438 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

It's possible that the devs have mapped out how Thedans view sexuality, but that it's consciously not blatantly injected into the overall narrative because it's not a major matter of contention among people in the DA-verse. There is much about Thedan society overall that we don't know a lot about, or pick up in only little hints or cues. And while yes, sexuality is an important aspect of the mortal experience, it's not the only one, and there are numerous other aspects of a person that might dictate how he/she responds to the events and other people around him/her - values, family, faith, etc.

We all have different experiences from which to draw from, and different ways that we approach things. For some people, gender and sexual identity is not a *conscious* component of their decision-making process. It may be an undercurrent, one thing added to the mix, but it may not be something they immediately recognize as having an influence.

Sexuality/sexual identity not being an obvious part of how a person reacts does not, in terms of gameplay and narrative (and iml) weaken the storytelling - because there is a cumulative richness of character to draw from.

[TEWR]

Why shouldn't he disapprove? Last I checked, being shot down, even politely, is just a tad depressing and embarassing for anyone. The amount of rivalry incurred by turning Anders down is negligible and easily made up through later interactions.

Oh please. You don't disapprove of a person for not being attracted to you. You get disappointed. But disapproving because someone happens to not be attracted to you? Seriously? No.

I've hit on girls. They've said they're not interested. Am I disappointed? Yes. Do I disapprove of them for not being attracted to me? NO.

For someone to disapprove if someone isn't attracted to that person is almost like they have a narcissistic personality disorder, acting as if they're the greatest thing to grace the planet and everyone they hit on should reciprocate the feelings.

Disappointment is fine. Being a bit sad is fine because you were attracted to that person and they end up not being attracted to you. But getting all pissy and not approving of someone because that someone isn't attracted to you isn't fine.

That the points gained are negligible isn't the issue. It's that the idea of disappointment in regards to Hawke not being attracted to Anders is conflated into him disapproving of Hawke because Hawke isn't gay/bi or just isn't into Anders.

Though.... I guess one could see it as another facet of him becoming bipolar. I'm not an expert on bipolar disorder, so I don't know if that's the case. Nevertheless the point remains that...

Disappointment =/= disapproval.

A person can be sad for being rejected. That's fine. No one is arguing that Anders should've been as content as Karl was when we met him.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 03 février 2012 - 05:15 .

[Wulfram]

Plaintiff wrote...

That doesn't make any ****ing sense at all.

Rivalry is obviously analogous to disapproval. That your companions will eventually be worn down and come around to your way of thinking doesn't change that. It comes through quite clearly in the way the characters react to you. They become abrasive and confrontational because they disapprove.

You get Rivalry and/or Friendship points from companions for all sorts of things that are totally irrelevent to their personal plotline and main point of contention. Killing Kelder or letting him survive will generate friendship or rivalry respectively for most party members, even though it has nothing to do with anything that happens later on. Aveline will generate rivalry if you kill Wesley yourself, even though it's a merciful death and has nothing to do with her future interactions, which mostly involve badgering you to be more responsible.

To quote Mr Gaider

The fundamental thing to remember here is that friendship/rivalry is not based on how much the companion likes you. It's based on how aligned you are on the issues that are important to that follower.

It is true that on a lot of occasions the developers instead used it as a simple approval/disapproval, as they did with Anders in this case, but it is this failure to implement it properly which is one reason why this feature is so profoundly incoherent and frustrating.

[bleetman]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Oh please. You don't disapprove of a person for not being attracted to you. You get disappointed. But disapproving because someone happens to not be attracted to you? Seriously? No.

I've hit on girls. They've said they're not interested. Am I disappointed? Yes. Do I disapprove of them for not being attracted to me? NO.

What you would do and what Anders would do aren't necessarily the same thing.

Anders doesn't just disapprove. He doesn't shrug and dismiss it like, say, a rational person might. Instead, he reacts with open hostility and accuses Hawke of trying to tell him how to think. That seems entirely in line with his own mental state, idealistic principles and the aquisition of a few rivalry points. It's a big ol' sign with 'yeah, he's not exactly stable, tread carefully' painted on. I did also wonder if his reaction is tinged with bitterness about his situation, in a 'before this, I could've probably smooth talked this Hawke person, but now s/he won't even consider it' kind of way., though I may be looking too much into things, there. But if that's the case, it seems to fit with the rest of his rivalry to me.

Do any of the other LIs give rivalry for turning them down? I certainly don't remember it.

Modifié par bleetman, 03 février 2012 - 06:22 .

[Russalka]

Doesn't Anders seem emotionally unstable and needy enough to justify rivalry points when getting rejected?

To me, he does.

[Maria Caliban]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I've hit on girls. They've said they're not interested. Am I disappointed? Yes. Do I disapprove of them for not being attracted to me? NO.

I can't think of a single companion in DA II whose reactions to events and personal interactions perfectly mirrors my own. They all must be flawed characters.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 03 février 2012 - 10:58 .

[FaWa]

In a game of magic spells, crazy short people who live underground, hordes of zombies, and lets not forget demons trying to ruin everyones life, Bisexuality is the thing that people find unrealistic?

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

It's possible that the devs have mapped out how Thedans view sexuality, but that it's consciously not blatantly injected into the overall narrative because it's not a major matter of contention among people in the DA-verse.

You would think that the social context of a relationship would come up during the relationship. Especially since Origins does on occasion take the social context of a relationship into account (see: Alistair's subplot.) 

There is much about Thedan society overall that we don't know a lot about, or pick up in only little hints or cues. And while yes, sexuality is an important aspect of the mortal experience, it's not the only one, and there are numerous other aspects of a person that might dictate how he/she responds to the events and other people around him/her - values, family, faith, etc.

Yep. But once again, the question of whether character X and character Y have things like a future together would come up in a game where relationships between characters span years. Or, they would if the game was well-written.

Sexuality/sexual identity not being an obvious part of how a person reacts does not, in terms of gameplay and narrative (and iml) weaken the storytelling - because there is a cumulative richness of character to draw from.

It doesn't have to influence how a person reacts, but it may or may not influence how society reacts. Whether it does or does not is a major peice of context that was left out of the storytelling, and I suspect the decision to try not to ruffle any homophobic feathers played a large role in the decision to leave that part of the worldbuilding conspicuously blank.

[Wulfram]

Well, how do you show the fact that something by and large it isn't an issue other than by not having it be an issue?

The official word was that same sex relationships are considered odd but not immoral in Fereldan and a minor quirk in Orlais. For some people like nobles and elves there is a pressure to get married and have kids, which is somewhat reflected in the game.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Wulfram wrote...

Well, how do you show the fact that something by and large it isn't an issue other than by not having it be an issue?

Yeah, it would have been nice if they did. But once again, no real portrayal of non-straight characters in society at large.

The official word was that same sex relationships are considered odd but not immoral in Fereldan and a minor quirk in Orlais. For some people like nobles and elves there is a pressure to get married and have kids, which is somewhat reflected in the game.

Which to me demonstrates that they didn't think their society through very clearly, or looked at how IRL low-tech and non-homophobic societies functioned.

[Plaintiff]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Why shouldn't he disapprove? Last I checked, being shot down, even politely, is just a tad depressing and embarassing for anyone. The amount of rivalry incurred by turning Anders down is negligible and easily made up through later interactions.

Oh please. You don't disapprove of a person for not being attracted to you. You get disappointed. But disapproving because someone happens to not be attracted to you? Seriously? No.

I've hit on girls. They've said they're not interested. Am I disappointed? Yes. Do I disapprove of them for not being attracted to me? NO.

For someone to disapprove if someone isn't attracted to that person is almost like they have a narcissistic personality disorder, acting as if they're the greatest thing to grace the planet and everyone they hit on should reciprocate the feelings.

Disappointment is fine. Being a bit sad is fine because you were attracted to that person and they end up not being attracted to you. But getting all pissy and not approving of someone because that someone isn't attracted to you isn't fine.

That the points gained are negligible isn't the issue. It's that the idea of disappointment in regards to Hawke not being attracted to Anders is conflated into him disapproving of Hawke because Hawke isn't gay/bi or just isn't into Anders.

Though.... I guess one could see it as another facet of him becoming bipolar. I'm not an expert on bipolar disorder, so I don't know if that's the case. Nevertheless the point remains that...

Disappointment =/= disapproval.

A person can be sad for being rejected. That's fine. No one is arguing that Anders should've been as content as Karl was when we met him.

Zevran generates disapproval if you say you're not into dudes. Morrigan generates disapproval if you sleep with her and then get involved with someone else, even though she said beforehand that she was totally cool with whatever you wanted to do. Isabela generates Rivalry if she shows up at your house for sex and you tell her to leave. In fact, I'm pretty sure all the companions do something similar at some point. How come every other character is allowed to get butthurt about being turned down, but suddenly when Anders does it, it's "terrible game design"?

Drawing from your real-life experience is an extremely poor argument. Of course disappointment doesn't equate to disapproval in real life. But this is not real life, it's a video game where the only measure of a character's feelings towards your player is "Approval/Disapproval" or "Friendship/Rivalry" and every interaction has to fall under one of those two categories.

[Plaintiff]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Which to me demonstrates that they didn't think their society through very clearly, or looked at how IRL low-tech and non-homophobic societies functioned.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind. Not everything has to be inspired by real history. They're allowed to make some things up. That's kind of the whole point of fiction.

Because homosexual relationships in Thedas don't follow the exact same dynamic employed in Ancient Greece or Rome, that makes them unrealistic?

Your whole argument operates on the fallacy that because certain facets of low-tech societies in actual history functioned in a speciific way, that is the only way they could possibly ever function and anything that differs from that is "unrealistic".

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Plaintiff wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Which to me demonstrates that they didn't think their society through very clearly, or looked at how IRL low-tech and non-homophobic societies functioned.

It demonstrates nothing of the kind. Not everything has to be inspired by real history. They're allowed to make some things up. That's kind of the whole point of fiction.

Because homosexual relationships in Thedas don't follow the exact same dynamic employed in Ancient Greece or Rome, that makes them unrealistic?

Your whole argument operates on the fallacy that because certain facets of low-tech societies in actual history functioned in a speciific way, that is the only way they could possibly ever function and anything that differs from that is "unrealistic".

Yes, I expect fiction writers to A) write people who act like real people, or give me a compelling reason why people in their world don't act like real people. Regardless of whether they choose A) or , I prefer the way people act in their world to be internally consistent. "Rich people in a pre-industrial society are the only people who have incentives to have lots of children" is a big leap to ask a reader to take, and better have a very good reason behind it.

(Also, fun fact: Greece and Rome were not the only non-homophobic pre-industrial societies. Shocking, I know.)

Modifié par Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut, 04 février 2012 - 02:21 .

[erilben]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

The official word was that same sex relationships are considered odd but not immoral in Fereldan and a minor quirk in Orlais. For some people like nobles and elves there is a pressure to get married and have kids, which is somewhat reflected in the game.

Which to me demonstrates that they didn't think their society through very clearly, or looked at how IRL low-tech and non-homophobic societies functioned.

The "official word" about it is here : http://www.gamebansh...ity-111406.html Gaider doesn't say there that only nobles are expected to get married. He seems to say all humans and city elves are expected to get married. Also just take a look at Mhari. She is not from a noble family and her family was going to make her to get married, so she joined the Wardens to get out of it.

Modifié par erilben, 04 février 2012 - 02:42 .

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

erilben wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

The official word was that same sex relationships are considered odd but not immoral in Fereldan and a minor quirk in Orlais. For some people like nobles and elves there is a pressure to get married and have kids, which is somewhat reflected in the game.

Which to me demonstrates that they didn't think their society through very clearly, or looked at how IRL low-tech and non-homophobic societies functioned.

The "official word" about it is here : http://www.gamebansh...ity-111406.html Gaider doesn't say there that only nobles are expected to get married. He seems to say all humans and city elves are expected to get married. Also just take a look at Mhari. She is not from a noble family and her family was going to make her to get married, so she joined the Wardens to get out of it.

That's a little better, at least. Still questionable, IMO, but less questionable by far than hetero characters acting as if they had access to reliable contraception. That's a whole different can of worms haha.

[hoorayforicecream]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well, how do you show the fact that something by and large it isn't an issue other than by not having it be an issue?

Yeah, it would have been nice if they did. But once again, no real portrayal of non-straight characters in society at large.

Wade and Herren are a couple, and they aren't ostracized or treated any differently.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well, how do you show the fact that something by and large it isn't an issue other than by not having it be an issue?

Yeah, it would have been nice if they did. But once again, no real portrayal of non-straight characters in society at large.

Wade and Herren are a couple, and they aren't ostracized or treated any differently.

So what, 2 NPCs out of a cast of hundreds? According to a post on BSN? Yeah, real meticulous worldbuilding there.

[whykikyouwhy]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well, how do you show the fact that something by and large it isn't an issue other than by not having it be an issue?

Yeah, it would have been nice if they did. But once again, no real portrayal of non-straight characters in society at large.

Wade and Herren are a couple, and they aren't ostracized or treated any differently.

So what, 2 NPCs out of a cast of hundreds? According to a post on BSN? Yeah, real meticulous worldbuilding there.

Two NPCs, sure, but who are part of the world in the game, and thus a valid example. Also, those two NPCs were seen in two different environments/locations - Denerim and Vigil's Keep - without any noticable shift in how they were treated.

Perhaps you could define what a "real" portrayal of a non-straight character should entail, by your standards. Is there some sort of textbook average-gay-experience that you feel should be used as the model for characters?

[Auroras]

In a response to the blog post... Liara is in ME1. Not DA:O.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well, how do you show the fact that something by and large it isn't an issue other than by not having it be an issue?

Yeah, it would have been nice if they did. But once again, no real portrayal of non-straight characters in society at large.

Wade and Herren are a couple, and they aren't ostracized or treated any differently.

So what, 2 NPCs out of a cast of hundreds? According to a post on BSN? Yeah, real meticulous worldbuilding there.

Two NPCs, sure, but who are part of the world in the game, and thus a valid example. Also, those two NPCs were seen in two different environments/locations - Denerim and Vigil's Keep - without any noticable shift in how they were treated.

Perhaps you could define what a "real" portrayal of a non-straight character should entail, by your standards. Is there some sort of textbook average-gay-experience that you feel should be used as the model for characters?

So we have two gay characters, not confirmed in-game as gay, not seen interacting with any non-party characters, with an undefined relationship. This constitutes an a meaningful inclusion of non-straight sexualities in world-building... how?

[hoorayforicecream]

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Well, how do you show the fact that something by and large it isn't an issue other than by not having it be an issue?

Yeah, it would have been nice if they did. But once again, no real portrayal of non-straight characters in society at large.

Wade and Herren are a couple, and they aren't ostracized or treated any differently.

So what, 2 NPCs out of a cast of hundreds? According to a post on BSN? Yeah, real meticulous worldbuilding there.

First, Wade and Herren being a couple is as canon as Dumbledore being gay, unless you somehow wish to disbelieve their respective writers. The point is that there is no big deal made about it, which is exactly the point - they aren't out of place, they don't need special treatment, because it really isn't that big a deal. You know, show that it isn't an issue by not having it be an issue.

Second, could you stop moving the goalposts? They were fine where they were when I quoted you, thanks.

[TEWR]

Plaintiff wrote...

Zevran generates disapproval if you say you're not into dudes. Morrigan generates disapproval if you sleep with her and then get involved with someone else, even though she said beforehand that she was totally cool with whatever you wanted to do. Isabela generates Rivalry if she shows up at your house for sex and you tell her to leave. In fact, I'm pretty sure all the companions do something similar at some point. How come every other character is allowed to get butthurt about being turned down, but suddenly when Anders does it, it's "terrible game design"?

Did I say it was terrible game design only for Anders? Did I say that it was excusable and allowable for the other characters?

**** NO.

It's terrible game design all around imo to conflate disapproval with disappointment.

Plaintiff wrote...

Drawing from your real-life experience is an extremely poor argument. Of course disappointment doesn't equate to disapproval in real life. But this is not real life, it's a video game where the only measure of a character's feelings towards your player is "Approval/Disapproval" or "Friendship/Rivalry" and every interaction has to fall under one of those two categories.

So... it's excusable because it's a video game? That's a ****ty argument and you know it. Bioware could have easily made Anders show disappointment when you turn him down. In a cutscene and maybe some dialogue afterwards. Rivalry points need not be gained/earned/whatever.

That would convey the expressions and feelings of Anders being rejected. You know all those facial animations? They're not just there for kicks! They're there to make the characters feel more like people and less like data!

And Gaider's gone on record to say that F/R isn't supposed to be approval/disapproval. That DAII does this with the companions -- note that I used the plural form -- in times where it shouldn't makes the F/R system poorly implemented.

Great idea with some not so great execution

hoorayforicecream wrote....

Dumbledore being gay,

Wow. I never knew that.

Dumbledore just gained more badassery points.

Bleetman wrote...

What you would do and what Anders would do aren't necessarily the same thing.

Anders doesn't just disapprove. He doesn't shrug and dismiss it like, say, a rational person might. Instead, he reacts with open hostility and accuses Hawke of trying to tell him how to think. That seems entirely in line with his own mental state, idealistic principles and the aquisition of a few rivalry points. It's a big ol' sign with 'yeah, he's not exactly stable, tread carefully' painted on. I did also wonder if his reaction is tinged with bitterness about his situation, in a 'before this, I could've probably smooth talked this Hawke person, but now s/he won't even consider it' kind of way., though I may be looking too much into things, there. But if that's the case, it seems to fit with the rest of his rivalry to me.

Do any of the other LIs give rivalry for turning them down? I certainly don't remember it.

Yea, I said a little later down that it could be seen as another facet of his mental state.

That said, what is the exact dialogue for both heartbroken options for Hawke and Anders' respective dialogue thereafter?

And my point is that I'm mainly arguing the principle that Bioware equates disapproval with disappointment.

In that instance, the Friendship/Rivalry system becomes approval/disapproval. The devs have said that it shouldn't be seen as this, but then they make it so anyway.

I can understand Anders' reaction in terms of his personality and his feelings. It's that he disapproves of Hawke and Rivalry is gained -- and the latter doesn't need to happen with the former -- when the devs have said this shouldn't be the case is what gets me.

He can disapprove of Hawke's words and flip out without gaining Rivalry.

Maria Caliban wrote...

I can't think of a single companion in DA II whose reactions to events and personal interactions perfectly mirrors my own. They all must be flawed characters.

And you say this.... why? 

Where did I ever call the characters flawed? Nowhere. Actually, they are all flawed characters. Because everyone in the whole world is flawed in some way. No one's perfect. That they are all flawed characters makes them perfect characters.

We're all ****ed up in one way or another.

I was never even saying that Anders is flawed for showing his emotions and flipping out at Hawke. Given his mental state, it's perfect for him! I'm saying the F/R system is flawed for being combined with his emotional state and sexuality and causing us to lose favor with him!

So.... try again.

Filament wrote...

But I'm not sure how much "losing approval" really applies to begin with in a friendship/rivalry system.

Precisely. You shouldn't lose approval if it was the intent of the devs for you to not see it as approval/disapproval.

For DAO -- while still terrible game design imo -- it was allowable simply because that was the idea. Approval vs. disapproval.

I am not saying Anders shouldn't be emotional and show how unstable he is. I'm saying that for the player to lose favor with him in a system that shouldn't be that way is bad game design.

He can show his emotions. He can flip out. He can show us how unstable he is! But we shouldn't lose favor for that when the system isn't supposed to be approval/disapproval anymore!

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 février 2012 - 10:20 .

[TEWR]

Hmm, first disapproval was unacceptable because he should only have been disappointed, now it's okay to be disapproving as long as he's not gaining rivalrous feelings. Progress!

lol.

I only used Anders because he was the first notable instance of it happening in DAII, and even then I was operating on a very hazy memory of how he reacted, since the last time I played DAII was a month and a half ago.

When Bleetman said that he shows his mental instability and says Hawke is trying to be the thought police, then I realized that the disapproval itself was probably fine for Anders. And even then, I had said in my first post that his mental state could allow for the disapproval to be completely in line with everything.

But that's an isolated case exclusive to Anders only, because of his mental state. It fit there I guess. I dunno. I have no clue how to phrase it now lol. I'm so confuzled now.

Let me try and rephrase everything:

Given what Anders has gone through and who he is now -- a bipolar mage possessed by a spirit of Justice/Vengeance -- and what he said when Hawke says he isn't interested, the disapproval is fine there.

So... I guess for Anders, because of who he is now, the disapproval is fine there. But for other people, it wouldn't be fine. If Isabela disapproved of Hawke for saying he wasn't interested, it wouldn't be fine.

Again, I dunno

Thing is, while I know Gaider/the devs have commented that friendship/rivalry is not the same as approval/disapproval several times, it still plays the same way in most instances. Except there's a reward for going in the opposite direction. And I'm not convinced that's really a bad thing. It being a game is a good excuse... unless you want a hopelessly convoluted personality system, the way the your interactions are kept track of has to be simplified to some extent. And while the nature of the types of things you can say to ****** your companions off (or make them happy) hasn't changed much, the fact that the relationships are allowed to progress in different paths I'd say does make it a step up, definitely, so even if I thought the application was inconsistent with the goals as opposed to just a simplification, I'd still think overall it was worth the change.

oh it's definitely a good thing to be rewarded on either path, and it was definitely worth the change despite how inconsistent it is.

I'd just like it to be more consistent.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 04 février 2012 - 11:20 .