368 réponses à ce sujet

[RangerSG]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
Immersion, personality characters and story are very important for a lot and I do not see how their concerns would be less important than gay people.[/i]

This is not about 'gay people' vs 'people who value character.' That's an utterly disingenuous way to phrase the conversation.

Unless of course if it comes to politics.

Including same-sex romances is a sociopolitical comment. There's no getting around it.

It's about people assuming the politics matters more than verisimiltude in the story, and that IS a legitimate concern. The player is not God, or even the writer. They are not in the place of molding everyone's character to their needs. Criminy, as a writer I know that's bad when I do that for *my* stories.

And there's a difference between being accepting of one's audience and pandering to it. Anything can be a sociopolitical comment if you examine it thoroughly enough, because we don't create art in a vacuum. But that doesn't absolve a writer of the need to create a believable and immersive setting with real characters, not cliches.

[Boiny Bunny]

Most Bioware characters are cliches as a whole, wouldn't you say? That's not even getting started on their sexuality.

[whykikyouwhy]

RangerSG wrote...

It's about people assuming the politics matters more than verisimiltude in the story, and that IS a legitimate concern. The player is not God, or even the writer. They are not in the place of molding everyone's character to their needs. Criminy, as a writer I know that's bad when I do that for *my* stories.

And there's a difference between being accepting of one's audience and pandering to it. Anything can be a sociopolitical comment if you examine it thoroughly enough, because we don't create art in a vacuum. But that doesn't absolve a writer of the need to create a believable and immersive setting with real characters, not cliches.

I'm quite late to this thread and have done my best to go over all that has been said on the subject already. I feel I need to jump in though.

I don't agree that there was pandering in DA2. I don't feel like the same-sex LI options were overt or pushy. Nothing was forced, and really, I felt that much was left to the interpretation of the player. If, as F!Hawke, I didn't flirt with Merrill, I probably would have thought she was just a cute elf mage who had a thing for the Qunari. If as M!Hawke, I didn't flirt with Fenris, I would have thought that he was just a rather loyal friend who had a passing fancy for Isabela. Having the options to engage in S/S romances with characters wasn't something painted on every alleyway in Kirkwall, or found on every leaflet crammed in some rubble. As a player, I wasn't questing or battling with the constant awareness of the sexuality of the characters.

I understand that immersion is important. Why spend money on a game that you're only going to play in a half-hearted way. Players want to be wrapped up in the storyline, they want to see a part of themselves in their characters and live out those great impossible delusions of grandeur. But players come in all shapes, sizes and creeds. There has to be some balance somewhere. I don't envy the developers in trying to establish that happy medium. But just as I don't begrudge all those games where I had to play a male character and rescue a princess, or where there was no female representation at all, I would hope that other players wouldn't begrudge a game that gives me (and many like me) the chance to turn things around and see a different side of the cookie-cutter formula.

Sure, we have a long way to go with same-sex representation in entertainment (amongst other things), but I think Bioware has done a hell of a job.

Just my 2 cents.

[Maria Caliban]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't feel like the same-sex LI options were overt or pushy.

Isabela was overt and Anders was pushy.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 15 juin 2011 - 11:57 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't feel like the same-sex LI options were overt or pushy.

Isabela was overt and Anders was pushy.

Point taken.   

[mesmerizedish]

Maria Caliban wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't feel like the same-sex LI options were overt or pushy.

Isabela was overt and Anders was pushy.

That's true regardless of the relationship's orientation.

[RangerSG]

Maria Caliban wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't feel like the same-sex LI options were overt or pushy.

Isabela was overt and Anders was pushy.

Agreed. Though Isabella was overt toward anyone. Anders was only pushy same sex, which was problematic given the change in personality that represented from Awakening. I only had an issue with the second, because by changing his personality so radically, it did feel like pandering.

[hoorayforicecream]

RangerSG wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

I don't feel like the same-sex LI options were overt or pushy.

Isabela was overt and Anders was pushy.

Agreed. Though Isabella was overt toward anyone. Anders was only pushy same sex, which was problematic given the change in personality that represented from Awakening. I only had an issue with the second, because by changing his personality so radically, it did feel like pandering.

I felt that Anders was pretty pushy toward my Lady Hawke when I played through. It's just more socially accepted in terms of gender roles, because he's got the dangly bits and my Hawke had the lady parts. When it was dude on dude, I can see how it is brought more into focus - you've got the beta male pushing on the alpha male.

[Sutekh]

RangerSG wrote...
And there's a difference between being accepting of one's audience and pandering to it. Anything can be a sociopolitical comment if you examine it thoroughly enough, because we don't create art in a vacuum. But that doesn't absolve a writer of the need to create a believable and immersive setting with real characters, not cliches.

How is it pandering? I have the option, for once, to be able to play any sexual orientation with more than one LI. It is important for me for various reasons, one being having one bit of a privilege I'm not used to (yep, that's politics, I admit). You have the option not to do so. Why on earth do people care what other people do with their games? If you want to put boundaries in the name of literary integrity, which is perfectly understandable, do so.

Make each playthrough their own little universe. It's not that different than a Templar Warrior Blonde Female Hawke in one and an anti-Meredith Mage Dark-Haired Male Hawke in another. Two different universes. Contrary to a written story with a linear plot, a CRPG with choices, by definition, doesn't have One Truth.

If we follow the reasoning that politics shouldn't interfere, then this particular aspect of the different universes shouldn't be more important than those cited above. If I play a quasi-evil Warden, isn't that going against the "believable setting"? If I manipulate Leliana into forgiving my destroying the ashes, isn't that transforming an NPC to my own desires and views, and making her acting extremely OOC, in my interpretation? How is that different, if we exclude "politics"?

I know the horse is in a skeletal state by now, so beating it more is overkill, but I don't understand why it is so crucial that options and choices should be taken from me, while it shouldn't matter to people who have no idea of how I play my game and are still able to play theirs as they wish, in the name of an integrity that is only broken because the player has a knowledge the character hasn't.

[RangerSG]

Sutekh wrote...

RangerSG wrote...
And there's a difference between being accepting of one's audience and pandering to it. Anything can be a sociopolitical comment if you examine it thoroughly enough, because we don't create art in a vacuum. But that doesn't absolve a writer of the need to create a believable and immersive setting with real characters, not cliches.

How is it pandering? I have the option, for once, to be able to play any sexual orientation with more than one LI. It is important for me for various reasons, one being having one bit of a privilege I'm not used to (yep, that's politics, I admit). You have the option not to do so. Why on earth do people care what other people do with their games? If you want to put boundaries in the name of literary integrity, which is perfectly understandable, do so.

Make each playthrough their own little universe. It's not that different than a Templar Warrior Blonde Female Hawke in one and an anti-Meredith Mage Dark-Haired Male Hawke in another. Two different universes. Contrary to a written story with a linear plot, a CRPG with choices, by definition, doesn't have One Truth.

If we follow the reasoning that politics shouldn't interfere, then this particular aspect of the different universes shouldn't be more important than those cited above. If I play a quasi-evil Warden, isn't that going against the "believable setting"? If I manipulate Leliana into forgiving my destroying the ashes, isn't that transforming an NPC to my own desires and views, and making her acting extremely OOC, in my interpretation? How is that different, if we exclude "politics"?

I know the horse is in a skeletal state by now, so beating it more is overkill, but I don't understand why it is so crucial that options and choices should be taken from me, while it shouldn't matter to people who have no idea of how I play my game and are still able to play theirs as they wish, in the name of an integrity that is only broken because the player has a knowledge the character hasn't.

No, the quasi-evil Warden isn't going against the setting, because the Wardens don't hold to any altruism. They believe in stopping Blights, period. Now manipulating Leliana like that does strike me as an excessive bit of character-breaking. I don't approve of that either.

Options are great, as long as they're consistent with the character and setting. Options for the sake of options is not great. And when it's done to appeal to one segment of the audience over another, yes, that's pandering.

[whykikyouwhy]

RangerSG wrote...

No, the quasi-evil Warden isn't going against the setting, because the Wardens don't hold to any altruism. They believe in stopping Blights, period. Now manipulating Leliana like that does strike me as an excessive bit of character-breaking. I don't approve of that either.

Options are great, as long as they're consistent with the character and setting. Options for the sake of options is not great. And when it's done to appeal to one segment of the audience over another, yes, that's pandering.

For the sake of argument, couldn't I, as a player who is gay, just as easily say that hetero-sexual romances in a game are pandering? That the straight audience segment is being catered or appealed to in that scenario simply because those opposite sex options are introduced or available and they do not fall in line with how I would either live my life or play out my character's life?

[Maria Caliban]

I have no idea how Anders treats dudes, but my Lady Hawke was less than impressed with his "Pleased to meet you. My friend is dead! Love me?" routine.

But it was a good roleplaying moment. My first Hawke flirted with him and then avoided Anders for the next year while my second Hawke told him to back off and then laughed when he got huffy.

whykikyouwhy wrote...
For the sake of argument, couldn't I, as a player who is gay, just as easily say that hetero-sexual romances in a game are pandering?

Sake of argument?

I've said it myself several times; it's true. There's a segments of people who are ravenous about the romances and most of them are straight.

I assume the writers enjoy writing them (I hope they do) but I can't imagine in terms of written content, it's the most efficient use of resources. Chris Priestly has said several times that the majority of players don't do romances.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 16 juin 2011 - 12:35 .

[MinotaurWarrior]

I'm very surprised by all of this backlash. To me, it is really quite simple: I hate having choices made for me in games.

In DAII, I decided I was going to play as a male (because I'm a dude who prefers playing dudes) mage (because I'm a dude who can't preform miracles, but I wish I could) who was strong willed, determined, and willing to pursue what he saw as right, at any cost (because I admire those traits). Anders seemed like the best fit for a romance out of all the NPCs, and though I would have preferred it if there was an Anderella (because I'm straight) I greatly enjoyed being able to go through a relationship with him, instead of being told "sorry, you don't get to see this part of the story, because you're a guy"

To me, RPGs are all about having a set of ridiculous, unbelievable choices (decide the fate of nations! decide to be a human, dwarf, or elf! determine what sort of supernatural abilities you have!). It sort of defeats the whole purpose if you can't make the choices you want to.

Now, there are two main issues I can understand having with "everyone being bi", and two counterarguments I have.

1st, strict heterosexuality is the vastly more common sexual orientation. I've read that 90% of all people are exclusively heterosexual. I also know from experience that more than 90% of all people are useless in a fight. Dwarves are a dying race in Thedas, with only two cities left in the world, yet in both DA games you get a Dwarven companion. Adventuring parties are not representative samples of the general population.

2nd, the sexuality of characters changing between playthroughs is immersion breaking. Again, I think this is something you can get over, because everyone is used to having an entirely different player character in each playthrough. Hell, if you made a dark-skinned Hawke, you've changed your whole family tree, and there's probably now a story (never stated, just in your imagination) about how a Rivaini family established itself in Kirkwall! If you're a mage, your brother spent his whole life wondering why he was the only one born without magic, and this played a huge part in his development as a person.

[Ryzaki]

I really don't understand why people care.

There's far more glaring inconsistencies to worry about then what gender your NPC companions feel like screwing.

That said I'd lol so hard if we got one bi option and one gay option. Let's see how fast some of those "sexuality is personality!" people cry foul  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 16 juin 2011 - 12:34 .

[Pasquale1234]

RangerSG wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...
Immersion, personality characters and story are very important for a lot and I do not see how their concerns would be less important than gay people.[/i]

This is not about 'gay people' vs 'people who value character.' That's an utterly disingenuous way to phrase the conversation.

Unless of course if it comes to politics.

Including same-sex romances is a sociopolitical comment. There's no getting around it.

It's about people assuming the politics matters more than verisimiltude in the story, and that IS a legitimate concern. The player is not God, or even the writer. They are not in the place of molding everyone's character to their needs. Criminy, as a writer I know that's bad when I do that for *my* stories.

And there's a difference between being accepting of one's audience and pandering to it. Anything can be a sociopolitical comment if you examine it thoroughly enough, because we don't create art in a vacuum. But that doesn't absolve a writer of the need to create a believable and immersive setting with real characters, not cliches.

Why should they pander to -your- version of verisimilitude any more than anyone else's?

What of the theory that the vast majority of humans are, in fact, pansexual (drawn to intimacy with an entire person regardless of which type of private parts they sport).  Where hefty social and religious pressure push people to romance only persons of the opposite sex, you will certainly see most people choosing primarily opposite sex romantic relationships.  Without those pressures, why wouldn't more people be open to relationships with the right person of either sex?

And yes, those pressures do make a significant difference in the kinds of liasons people form.  I know several people irl who married and made families with opposite sex partners only to come out of the closet in mid-life.

Personality/Character definition?  I don't get it.  The people I know who came out in mid-life did not suddenly become entirely different people.  They just chose a different label to describe their own personal sexual orientation, and started acting on what they believe to be more genuine for them.  Perhaps none of them got the memo that says they are supposed to be entirely different personalities since they are now bumping different uglies.

Sexual orientation is a self-selected label used to describe one's attractions and chemistry.  It is not a perfect tool, but seems to be the only one we have at this time.

We know that there is no religious condemnation of same-sex relationships in Thedas, and there does not appear to be any specific cultural bias against it, either.  Perhaps the citizens of Thedas just aren't all that stressed about it...

[thenemesis77]

Aaleel wrote...

I don't care one way or the other but...

I think your companions should be a mixture. All bi-sexual just makes all the romances generic to me. Maybe just have a completely homosexual party member, heterosexual, and bi-sexual, but don't make them all bi-sexual again.

This right here.....not everyone in the world is bi-sexual and to me that was one point that just made the game really bad and why I played Lady Hawke most, I hated having every guy treat my Maile Hawke like he was some trick candy, it just didn't go over good with me and the same as you say goes for the ones of us that are not "Gay". It feels the same as we were attacked.  The sword cuts both ways, I just don't feel like I want to be in a meat factory.  I still think there is a way to make it good for both Gay and the 'Non" Gay of us.

[Kidd]

Elcariel wrote...

Until you said this, I never considered Isabella a realistic character. But now I do.

I have no idea how to read that. Any way I try reading it, it sounds like an insult to either transwomen or ciswomen. Hm... perhaps I'm better off not knowing. I love Isabela, and I don't dislike the idea of her being T, I guess perhaps I should leave it at that.

Sylvianus wrote...

Not a problem for you, but a big probem for a lot as said the dear John Elper. Many people want realism, many people want to see sexual identities in their game. Gay or hetero, it doesn't matter.

I just don't get why there is such strong emphasis on sexual orientation. I don't really give two darns what orientation people are, it's just something in the back of my head that reminds me when it's appropriate to say "damn, does that person have quite the ass or what?" depending on which gender just walked by. All I want is options for my characters, why do we have to focus so much on these big terms and stuff?

Sylvianus wrote...

Because it's silly, because it answers to the policy, because it's cheaper. That's why.  There is no legitimacy to destroy the sexuality of the characters. It's already difficult to believe that, then if there isn't really good reason to do this kind of things, even more. It's bad.

Leliana, Zevran and Liara are "silly" because they're bisexual (please, no asari gender debate, not the right thread)? They're just bisexual characters. If you don't find them silly then how could it be silly if we got 4 completely new bisexual LIs in DA3? I can definitely understand those who feel changing someone's already set orientation in ME3 might come off as odd (I'd be all for all bi in ME3 as well, but that's just my opinion), cause that's changing an already existant character. But you cannot change what hasn't been there before.

And bisexuality is a completely normal sexual orientation, and not "cheap" or "silly" by any means.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 16 juin 2011 - 01:13 .

[whykikyouwhy]

thenemesis77 wrote...

This right here.....not everyone in the world is bi-sexual and to me that was one point that just made the game really bad and why I played Lady Hawke most, I hated having every guy treat my Maile Hawke like he was some trick candy, it just didn't go over good with me and the same as you say goes for the ones of us that are not "Gay". It feels the same as we were attacked.  The sword cuts both ways, I just don't feel like I want to be in a meat factory.  I still think there is a way to make it good for both Gay and the 'Non" Gay of us.

I would totally go see a concert where Meat Factory was opening for Trick Candy.

Snark aside, and taking into consideration the flirting of both Isabela and Anders (thank you Maria), I don't know what combo of dialogue or decisions you made in the game that made your Male Hawke a walking magnet for the men of Thedas. I haven't played that path - it must have been fun.

And I go back to what I said earlier - it's tough to strike a balance. But there are choices in the game. Be diplomatic, be sarcastic, be aggressive, or be flirty - all are dialogue options that shift how the other characters react to your Hawke. No one pinned Hawke to a wall in some kind of "attack" unless you, as Hawke, prompted an advance and gave the"come hither" look. No one tugged Hawke into the bedroom unless you, as Hawke, selected that little heart icon.

[Agamo45]

JohnEpler wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Good God, is this all you people care about? You just have to shove this "same-sex" crap into the mix every chance you get don't you? Are you not going to stop until every single character is bi/gay? This is getting ridiculous.

For many people, this is an incredibly important issue. Greater representation of same-sex romances in media is something they strive towards because, well, they currently don't have this representation. Unlike heterosexual folks, they can't watch a tv show, read a book or play a game and have a greater than 50% chance that they'll see a relationship or character that they can identify with in the same way that the rest of the population can.

So for them, it -is- a major issue, and one that goes beyond the level of 'I want more character customization options' or 'I think that there needs to be more branching in the story'. Those are game-specific considerations, and while they're certainly valid - they don't speak to larger social issues. This is not true of same-sex romance - there's a lot more going on there, and as such, it will remain a fairly significant topic of discussion on these (and other, I imagine) forums.

Which is a fancy way of saying, essentially - no one forced you into this thread. If you have something constructive to say, please do so! However, coming in and saying what amounts to 'another thread about being equally and fairly represented in media? Why do you guys care so much about being able to identify with characters and romances that represent you and your sexual orientation?' It's not a convincing argument, and comes across as rather overly hostile.

Given the ratio of hetero to bi/gay in DA2, I'd say they're far more than "equally represented". And it seems that ME3 is going in the same direction. How much farther is it going to go?

[hoorayforicecream]

Agamo45 wrote...

Given the ratio of hetero to bi/gay in DA2, I'd say they're far more than "equally represented". And it seems that ME3 is going in the same direction. How much farther is it going to go?

There were no gay LIs in DA2.  Are you trying to say that bi and gay are somehow the same?

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 16 juin 2011 - 01:24 .

[Pasquale1234]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

thenemesis77 wrote...

This right here.....not everyone in the world is bi-sexual and to me that was one point that just made the game really bad and why I played Lady Hawke most, I hated having every guy treat my Maile Hawke like he was some trick candy, it just didn't go over good with me and the same as you say goes for the ones of us that are not "Gay". It feels the same as we were attacked.  The sword cuts both ways, I just don't feel like I want to be in a meat factory.  I still think there is a way to make it good for both Gay and the 'Non" Gay of us.

I would totally go see a concert where Meat Factory was opening for Trick Candy.

Snark aside, and taking into consideration the flirting of both Isabela and Anders (thank you Maria), I don't know what combo of dialogue or decisions you made in the game that made your Male Hawke a walking magnet for the men of Thedas. I haven't played that path - it must have been fun.

And I go back to what I said earlier - it's tough to strike a balance. But there are choices in the game. Be diplomatic, be sarcastic, be aggressive, or be flirty - all are dialogue options that shift how the other characters react to your Hawke. No one pinned Hawke to a wall in some kind of "attack" unless you, as Hawke, prompted an advance and gave the"come hither" look. No one tugged Hawke into the bedroom unless you, as Hawke, selected that little heart icon.

My female Hawkes have also been rewarded with rivalry points for turning Anders down.

My female Wardens learned to avoid conversations with Alistair once she'd achieved a certain approval rating with him and gotten his personal quest.  Otherwise, I was stuck looking at that rose in my inventory for the rest of the game.  

[ImoenBaby]

Agamo45 wrote...

Given the ratio of hetero to bi/gay in DA2, I'd say they're far more than "equally represented". And it seems that ME3 is going in the same direction. How much farther is it going to go?

Actually, same-sex romance is less than equally represented in DA2, if you count Sebastian.

You seem alarmed and angered that non-hetero players get more choice. Am I wrong?

No one's forcing you to play this ONE game out of hundreds. Non-hetero gamers get to join in for once - and for this one game, maybe two...and you're upset?

(edited for blockquote)

Modifié par ImoenBaby, 16 juin 2011 - 01:30 .

[Agamo45]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Given the ratio of hetero to bi/gay in DA2, I'd say they're far more than "equally represented". And it seems that ME3 is going in the same direction. How much farther is it going to go?

There were no gay LIs in DA2.  Are you trying to say that bi and gay are somehow the same?

Don't see much difference, one just can't make up their mind about which they want to be.

[standardpack]

JohnEpler wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Good God, is this all you people care about? You just have to shove this "same-sex" crap into the mix every chance you get don't you? Are you not going to stop until every single character is bi/gay? This is getting ridiculous.

For many people, this is an incredibly important issue. Greater representation of same-sex romances in media is something they strive towards because, well, they currently don't have this representation. Unlike heterosexual folks, they can't watch a tv show, read a book or play a game and have a greater than 50% chance that they'll see a relationship or character that they can identify with in the same way that the rest of the population can.

So for them, it -is- a major issue, and one that goes beyond the level of 'I want more character customization options' or 'I think that there needs to be more branching in the story'. Those are game-specific considerations, and while they're certainly valid - they don't speak to larger social issues. This is not true of same-sex romance - there's a lot more going on there, and as such, it will remain a fairly significant topic of discussion on these (and other, I imagine) forums.

But does that necessarily mean you had to make EVERY romance option bi-sexual?

[hoorayforicecream]

Agamo45 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...

Given the ratio of hetero to bi/gay in DA2, I'd say they're far more than "equally represented". And it seems that ME3 is going in the same direction. How much farther is it going to go?

There were no gay LIs in DA2.  Are you trying to say that bi and gay are somehow the same?

Don't see much difference, one just can't make up their mind about which they want to be.

Yet you see a significant difference between bi and hetero?