly :

Your question was completely bogus, because you asked me to justify a game element that I never even talked about.

I asked in return a completely unrelated question (because obviously, ninja templar have nothing to do with romance), but you seemingly failed to understand the message - which was : "what the hell have the gifts to do with the sexual orientation subject, and why the hell are you asking me to justify them while I've never even mentioned it ?

I like their gameplay choice to make all LIs bi..no wait, I love love love it.  No one has convinced me yet that this is a bad thing/needlessly unrealistic/leads to poor characterization/etc.

Considering you "don't care" about everything the point is about, it's not surprising that you aren't convinced.
It's a bit like someone putting his finghers in his ears and shouting "lalala I can't hear you" and then boasting that as he could hear nobody offering a good counter-argument, it means none were offered.

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 04 juin 2011 - 06:58 .

[Siansonea]

What I would like to know is:

What "missed opportunity" was to be had by Exclusively Gay Anders, Exclusively Gay Isabela, Exclusively Straight Merrill, and Exclusively Straight Fenris? What wonderful nuggets of role-playing goodness did we miss out on because those characters were open to either gender sexually?

Sexuality isn't identity. In our current culture and time a lot of people think it is, because people make a big deal about it. But when it comes right down to it, you sexuality is just the type of person you like to have sex with and fall in love with—that's the ONLY aspect of your personality it governs. If you're friends with someone, their sexuality doesn't come into play, it's all the other facets of their personality that are the focus of the friendship.

[slimgrin]

Siansonea II wrote...

Sexuality isn't identity.

Yes it is. Yes it is. YES IT IS.

[Maugrim]

No ones sexuality affects their personality. How some people react to other peoples sexuality can and usually does affect their personality. And anyone who can't tell why those two things are different is completely dense.

[jlb524]

slimgrin wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Sexuality isn't identity.

Yes it is. Yes it is. YES IT IS.

Only in a society that makes it so.

[Siansonea]

slimgrin wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Sexuality isn't identity.

Yes it is. Yes it is. YES IT IS.

I disagree Slim. I think that if we didn't make a big deal about it, it wouldn't matter. People would just love who they love, and everything ELSE about our personalities would come to the fore. Our hopes and dreams, our likes and dislikes, our causes, our hobbies, our strengths and weaknesses. But because our society tells us to line up in these queues of Straight, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, etc., we give them more focus than they probably had at other times and places in human history. But we're all human first, and things like gender, sexuality, ethnicity, etc., only have as much weight as we give them, consciously or unconsciously. That's what I think, anyway.

Modifié par Siansonea II, 04 juin 2011 - 07:16 .

[Anathemic]

Siansonea II wrote...

What I would like to know is:

What "missed opportunity" was to be had by Exclusively Gay Anders, Exclusively Gay Isabela, Exclusively Straight Merrill, and Exclusively Straight Fenris? What wonderful nuggets of role-playing goodness did we miss out on because those characters were open to either gender sexually?

Sexuality isn't identity. In our current culture and time a lot of people think it is, because people make a big deal about it. But when it comes right down to it, you sexuality is just the type of person you like to have sex with and fall in love with—that's the ONLY aspect of your personality it governs. If you're friends with someone, their sexuality doesn't come into play, it's all the other facets of their personality that are the focus of the friendship.

But this is a BioWare came we are talking about, and friendship doesn't cut it.

[Maugrim]

jlb524 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Sexuality isn't identity.

Yes it is. Yes it is. YES IT IS.

Only in a society that makes it so.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER



I don't care that I am a lesbian.  I do care that people reactions to me being a lesbian can be severe, like getting me killed for that fact alone.  Homophobia is not really present in Thedas except in minute quantities so sexuality isn't a big issue.

[Siansonea]

Anathemic wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

What I would like to know is:

What "missed opportunity" was to be had by Exclusively Gay Anders, Exclusively Gay Isabela, Exclusively Straight Merrill, and Exclusively Straight Fenris? What wonderful nuggets of role-playing goodness did we miss out on because those characters were open to either gender sexually?

Sexuality isn't identity. In our current culture and time a lot of people think it is, because people make a big deal about it. But when it comes right down to it, you sexuality is just the type of person you like to have sex with and fall in love with—that's the ONLY aspect of your personality it governs. If you're friends with someone, their sexuality doesn't come into play, it's all the other facets of their personality that are the focus of the friendship.

But this is a BioWare came we are talking about, and friendship doesn't cut it.

You didn't answer the question though. What gems were tossed away to make these characters bisexual? I'd really like to know how changing this one decision would have resulted in better characterizations, because I personally liked these characters a great deal. Liked to hate them in some cases, but that's still better than the apathy I feel toward Varric.

[jlb524]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Your question was completely bogus, because you asked me to justify a game element that I never even talked about.

I asked in return a completely unrelated question (because obviously, ninja templar have nothing to do with romance), but you seemingly failed to understand the message - which was : "what the hell have the gifts to do with the sexual orientation subject, and why the hell are you asking me to justify them while I've never even mentioned it ?

Ah, you are missing the point...did you read the previous discussion on the Origins romances?  You want to say (about DA2) "X romance stuff in game is bad b/c Y" and I've been saying "X romance stuff is also in DA:O and that's bad b/c Y" but no one cares about Y when in Origins, so I was merely pointing out the double standards, which no one is addressing.

Akka le Vil wrote...
Considering you "don't care" about everything the point is about, it's not surprising that you aren't convinced.
It's a bit like someone putting his finghers in his ears and shouting "lalala I can't hear you" and then boasting that as he could hear nobody offering a good counter-argument, it means none were offered.

No, I hear the arguments....they are circular though and basically boil down to "this is bad just cuz it is and I don't like it"....everyone's argument is pretty vague and no one can actually give me concrete examples as to why all bi LIs ruins characterization/lore/narrtive, etc.   Simply repeating those platitudes won't cut it.

Modifié par jlb524, 04 juin 2011 - 07:20 .

[Siansonea]

jlb524 wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Your question was completely bogus, because you asked me to justify a game element that I never even talked about.

I asked in return a completely unrelated question (because obviously, ninja templar have nothing to do with romance), but you seemingly failed to understand the message - which was : "what the hell have the gifts to do with the sexual orientation subject, and why the hell are you asking me to justify them while I've never even mentioned it ?

Ah, you are missing the point...did you read the previous discussion on the Origins romances?  You want to say (about DA2) "X romance stuff in game is bad b/c Y" and I've been saying "X romance stuff is also in DA:O and that's bad b/c Y" but no one cares about Y when in Origins, so I was merely pointing out the double standards, which no one is addressing.

Akka le Vil wrote...
Considering you "don't care" about everything the point is about, it's not surprising that you aren't convinced.
It's a bit like someone putting his finghers in his ears and shouting "lalala I can't hear you" and then boasting that as he could hear nobody offering a good counter-argument, it means none were offered.

No, I hear the arguments....they are circular though and basically boil down to "this is bad just cuz it is and I don't like it"....everyone's argument is pretty vague and no one can actually give me concrete examples as to why all bi LIs ruins characterization/lore/narrtive, etc.   Simply repeating those platitudes won't cut it.

*highfives you*

And that's the basis of my point a couple of posts back. I'd really like to know how they think Anders, Isabela, Fenris and Merrill would have been better characters if they were exclusively gay or straight as opposed to being bisexual. I'd like SPECIFIC character ideas about those characters that are so wonderful that they would offset the loss of gameplay possibilities due to the decision to make them exclusively open to a single gender Hawke. Just saying "they could have been better" doesn't cut it. HOW, exactly, could they have been better, I wonder?

Modifié par Siansonea II, 04 juin 2011 - 07:23 .

[Anathemic]

makenzieshepard wrote...

jlb524 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...

Sexuality isn't identity.

Yes it is. Yes it is. YES IT IS.

Only in a society that makes it so.

DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINNER



I don't care that I am a lesbian.  I do care that people reactions to me being a lesbian can be severe, like getting me killed for that fact alone.  Homophobia is not really present in Thedas except in minute quantities so sexuality isn't a big issue.

What does homophobia have to do with it? I thought the discussion was the realism-issue.

Even if you claim sexuality doesn't affect personality, it does affect the course/possiblity of a in-depth relationship past the threshold of 'friends' which in a BioWare game, friendship doesn't cut it.

So now that 'friendship' is out of the picture, let us remind ourselves that sexuality oreintation is a fickle topic, people claim it's genetic whereas other people claim that the individual can change it. Whatever the case, the issue here is one's own sexuality orientation affecting a relationship.

For a straight person, said straight person won't pursue the same sex nor likes to be targeted by the same sex for a relationship.
For a homosexual person, said homosexual person won't pursue the opposite sex, nor likes to be targeted by the opposite sex for a relationship.
For a bisexual person, said bisexual is would like a relationship with either sex, and doesn't care if being pursued by both sexes for a relationship.

These are 3 factors of sexuality orientation to take into account, and said 3 factors must be shown realistically in a 'BioWare game.' It doesn't matter if society is open to any kind of sexuality, the issue is with the individual him/herself.

Obviously 2/3 of the 3 sexual orientation factors have a 'reserved outlook' on sexuality oreintation. Therefore it can be reasonable inferred that there will be some barriers that have to be shown/expressed in some way in a 'Bioware game' dealing with relationships.

Not even that, but if you take into account that the 'evolutionary aspect' prefers straights to progress a species. Then you can pretty damn sure that the factors are more sided to the ones having a 'reserved outlook' o nsexuality oreintation.

Again, it's not what society dictates, it's what the individual him/herself dictates.