645 réponses à ce sujet

[Sutekh]

22nd MadJack wrote...
We understand fictional realities based on our experiences within our own.  In essence, within a fictional world, truth is by default what is true in our own reality.  For example, you assume people will adhere to gravity and walk around using their legs.  In order to form the fictional world, the creator demonstrates to you what is different to our reality.  The creator may demonstrate that gravity can be circumvented through Magic.  A fictional world is essentially the sum of these differences.

 /snip/ (see below)

We are human beings.  We are homophobic, racist and mysogynistic.  We lie, we cheat, we steal, we murder.  No amount of magic is going to change that.

No. The only trait inherent to human beings is racism, and even then "xenophobia" would be more accurate, as in fear/dislike of the Stranger. The two others are social traits born of religions, philosophy, morality, and the like.

There have been matriarchal societies, and there have been a distinct lack of homophobia in, for instance, ancient Greece and Rome. Don't confuse humanity with western society as it is now and have been since the fall of the Roman Empire (or thousands of years in other parts of the world).

Where Thedas is concerned, the foundation of society is different. Regardless of magic, the Chantry, for instance, is matriarchal. Andraste is a woman. People don't make a difference either whether a man or a woman is the reigning monarch. Dwarves seem to, as do Qunari, but they don't represent the dominant Thedas culture. Humans do. Humans, in Thedas, haven't been shaped by the same things than us.

In a world of magic ... would our priorities be different?  I am going to go with no.  We are human beings and human beings have a fairly standard set of priorities. Survival,  Reproduction, Territorialism, Competition, Social Interaction, Happiness. etc.  Dwarves, Elves, Qunari - these are all based on humanity and inherit most if not all of their characteristics with the exception of appearance.

Priorities would be the same as any primate's - any social mammal in fact - and would be those you listed. None of these priorities implies either mysogyny or homophobia. Xenophobia, on the other hand, is high on  the list.

Not even reproduction, btw. Bisexuality doesn't hinder reproduction any more than heterosexuality. As for exclusive homosexuality, there are billions of examples in history of people marrying / joining for the sake of reproducing only, or, sometimes, territorial or financial issues as well, regardless of inclinations, love or even simple attraction. In a society not founded on a religion that forbids same sex relationships (here's your difference, right there), it would make sense to consider "attracted to the same gender" on the same level as "not attracted to this guy my parents want me to marry".

Besides, "reproduction instinct" explaining homophobia doesn't fly well when you consider societies which, on the other hand, hold strict celibacy in high regard.

I have nothing against Bisexual characters, it is a trait which did indeed suit Isabella.

I'm confused. Why Isabela, and not the others?

[22nd MadJack]

Sutekh wrote...
No. The only trait inherent to human beings is racism, and even then
"xenophobia" would be more accurate, as in fear/dislike of the
Stranger. The two others are social traits born of religions, philosophy,
morality, and the like.

There have been matriarchal societies, and there have been a distinct lack of
homophobia in, for instance, ancient Greece and Rome. Don't confuse humanity
with western society as it is now and have been since the fall of the Roman
Empire (or thousands of years in other parts of the world).

Firstly, I do not think we will be seeing Dragon Age embrace classical homosexuality, which was predominantly pederasty - ie, grown men and young boys.  Paedophilia isn't as fashionable as it once was.  I would also dispute your assertion that homophobia and gender inequality were born of religion.  Propigated by them certainly, but seeded, no.  Certainly the latter has far deeper roots.  Thirdly, consider I had no issue with bisexuality in Origins.  It was present but not paraded.

Sutekh wrote...
Where Thedas is concerned, the foundation of society is different. Regardless
of magic, the Chantry, for instance, is matriarchal. Andraste is a woman.
People don't make a difference either whether a man or a woman is the reigning
monarch. Dwarves seem to, as do Qunari, but they don't represent the dominant Thedas
culture. Humans do. Humans, in Thedas, haven't been shaped by the same things
than us.

I should say that my grievances in this area are entirely directed at Dragon Age 2, which suffered something of a PC pruning in its brief development. In Origins, human gender inequality was quite prevalent.  I could point you to numerous instances.  However, I don't think I could point you to any at all in Kirkwall.  You could argue this is a sort of 'regional' morality difference, but the more likely reason is that gender inequality was entirely written out for fear of offence.  An act which ruptures the integrity of the world.  

Sutekh wrote...
Priorities would be the same as any primate's - any social mammal in fact - and
would be those you listed. None of these priorities implies either mysogyny or
homophobia. Xenophobia, on the other hand, is high on  the list.

Not even reproduction, btw. Bisexuality doesn't hinder reproduction any more
than heterosexuality. As for exclusive homosexuality, there are billions of
examples in history of people marrying / joining for the sake of reproducing
only, or, sometimes, territorial or financial issues as well, regardless of
inclinations, love or even simple attraction. In a society not founded on a
religion that forbids same sex relationships (here's your difference, right
there), it would make sense to consider "attracted to the same
gender" on the same level as "not attracted to this guy my parents
want me to marry".

Besides, "reproduction instinct" explaining homophobia doesn't fly
well when you consider societies which, on the other hand, hold strict celibacy
in high regard.

I apologise, but I was not implicitly linking human priorities with the list of human vices. 

Sutekh wrote...
I'm confused. Why Isabela, and not the others?

That is ... hard to articulate when wishing to go to bed.  I imagine it had something to do with my hesitation to leave her alone with my mabari.

Modifié par 22nd MadJack, 21 juin 2011 - 10:29 .

[Sutekh]

22nd MadJack wrote...
Firstly, I do not think we will be seeing Dragon Age embrace classical homosexuality, which was predominantly pederasty - ie, grown men and young boys.  Paedophilia isn't as fashionable as it once was.

Which is why I quoted Rome as well. Besides, there wasn't only classical pederasty in ancient Greece. You also have plain old homosexuality between consenting adults (and sometimes not-so-consenting), reflected in myths and literature, such as Achilles and Patroclus, Zeus and Ganymede, Poseidon and Pelops, Appolo and Adonis, among many others. Besides pederasty /= paedophilia.

I would also dispute your assertion that homophobia and gender inequality were born of religion.  Propigated by them certainly, but seeded, no.  Certainly the latter has far deeper roots.

Evidently, it didn't come out of nowhere. But it was carved in religion, which later founded the society we live in. The principles themselves came from people who were very far from "us" (Western Europe) both in geography and culture. I am not trying to paint an "Evil Religion" picture. Just stating a fact.

Thirdly, consider I had no issue with bisexuality in Origins.  It was present but not paraded.

It isn't paraded in DA2 either. If you play one single playthrough and have only one same sex romance, you'll only "stumble" upon two defined bisexuals in the whole game. One if you only romance Isabela. If you have one heterosexual romance, then only Isabela remains. Parading would be the majority of people whose sexuality is relevant in any way declaring themselves openly as bisexuals. In fact, there are more non-straight people in DAO. (Marjolaine, and Master Chase/Herren come to mind).

I should say that my grievances in this area are entirely directed at Dragon Age 2, which suffered something of a PC pruning in its brief development. In Origins, human gender inequality was quite prevalent. I could point you to numerous instances. However, I don't think I could point you to any at all in Kirkwall.  You could argue this is a sort of 'regional' morality difference, but the more likely reason is that gender inequality was entirely written out for fear of offence.  An act which ruptures the integrity of the world. 

The only proof of gender inequality I saw in DAO was in Orzammar in the non-casteless part of dwarven society, particularly in the Noble caste. Neither the Dalish nor the humans / city elves seem to make a difference between genders regarding social standing or ability to fight, rule etc... In fact, the only possible "sexism" is the Chantry where men aren't allowed positions as high as women. And then there was Redcliffe, with women in the Chantry and men out to fight which felt like going in the opposite direction, with no explanation whatsoever. That ruptured the integrity of the world.

I apologise, but I was not implicitly linking human priorities with the list of human vices.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding you. Fact is, the reproduction argument is one that is made often, hence the confusion.

Sutekh wrote...
I'm confused. Why Isabela, and not the others?

That is ... hard to articulate when wishing to go to bed.  I imagine it had something to do with my hesitation to leave her alone with my mabari.

You're confusing her orientation with her behavior. She's promiscuous. If she were strictly straight or gay, she'd still be promiscuous. As a bisexual woman myself, I can assure you you can leave me alone with your mabari any time, I won't try to molest the poor thing. Being attracted to both genders doesn't mean being attracted to everyone ('twould be a nice change if people stopped confusing the two, really). 

[napushenko]

Darth Executor wrote...

Remove romances from future games. They were good in BG2. They are awful, awful drecks in the Dragon Ages.

Wholeheartedly agree. BG 2 is still by far better in all gameplay, diversity, customization aspects then DA series. Not to mention lorewise. Its kinda sad that 10 year old game is better in all things (except graphics, but im not a graphic ****) then top sellin bw products today.

With that said, im  vs  forced bisexuality and even sexuality in games, put there just so they can say we have a romance option. disgustin. and those people who dont like the game if they cant bang some pixel. disgusting too. 

and with that said. i found dao cheap but funny clone of bg2, less content, worse gameplay, but better graphics.
li found da 2 to be better, at least in idea if not execution.

and, just a fan wish, would LOVE to see some kind of major overhaul of BG series in todays graphic engines, but if they just dare to cut anything from them, i would  go into bw sucks troll mode. so, beware bioware. 

[Valus]

It's lame. Super lame, but to be expected and fits the trend of diluting character depth and character interaction in favor of trying blindly to appeal to as many people as humanly possible (provided they don't think too hard about whats going on).

Leliana and Zev were bi and the stories revolving around their sexual preferences had depth and made the characters more intriguing. Obviously it isn't necessary to 'explain away' your sexuality but in these instances it was interesting and added just one more layer to a character.

Now we just get carbon copied responses devoid of anything relevant to individual choice and, in the effort to make the game appealing for as many sexual orientations as possible, it ended up feeling cheap and 2 dimensional (kind of like most things in this game).

Sad thing is there are some LBGT working for Bioware and I am sure they wanted to not only give a legitimate voice to LBGT consumers who are often neglected but also to present it in a way that is respectful. Those consumers are better off playing the Witcher 2. Geralt may not have the option to be gay but even the dalliances with prostitutes are way more honest than anything DA2 could ever hope to provide.

[whykikyouwhy]

Valus wrote...

It's lame. Super lame, but to be expected and fits the trend of diluting character depth and character interaction in favor of trying blindly to appeal to as many people as humanly possible (provided they don't think too hard about whats going on).

Leliana and Zev were bi and the stories revolving around their sexual preferences had depth and made the characters more intriguing. Obviously it isn't necessary to 'explain away' your sexuality but in these instances it was interesting and added just one more layer to a character.

Now we just get carbon copied responses devoid of anything relevant to individual choice and, in the effort to make the game appealing for as many sexual orientations as possible, it ended up feeling cheap and 2 dimensional (kind of like most things in this game).

Sad thing is there are some LBGT working for Bioware and I am sure they wanted to not only give a legitimate voice to LBGT consumers who are often neglected but also to present it in a way that is respectful. Those consumers are better off playing the Witcher 2. Geralt may not have the option to be gay but even the dalliances with prostitutes are way more honest than anything DA2 could ever hope to provide.

It's a shame that you felt that the game and its characters were cheap and two-dimensional. I actually thought that the characters were rather developed and fleshed out.

I can't agree that there was any dilution of plot or backstory for any of the companions. If you do choose to romance any of them, you'll find out more about their individual pasts and watch them evolve over the course of the 3 acts, however that evolution or maturity of the companions exists, to some degree, without having to claim any sexual partners.

The past several pages of this thread have covered the gamut of perspectives on this topic, but I wanted to quote something from one of the moderators:

Selene Moonsong wrote...

Frankly, I grow weary of the application of the term bisexual in regards to romantic interests in games. Unless a character specifically states they are bisexual, it cannot be said that they are, in fact, bisexual. To imply otherwise against any character they create is strictly a narrow-minded interpretation, IMHO

Asar, for example,i are asexual, female at birth but can serve as either gender, and yet can serve as male or female for mating purposes. That does not make them bisexual.

Otherwise, the characters should be considered Gay/Lesbian in respect to your character. The one character in ME 2 for example, that can be considered as bisexual, would be Kelley, since she does claim indifference to gender, and even species for that matter, in conversations with your character,

Stating that any other character is bisexual simply because the player is allowed to make a choice of romancing a same or opposite gender character makes them bisexual, is complete foolishness. More correctly, they are Shepard-centric and you are the one who choses to make them either Gay/Lesbian or straight. Your choice does not make them bisexual.

This hearkens back to the Hawke-sexual concept, and also to the view that as Hawke, you only know the sexuality of the characters through pursuing a romance with them or conversing with them. If you don't elect to have a LI, then for all you know, that companion could prefer men, women, both, or none at all. If you don't engage in some friendly banter, you may not get to know about the loves and adventures of Fenris, Merrill, Isabela, etc. So really, their sexuality is not defined in the context of gameplay. Therefore...no dilution. The characters remain who they are, with their respective likes/dislikes, beliefs, goals, quests, etc. Their sexual preferences or orientations do not take away from those aspects of the game.

[ademska]

oh please. it's not "watering down" a character to make him/her an open love interest to any gender.

claiming that it is ascribes extreme importance to sexual orientation (not "preference") with regard to how interesting you find a character, and that you people are so fixated on it says a lot about you.

and seriously, four bisexual (even bicurious) friends in a big city is not unreasonable or unrealistic. clearly most of you don't live in cities yourself, or else you run in very sheltered circles.

and @madjack, come off it, aspects of thedas are supposed to be analogous to rennaissance europe, but hundreds of years of christian clerical rule and its stance on women, same-sex marriage, and premarital sex are not included.

i just struggle to understand why people give such a **** and then justify it under the guise of "bad storytelling" complaints.  surely da2 had other, less Unfortunate Implication, more objective narrative flaws with which to find fault.

Modifié par ademska, 22 juin 2011 - 03:48 .

[blaidfiste]

An all bi romance cast is a serious cop out in what is supposed to be an rpg. Heavens forbid a NPC not be interested in Hawke based on his/her gender. Zev and Lelianna, were great characters but damn it so were Morrigan and Alistair.

[ademska]

blaidfiste wrote...

An all bi romance cast is a serious cop out in what is supposed to be an rpg. Heavens forbid a NPC not be interested in Hawke based on his/her gender. Zev and Lelianna, were great characters but damn it so were Morrigan and Alistair.

and again, i would ask, why do you care so much about the characters' sexualities that it would influence your opinion of them? it's not a "cop-out", it's just a method of giving the player the greatest amount of choice.

everyone's fixation on this is so very transparent.

Modifié par ademska, 22 juin 2011 - 04:37 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

ademska wrote...

blaidfiste wrote...

An all bi romance cast is a serious cop out in what is supposed to be an rpg. Heavens forbid a NPC not be interested in Hawke based on his/her gender. Zev and Lelianna, were great characters but damn it so were Morrigan and Alistair.

and again, i would ask, why do you care so much about the characters' sexualities that it would influence your opinion of them? it's not a "cop-out", it's just a method of giving the player the greatest amount of choice.

everyone's fixation on this is so very transparent.

If they were actually bisexual, it would be fine. For all I care, Dragon Age 2 could be an everyone is bi world. That would actually be kind of cool, because to my knowledge a game has never been set in a world like that. The problem is that when you make multiple characters Hawke-sexual, it's creepy in a Truman show sort of way, especially because there's no in-universe explanation. (It's also kind of a cop out - no need to have actual LGBT characters if they have schrodinger's sexuality, apparently.)

[ademska]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

ademska wrote...

and again, i would ask, why do you care so much about the characters' sexualities that it would influence your opinion of them? it's not a "cop-out", it's just a method of giving the player the greatest amount of choice.

everyone's fixation on this is so very transparent.

If they were actually bisexual, it would be fine. For all I care, Dragon Age 2 could be an everyone is bi world. That would actually be kind of cool, because to my knowledge a game has never been set in a world like that. The problem is that when you make multiple characters Hawke-sexual, it's creepy in a Truman show sort of way, especially because there's no in-universe explanation. (It's also kind of a cop out - no need to have actual LGBT characters if they have schrodinger's sexuality, apparently.)

thank you, someone reasonable

they don't have schodinger's sexuality, is the thing. anders gives a big speech about how he's pansexual and isabela specifically says she's bisexual.

i'd be more inclined to fall in line with your point of view if every companion or even non-companions were love interests.  as it stands, of the five romanceable characters (because sebastian exists, guys), four of them are romanceable by either gender. two of them are explicitly bisexual and go through substantial hawke-influenced character arcs regardless of whether they're romanced, so those romances are not healthy, but they make sense.

that leaves two potentially "hawkesexual" characters: merrill and fenris.

merrill is a dalish elf, a blood mage, and meets hawke just as she's exiled from her tribe. she lives in the alienage, where she's still an outcast and probably even lonelier there than on sundermount.  hawke, if he or she takes interest in her, is a buoy in a sea of loneliness.  this romance is not healthy, but it makes sense.

fenris is an escaped slave with no memory of anything but pain and incredible emotional trauma and bitterness. he lives alone in a dusty mansion as a fugitive, in pretty much constant fear for his life and freedom. he's a bit of a drunk. hawke, if he or she takes in interest in him, is the first person he remembers to actually give a ****.  this romance is not healthy, but it makes sense.

we're seeing a pattern here.  you can say the hawkesexual blah blah is creepy, but the fact is that none of the relationships nor the other halves of them is particularly stable. more importantly, it's not some crazy phenomenon.  hawke is canonly an incredibly charismatic person, why are we surprised that four lonely, damaged people are attracted to him/her?


eta: i'm an "lgbt person" or whatever, and i must say, i'm far happier to have the option to have hawke smash his bits together with either guy than have arbitrary, stupid limits forced on me as a player, thanks. and no, this isn't unrealistic or sloppy character writing. sexuality shouldn't be perceived as such a vital trait of a character in a game universe where no real stigma exists.  this isn't about making a statement, it's about letting players who want to romance same-sex have that option just as universally as those who don't want to.

i get passionate about this because you're arguing to take away my choice.  i fail to understand why you people care so much.

Modifié par ademska, 22 juin 2011 - 07:55 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

ademska wrote...

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

ademska wrote...

and again, i would ask, why do you care so much about the characters' sexualities that it would influence your opinion of them? it's not a "cop-out", it's just a method of giving the player the greatest amount of choice.

everyone's fixation on this is so very transparent.

If they were actually bisexual, it would be fine. For all I care, Dragon Age 2 could be an everyone is bi world. That would actually be kind of cool, because to my knowledge a game has never been set in a world like that. The problem is that when you make multiple characters Hawke-sexual, it's creepy in a Truman show sort of way, especially because there's no in-universe explanation. (It's also kind of a cop out - no need to have actual LGBT characters if they have schrodinger's sexuality, apparently.)

thank you, someone reasonable

they don't have schodinger's sexuality, is the thing. anders gives a big speech about how he's pansexual and isabela specifically says she's bisexual.

i'd be more inclined to fall in line with your point of view if every companion or even non-companions were love interests.  as it stands, of the five romanceable characters (because sebastian exists, guys), four of them are romanceable by either gender. two of them are explicitly bisexual and go through substantial hawke-influenced character arcs regardless of whether they're romanced, so those romances are not healthy, but they make sense.

that leaves two potentially "hawkesexual" characters: merrill and fenris.

merrill is a dalish elf, a blood mage, and meets hawke just as she's exiled from her tribe. she lives in the alienage, where she's still an outcast and probably even lonelier there than on sundermount.  hawke, if he or she takes interest in her, is a buoy in a sea of loneliness.  this romance is not healthy, but it makes sense.

fenris is an escaped slave with no memory of anything but pain and incredible emotional trauma and bitterness. he lives alone in a dusty mansion as a fugitive, in pretty much constant fear for his life and freedom. he's a bit of a drunk. hawke, if he or she takes in interest in him, is the first person he remembers to actually give a ****.  this romance is not healthy, but it makes sense.

we're seeing a pattern here.  you can say the hawkesexual blah blah is creepy, but the fact is that none of the relationships nor the other halves of them is particularly stable. more importantly, it's not some crazy phenomenon.  hawke is canonly an incredibly charismatic person, why are we surprised that four lonely, damaged people are attracted to him/her?


eta: i'm an "lgbt person" or whatever, and i must say, i'm far happier to have the option to have hawke smash his bits together with either guy than have arbitrary, stupid limits forced on me as a player, thanks. and no, this isn't unrealistic or sloppy character writing. sexuality shouldn't be such perceived as such a vital trait of a character in a game where no real stigma exists.

That's fair - although it is, IMHO, a little problematic for Bioware to be implying that damaged goods are more likely to switch teams (see also: Jack).

[ademska]

that, i won't argue. i've got no data either way, but there's a trend if you look for it.

thank you for being lovely about it, sincerely.

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

ademska wrote...

that, i won't argue. i've got no data either way, but there's a trend if you look for it.

thank you for being lovely about it, sincerely.

Yeah, totally - you too

[ShadyKat]

I thought it was stupid. I have no problem if they wanted gay relationships in the game, Origins had them as well. But everyone being Bi, was just too unrealistic. (This coming from a game with dragons and magic) In future games they should set the NPC's sexual preference. Some characters should be straight, some gay, some Bi. You simply can't "Have" everyone in one playthrough, since a straight character would shoot any gay advances down. So if you wanted all the romances, you would have to play as either male, or female. The whole "Hawke Sexual" thing was just lame.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I have no problem with bi-sexual characters at all. If I play the game then I am only interested in what romances attract me. So, I don't notice that someone who has another orientation can play the game differently. If it leads to a situation where I am "confronted" by a romance that I don't like then I simply avoid it or decline. It happens in real life too. I will be disappointed when someone turns me down. I also cannot always predict what orientation someone has. So, if I make such a "mistake" then I understand the negative response and it will probably make me blush. The reverse can happen too. Because I know how I would feel in that situation, I cannot get angry about it. It happens. That's how things go. Because it is just a game I cannot lose any sleep over such a situation.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 22 juin 2011 - 04:15 .

[Huntress]

I don't have any problem with Bi characters at all.

What I have problems is with some people want it to feel real.. this is a game/fantasy world.. come back to reality please. Someone ask for it to be more real, what about magic? is that even remotly real and yet you have no problem with it, what about demons targeting only mages.. do you really think that make any sense at all? A pride demon would have hunted Leaders like Loghain who is broken  and a fool to make an army and not only mages.. wich btw us are killed 3 times faster that any leader and thats what any real self respected demon would have done.

In the old times people had relations with anyone they felt attracted to and marriage was only for reproduction or for titles and power, love had nothing to do with it. Some of the greatest leader in History had relations with both sexes yet, they are still "great" when teachers talk about in the classrooms.
If you don't know who am talking about grab a library card and hit the nearest library.

Modifié par Huntress, 22 juin 2011 - 04:59 .

[berelinde]

I am conflicted about the way bisexuality is handled in DA2.

On the one hand, I absolutely, positively, and completely love that no matter what gender PC I am playing this time, the romance I want will be available. I love this feature.

On the other hand, the only reason I was able to play the Zevran romance at all in Origins was because Alistair prefers women. If I wanted to romance Zevran, I just played with a male PC. Now, in DA2, I wind up romancing Anders every time and cannot force myself to complete any of the other romances...

[22nd MadJack]

Sutekh wrote...
It isn't paraded in DA2 either. If you play one single playthrough and have only one same sex romance, you'll only "stumble" upon two defined bisexuals in the whole game. One if you only romance Isabela. If you have one heterosexual romance, then only Isabela remains. Parading would be the majority of people whose sexuality is relevant in any way declaring themselves openly as bisexuals. In fact, there are more non-straight people in DAO. (Marjolaine, and Master Chase/Herren come to mind).

Paraded wasn't quite the right word.  Prevelant is more suitable.  If we are to back track a little I will try to further articulate why I disliked it's implementation.  Firstly, the prevelance of bisexuality in DA2 essentially broke my suspension of disbelief.  I couldn't believe these characters were real.  I began to view them not as autominous, believable entities, but rather as binary  constructs built to politically correct specifications.  Essentially they are not people.  People are not just bisexual, they are straight and homosexual also. 

Sutekh wrote...
The only proof of gender inequality I saw in DAO was in Orzammar in the non-casteless part of dwarven society, particularly in the Noble caste. Neither the Dalish nor the humans / city elves seem to make a difference between genders regarding social standing or ability to fight, rule etc... In fact, the only possible "sexism" is the Chantry where men aren't allowed positions as high as women. And then there was Redcliffe, with women in the Chantry and men out to fight which felt like going in the opposite direction, with no explanation whatsoever. That ruptured the integrity of the world.

Off the top of my head I can think of one Dalish example, but that is not the one I will give you as we are talking about humanity.  I will be brief as this is for another topic.  Play through HNW Origin as both Male and Female and note the differences in dialog.  A female warden will encounter dialog that depicts her ability in combat as exception, not expectation.  The male experiences no such dialog.  This quite clearly suggests the presence of guideline gender roles within Ferelden Nobility.  

Modifié par 22nd MadJack, 22 juin 2011 - 07:06 .

[ademska]

22nd MadJack wrote...

Paraded wasn't quite the right word.  Prevelant is more suitable.  If we are to back track a little I will try to further articulate why I disliked it's implementation.  Firstly, the prevelance of bisexuality in DA2 essentially broke my suspension of disbelief.  I couldn't believe these characters were real.  I began to view them not as autominous, believable entities, but rather as binary  constructs built to politically correct specifications.  Essentially they are not people.  People are not just bisexual, they are straight and homosexual also.

well then how very lucky for you that there were so many characters whose sexualities were in fact undefined, and a few who were explicitly straight!

i am once again at a complete loss for why four people in an entire city, all of whom are damaged and lonely, being willing to sleep with a charismatic hero who's been one of their only friends for three years in a game where there is no stigma against same-sex relationships is somehow unrealistic.

it's also unfortunate (and telling) that you view granting greater player choice as "political correctness". some of us, myself included, are not interested in having yet another heterosexual relationship in a medium where it's been pretty much exclusively nothing but. given the numbers on how many people play gay relationships in bioware games, da2 having bisexual love interests is a selling point more than anything. it moved copies.

with your big manly right-moderate-ness, i would think capitalism would appeal to you

you people really have dirty gays on the mind, don't you?

Modifié par ademska, 22 juin 2011 - 07:54 .

[ipgd]

22nd MadJack wrote...

Paraded wasn't quite the right word.  Prevelant is more suitable.  If we are to back track a little I will try to further articulate why I disliked it's implementation.  Firstly, the prevelance of bisexuality in DA2 essentially broke my suspension of disbelief.  I couldn't believe these characters were real.  I began to view them not as autominous, believable entities, but rather as binary  constructs built to politically correct specifications.  Essentially they are not people.  People are not just bisexual, they are straight and homosexual also.

I have more than four bisexual friends. I really do not understand how or why four is somehow so unrealistic that it renders all of these characters non-people.

[ademska]

ipgd wrote...
I have more than four bisexual friends. I really do not understand how or why four is somehow so unrealistic that it renders all of these characters non-people.

because gays are strange and are only 10% of the population, that means only one in ten party members should be gay. why don't you understand statistics, ipgd?

[Harid]

Strawman arguments and anecdotal evidence.

Par for the course in this discussion.

Let's make more gigglesquee posts about Merrill, as we can't have a discussion like adults on this topic anyhow.