59 réponses à ce sujet

[Withidread]

Actually, Gender has always been mostly aesthetic. Oddly enough I found myself installing and re-playing the old Baldur's Gate games, which makes posting a screenshot rather handy...

[Eternal Phoenix]

Baldur's Gate had a companion who would only challenge a male character to combat. I think that there may be more examples too.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 26 avril 2012 - 01:14 .

[Withidread]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Baldur's Gate had a companion who would only challenge a male character to combat. I think that there may be more examples too.

You're looking for Haer'Dalis. That particular challenge was directly related to romancing Aerie.

[M0RD3CA1 VII]

I definitely support the idea of class/specialization carrying more weight in the game. Quests that you can only get if you're a certain class. People reacting differently to you based on your specialization. Like if you were a blood mage, people should notice.

Although the Dragon Age Panel at PAX addressed this, someone in the audience asked the same question.

[Eternal Phoenix]

Withidread wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

Baldur's Gate had a companion who would only challenge a male character to combat. I think that there may be more examples too.

You're looking for Haer'Dalis. That particular challenge was directly related to romancing Aerie.

Shar-Teel actually. She also compliments the party if it's composed of all females. You can still get her if you're not playing a male character but only if you have a male character in your party but the fact that gender is acknowledged here and changes dialogue somewhat just adds to the depth. 

And that's the thing with the next Dragon Age. I'm not asking for entire plots specific to one gender but to have your gender acknowledged would be nice and would give more incentive to play as a different gender just so you could experience different dialogue and maybe even get one or two quests which can be solved differently. Bioware boasted that gender changed things in ME2 in one of the loading screens - not sure what it did change other than romance options - so I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be against the idea of dialogue differences.

Being a female character and encountering the Qunari should definitely be something that's addressed at least.

[hussey 92]

Elton John is dead wrote...

• You have to sneak into some random Chantry. Since the priests are women only a woman character can do this.

There are borthers in the chantry, so a guy could sneak in too.  Just saying.

[Eternal Phoenix]

hussey 92 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...

• You have to sneak into some random Chantry. Since the priests are women only a woman character can do this.

There are borthers in the chantry, so a guy could sneak in too.  Just saying.

HOW DARE YOU DEBUNK MY ARGUMENT!

No but seriously I thought there were only a few chantries with brothers. You don't see any male chanters in Kirkwall...

Mind you I guess one could sneak in as a Templar but the quest to aquire Templar armor would be different - and more dangerous - than acquiring robes from a harmless old lady.

[hussey 92]

Elton John is dead wrote...

hussey 92 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...




You have to sneak into some random Chantry. Since the priests are women only a woman character can do this.

There are borthers in the chantry, so a guy could sneak in too.  Just saying.

HOW DARE YOU DEBUNK MY ARGUMENT!

No but seriously I thought there were only a few chantries with brothers. You don't see any male chanters in Kirkwall...

Mind you I guess one could sneak in as a Templar but the quest to aquire Templar armor would be different - and more dangerous - than acquiring robes from a harmless old lady.

 Yeah, there were definintly chantry brothers in Origins but Sebatain was the only one in DA2 (if you even count him). 

I do get your point though

Modifié par hussey 92, 09 mai 2012 - 09:41 .

[Nefla]

I loved these kinds of differences in DA:O and it was one of the main reasons I replayed the game so many times. Unfortunately I don't think BioWare is really going to go back to that. It's extra resources used and most people wont play as a woman or an elf or finish the game or whatever statistical argument there is so to them it would be a waste of money most likely. In DA2 you rarely even got gender specific pronouns from anyone outside your party. No one calls you madam, sir, my lady, etc...it's all the neutral title of "serrah" I hated that. I remember shouting "recognize my gender damnit!" at the tv lol. There was one line in the game recognizing me as a spirit healer and that was Merril trying to get me to heal Pol. There was no point in the entire game where my militant pro-mage, Anders romancing guy was recognized as a templar. There were so many times in DA:O where your origin or race or gender or class came into play it was really fun.

Modifié par Nefla, 10 mai 2012 - 05:48 .

[Darth Krytie]

I'm for specialization-centric ideas (lol, I was the one who brought it up at Pax) but not for gender. My reasoning being that if it were, the reasons why gender would matter would be based in some sort of stereotyping. As a girl who loves football and hates romcoms (and many more atypical preferences), I'm rather tired of facing what people assume all girls/all guys like/dislike. So I'd rather not face some arbitrarily sexist or whatever gaming scenario dictated solely by which symbol I check during character creation.

That's not to say that gender couldn't be used exclusively in a non-sexist way? But does tend to lean that way whenever I've seen it done. Most of the time in Dragon Age: Origins, when your gender is being recognized, it's playing on the "girls can kill with the pointy sticks, too? omg!" crap.

[Cyberarmy]

Well Vampire Bloodlines done some right things about gender and class differences.
With Seduction you got neat dialog options depending on your gender. And for some classes your play style nearly changes completely. For example as a Nosferatu you shouldnt be seen by any humans and for that you spend a lot of time in sewers.

Now i really dont think we'll be seeing that diversty in any Bioware games.But at least i expect them to allow NPCs to acknowladge our class. not something like this;

[LolaLei]

Cyberarmy wrote...

Well Vampire Bloodlines done some right things about gender and class differences.
With Seduction you got neat dialog options depending on your gender. And for some classes your play style nearly changes completely. For example as a Nosferatu you shouldnt be seen by any humans and for that you spend a lot of time in sewers.

Now i really dont think we'll be seeing that diversty in any Bioware games.But at least i expect them to allow NPCs to acknowladge our class. not something like this;

LOL that's awesome!

[hussey 92]

There were good examples in Fallout 3. Like if you walk into a certain bar as a male, a female patron might try to get you to buy her a drink, but if your a female she'll say something like "oh great another women." And there was also a guy who doesn't really care to talk to you if your a male but if your female you can talk him into doing stuff for you.

In DA2 your class, specs and gender changed pretty much nothing.

[AppealToReason]

I've always wanted a few chat options that are more tailored to the way you design your character. Whether its in DAO where I get the option to KO someone with my sheild vs my fist or in Mass Effect where I get to Charge a guy out a window vs a forceful shove

[Evamitchelle]

Dialogue and banter in DA2 do change depending on your gender. The spirit of the sentence usually remains the same, but there are some differences in the wording. Emile de Launcet only hits on a F!Hawke, Anders only tells M!Hawke that Karl was more than just a friend, Isabela gets jealous of Tallis but only if she's romancing F!Hawke and of course Sebastian only romances a F!Hawke. as well. Maybe OP would like to see more of these changes, but there are already there if you look closely enough.

[Eternal Phoenix]

They are tied to romances though save for the Emile de Launcet dialogue. When I played through the game as a female character I didn't experience any dialogue differences or what was there for a female in the way of romance because I didn't do any romances as my female character.

What I'm asking for is gender different dialogue outside of romances. Ignore the romances and a female Hawke is pretty much the same as a male Hawke save for having animation differences, a different model and a different voice. Most NPC's react to the two in a same way and I can understand that in a world where most people don't view women as inferior to men but the Qunari do have a certain view on women so I did expect something to be brought up there.

[Evamitchelle]

There *are* some differences in dialogue between a male and female Hawke, and not just in romances. In one of Varric's Act 1 quests he says something like "I'm always willing to talk about myself to beautiful women." Now I haven't played a M!Hawke in a while but I'm pretty sure he didn't say the same thing. Nothing game-changing, but there are more instances of banter/dialogue change according to gender (you can see it on the wiki). And not having the Arishok comment that F!Hawke shouldn't be fighting really doesn't bother me. Having to fight sexism in games too doesn't appeal to me at all.

[Its_a_Catdemon]

Supporting most of this, the various traits of a character should influence dialogue a lot more than they do. That said, my opinion varies on these 3 issues.

Gender: The types of differences we already have are pretty good, we don't need too much more, as Darth Krytie said, I'd rather not be judged by gender too much, so the specific quests aren'tso appealing, the way people have described them sounds way too forced. Although I can see how it would be nice to have it affect our relationships with companions, both if friends or romantically, I liked being Carver's sister, not brother.

class: I don't think the differences for class alone should be a factor unless you're a mage, and not too huge for that alone. Mage shouldn't have to be too different, but should have the option to be, depending on how well you hide the fact that your a mage. I roleplayed a mage who focused on close range fighting assisted by support spells instead of nuking, so the NPC's not noticing unless they're specifically told by me in dialogue or they're someone special who's more perceptive was part of my roleplay. Their could still be a lot of differences for the others, because class decides specialization.

Specialization: Where the bulk of the change could be, specializations are where there could be quests to learn them, quests to deal with them, being treated differently if you're a templar, blood mage, shadow, reaver, etc... I fully support as much specialization dialogue as possible, because
your specific abilities aren't noted by the other ways, just a
classification as female or as a warrior, which doesn't mean too much
alone as one can be different from the typical person of said role. Mages aren't necessarily weak physically, and a templar quest could have a decision whether you learn it normally from
the chantry or from other means like a templar or ex-templar companion,
which would have different connotations.

[Merlex]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

When I look at DA2 then I think most of us can agree that playing a mage was silly. You were not hunted like all the other mages. You were not even recognized when you threw fireballs around, wore a robe and carried a staff. Blood magic wasn't recognized either. Even merchants were allowed to sell blood mage gear in the open just a couple of yards away from Meredith's office.

By implementing gameplay and story changes or accents based on your class and specialization all of the above sillyness could have been avoided. The same goes for the gender samples in the OP. It would not only create a believable world and promote replayability, it would also remove all the rationalizations to keep the story railroaded.

I agree.

[SirGladiator]

As long as my female character can romance anyone she likes, I don't mind things playing out differently according to gender. The idea of making certain romances easier or harder based on gender is actually a good one, just so long as its not outright impossible. Ive never been a fan of overly easy romances anyway, any excuse, including that one, to make them harder to achieve works just fine for me. The City Elf origin was cool in DAO, the only annoying part was that your female character was automaticly engaged to a dude instead of giving you a choice. Otherwise that was a good example of things playing out differently in a positive way, according to gender. class obviously should be hugely important, depending on whether or not you're a mage. It shouldn't result in any of your family members being forced to die like in DA2, but it definitely should effect the way some folks treat you. I like the way Mike Laidow seems to be thinking in terms of Specializations, limit them to just 1 per character, and make them really mean something. That should make it a lot easier, for example, for folks to recognise, and react appropriately, to your character when they're a blood mage. Or a Templar for that matter. Its sort of funny how, at one point in DA2, somebody points out that you arent a Templar, and Bethany agrees with them 'no Templars in this family', even though at the time they're saying that its not true, you actually are one and nobody seems to know it! Stuff like that can definitely be eliminated by limiting specializations to 1 and putting more emphasis on doing them right. I like the way things seem to be headed for DA3, hopefully we'll keep hearing similar positive news!

[Eternal Phoenix]

Evamitchelle wrote...

There *are* some differences in dialogue between a male and female Hawke, and not just in romances. In one of Varric's Act 1 quests he says something like "I'm always willing to talk about myself to beautiful women." Now I haven't played a M!Hawke in a while but I'm pretty sure he didn't say the same thing. Nothing game-changing, but there are more instances of banter/dialogue change according to gender (you can see it on the wiki). And not having the Arishok comment that F!Hawke shouldn't be fighting really doesn't bother me. Having to fight sexism in games too doesn't appeal to me at all.

Well you're not really fighting sexism by having a Qunari (a culture that don't view women as warriors) comment on you being a woman and then having it harder to impress him as a result. I must have missed those comments from Varric and other NPC's but I'm not surprised considering how small and nonsubstantial they are. Origins on the otherhand had a origin that changed based on your gender and we had even more dialogue differences and I swear only a female character could convince that dwarf in Redcliffe to fight in battle using normal dialogue.

I mean Dragon Age is supposed to be set in a dark fantasy world. We have mages cutting themselves to perform blood magic, The Chantry controlling the lyrium supply of Templars who are addicted to lyrium like drug-addicts, demons possessing people, elves being treated like second-class citizens (racism) and even abused and raped by humans and then we have the dwarves who have lost most of their kingdom to the seemingly neverending threat of the darkspawn who create new darkspawn via broodmothers who were once human, elven, dwarven or qunari.

Why would having one man who views women as sex objects or even a woman who views men as sex objects be so bad? Such clearly exists in Antiva where there's an ideal of women being pure and delicate. So different gender views aren't absent from the world of Dragon Age.

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 13 mai 2012 - 02:06 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Elton John is dead wrote...
Well you're not really fighting sexism by having a Qunari (a culture that don't view women as warriors) comment on you being a woman and then having it harder to impress him as a result. I must have missed those comments from Varric and other NPC's but I'm not surprised considering how small and nonsubstantial they are. Origins on the otherhand had a origin that changed based on your gender and we had even more dialogue differences and I swear only a female character could convince that dwarf in Redcliffe to fight in battle using normal dialogue.

I mean Dragon Age is supposed to be set in a dark fantasy world. We have mages cutting themselves to perform blood magic, The Chantry controlling the lyrium supply of Templars who are addicted to lyrium like drug-addicts, demons possessing people, elves being treated like second-class citizens (racism) and even abused and raped by humans and then we have the dwarves who have lost most of their kingdom to the seemingly neverending threat of the darkspawn who create new darkspawn via broodmothers who were once human, elven, dwarven or qunari.

Why would having one man who views women as sex objects or even a woman who views men as sex objects be so bad? Such clearly exists in Antiva where there's an ideal of women being pure and delicate. So different gender views aren't absent from the world of Dragon Age.

I think that for a lot of players, the difference may be in having dialogue cues, banter about gender or sexist comments by NPCs in the game versus having your PC's gender dictate gameplay - that there is some sort of flag for whether or not your PC is male or female, and thus quests are opened or are locked, or you have to make extra persuasion checks/take extra action based solely on an NPC discriminating against your PC's gender. It might be more palatable to have those sorts of checks and requirements with class, or with some sort of behavior meter (such as whether or not your PC has been helpful toward some characters as opposed to being a scoundrel, etc) - those have to do with the inherent character/characteristics of how you role-play your PC, or how that PC is perceived in a social station of Thedas (mistrust for mages and such). 

Social norms as they relate to gender already exist in our real world and can be quite restricting as well as oppressive - when women are told that they simply cannot do something or be part of something for no other reason than the matter of their gender. I imagine a lot of folks, myself included, would like to play in a world where that isn't a constant, especially not for such checks (as mentioned above) for our PC. I would rather have my character judged on whether or not (s)he can take a stand against the enemy on the battlefield, or whether or not (s)he will remain loyal to the companions, than to be judged by gender.

[LinksOcarina]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

When I look at DA2 then I think most of us can agree that playing a mage was silly. You were not hunted like all the other mages. You were not even recognized when you threw fireballs around, wore a robe and carried a staff. Blood magic wasn't recognized either. Even merchants were allowed to sell blood mage gear in the open just a couple of yards away from Meredith's office.

By implementing gameplay and story changes or accents based on your class and specialization all of the above sillyness could have been avoided. The same goes for the gender samples in the OP. It would not only create a believable world and promote replayability, it would also remove all the rationalizations to keep the story railroaded.

Templars didn't do anything in Dragon Age: Origins either. So I am confused as to why this is a big deal when it was not a big deal in game one.

[wsandista]

LinksOcarina wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

When I look at DA2 then I think most of us can agree that playing a mage was silly. You were not hunted like all the other mages. You were not even recognized when you threw fireballs around, wore a robe and carried a staff. Blood magic wasn't recognized either. Even merchants were allowed to sell blood mage gear in the open just a couple of yards away from Meredith's office.

By implementing gameplay and story changes or accents based on your class and specialization all of the above sillyness could have been avoided. The same goes for the gender samples in the OP. It would not only create a believable world and promote replayability, it would also remove all the rationalizations to keep the story railroaded.

Templars didn't do anything in Dragon Age: Origins either. So I am confused as to why this is a big deal when it was not a big deal in game one.

Templars were much more prevalent in DA2 though.