20 réponses à ce sujet

[Teddie Sage]

This is something she did for G&S's channel.
They talk about Dragon Age, Writing, etc.
Just leaving the link here if you're interested.
youtu.be/i3IEG-D_R2E

[John Epler]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Yrkoon wrote...

David Gaider owns a cat. You can see it hop down from  a chair on the right of the screen at 14:53.

just thought I'd point that out.

I believe he owns two cats.

David owns one cat. That cat also owns a cat.

[David Gaider]

Oh, nice! I really liked this interview. It's nice to see they finally put it together for YouTube.

Also interesting to note that both cats insisted on making an appearance. Such attention ****s, honestly.

[David Gaider]

brushyourteeth wrote...
Was it a bar mitzvah present to his first cat, like in Dharma and Greg?

He whined a lot, because I was working so much. So I got him a kitten. My suspicion is that this is the sort of blatant bribery I would resort to if I ever had children. In this case it worked out well, with the younger cat showering adoration on the older like Chester to Spike, and they pretty much leave me to my work.

[David Gaider]

Kail Ashton wrote...
So does "DG" just sleep with a loaded shotgun everytime he looks at these forums? i'm amazed someone here hasn't went all "misery" on him "you didn't write Ander's romance in DA2!? *slams a sledgehammer into David's knees"

Thank you for that mental image.

[John Epler]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Andrastee wrote...


In an ideal world where BioWare had infinite zots, I might like to see a game with two straight LIs, two gay LIs and to bi LIs. Then everyone would have a range of choices. Given that this would require a ridiculous amount of resources for content the majority of players don't even pursue, though, I think having all the love interests be available to both genders is the best option available.

Taking a quote that one of the Bioware moderators made, granted on another topic, but I think it has relevance.  (If you want to see the whole remark, go to the God Among Mortals thread).

John Epler wrote...


(SNIP)  That being said, minority content isn't something we're against as a rule - it just has to be handled appropriately and with the relevant expectations - one of which being that there has to be equivalent content for other 'paths'.

.

And I will add, the Bioware DA team has created content for the minority before.  So.... if the minority in this case happens to be those that are willing to voice a request for some heterosexual companions, despite the assurance they are likely to get shouted down by all that feel this is unreasonable, I think it is only fair to consider this, instead of saying it is undoable.

Let's be clear - minority content specifically refers to 'content that only some players would see', not content for a specific minority. As for the sexual orientation of your companions, that's an entirely different kettle of fish, and that's really up to the writers. I will say, however, that any decision we made would be made with inclusivity in mind, as that's something that we consider to be incredibly important. There are, after all, plenty of games for the majority of people - we believe in making something that those who aren't part of that 'majority' can enjoy. That's not to say that we don't also have content for the majority, of course. Simply that we try to include as many people as possible.

[David Gaider]

SeanMurphy2 wrote...
I find it absurd for Bioware to make all romance characters bisexual for "equality" reasons. Yet if writers are forced to rigidly follow that rule. Then a straight or gay romance character is unable to exist in that world.

I get why some folks might not like the "subjective sexuality" of some of the characters, even if that subjective nature only becomes evident on multiple playthroughs (or if you spend a lot of time on the forums, first). For some, it's an issue of verisimilitude... because once they understand that this character might also romance different genders in alternate realities (other games) they have difficulty wrapping their minds around which neat little box they can put that character into.

The benefit, of course, is that it allows others to play their game the way they wish. Whether it's a good enough trade-off is up to the individual, but from our perspective the ability to provide more choices to our fans far outstrips the "oh but that's not realistic" argument.

What I don't get is how some people go right to "everyone is bisexual". Which they're not. Fenris might romance a male character or Merrill a female character in an alternate reality from the game you're currently playing, but that does not make them "bisexual". That seems to stem from a need to slap a label somewhere where it doesn't belong.

Whether or not we'll change our approach in the future depends mostly on time/resources. The "spread" of options that gets mentioned from time to time is probably the ideal in terms of options/verisimilitude, but it's also the most expensive in terms of resources... which is why it gets mentioned so often on forums, as resources are never an issue here.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 mai 2012 - 03:17 .

[David Gaider]

BobSmith101 wrote...
That's pandering to a players whims, not creating a a world. I want my party to refelct the world they live in, or the region the game is set in and not have a bunch of Bi characters because it's inclusive.

So you see it as not an issue because it's not an issue for you. That's understandable, but please recognize that it's a privilege to be in such a position. For many players, not having an equal amount of access to content is a slightly larger issue than verisimilitude... and it's an issue that is neither as subjective as verisimilitude is nor is it a "whim". We can, will and do consider their concerns to be worth addressing whenever we can.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 mai 2012 - 03:31 .

[John Epler]

BobSmith101 wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...
What exactly is a "gay society?" 

The world we live in is made up of all sorts of people - across various spectrums of ethnicity, religion/creed, and sexual orientation/identity. It's simply a society of human beings.

Thedas seems to be akin to that, however, it is (most wonderfully) lacking much of the social stigma that we see present in our real world. The game is set up to allow for a player to role-play as (s)he sees fit - to follow a romance arc as (s)he so desires, if (s)he so desires.

It's about inclusion - allowing those options to be available for the player.

A society where the norm is being gay. Just like you have matriarchal and patriarchal societies.

That's pandering to a players whims, not creating a a world. I want my party to refelct the world they live in, or the region the game is set in and not have a bunch of Bi characters because it's inclusive.

And how do you know whether or not that's reflective of the world they live in? This is Thedas, not an alternate history to our own world. For all you (and, for that matter, I, as I'm not a writer) know, the majority of Thedas is somewhere on the sexuality spectrum other than 'straight'. Maybe pure heterosexuality is looked upon as a quaint novelty.

Regardless, though, here's the thing. There are lots and lots of games out there for people who are heterosexual. Most media and entertainment is built for them. Of course you're not interested in inclusivity to a large degree - you aren't part of the group that's being ill-served by most entertainment. And it's fine to say 'I want my party to reflect the world they live in', but at the same time - they won't, regardless. Your party is filled with exceptional people, and the world is, by and large, not. Most dwarves aren't like Varric. Most elves aren't like Merril. Fenris is certainly rather unique within Kirkwall, and how many female pirate captains did you see walking around? Hell, there's only one captain of the guard, and she's adventuring with you.

If your companions are already exceptional in every way other than sexuality, why does it matter so much if their sexuality isn't 'standard'? And that's assuming that Thedas isn't a world where everyone doesn't occupy a place on the sliding scale of sexuality other than 'heterosexual'.

[David Gaider]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
So you don't plan on writing anymore characters that show their sexuality outside of the PC's company then? Because the only way to create characters that cannot be classified as "bisexual" but "whatever-floats-your-boat-exual" is to make their sexualities completely hidden from non-alterable game sections.

Isabela was bisexual, and talks about it outside of the PC's company. Being a very flirtatious character, it would be strange if she didn't. The other romances don't discuss it, but that was hardly a compromise as their sexuality isn't a big part of their characterization-- at least when not dealing with someone in whom they were actually sexually interested.

So, no, I don't see it as that big a concern. People who say it is seem to be magnifying it into the only aspect of the character that makes up their identity, when that's hardly true.

As I mentioned above, the "spread" would be ideal. Whether we'll ever get the chance to do that is difficult to say. If that's not the case, however, I don't see it as a big issue either in terms of characterization or in world-building... and the world-building argument is a rather laughable one, sorry. Those who bring it up are talking about the way they'd prefer Thedas to be rather than how we're actually presenting it.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 mai 2012 - 03:41 .

[David Gaider]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Because the game is not showing me that is the case. In this case , it's not even telling me.

So we should, what? Have a pair of ambient elves in the market who talk publicly about how much they like both men and women? A codex entry where Brother Genitivi discusses "Sexuality in Thedas"?

It's not something that comes up because it's private-- and also because there are no terms that exist in that era. In our own history, the need to study and categorize sexuality didn't come about until the late 19th century... prior to that, it wasn't even a concept. The act was considered far more relevant than the impulse. So when it comes up outside of the player's personal experience, it's going to be either vague or implied (such as Wade & Herren, Branka & Hespith or the Viscount's son).

I'm not going to question why you feel the need to have the world further advertise that sexuality is not treated the same as in our world when that's what the party members are showing you-- but I will suggest that the problem is yours and not one to be blamed on "world-building". You might be seeing what you want to see.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 mai 2012 - 03:58 .

[David Gaider]

the_one_54321 wrote...
You can do both. Just give me a reason to believe they are bisexual, instead of being possessed of a sexuality toggle. Any reason at all would do.

I'd rather leave it up to the player to believe what they wish, unless it's relevant to their character (such as in Isabela's case). If you feel the need to definitively categorize the character's sexuality, that's your problem and not ours.

Modifié par David Gaider, 01 mai 2012 - 04:00 .

[David Gaider]

While the topic of sexuality is interesting and all, it's not really relevant. So let's please drop it rather than turn the entire thread into a "why are romances all bisexual?" thread-- which I'm pretty sure exists elsewhere. Thanks.

[John Epler]

David Gaider wrote...

While the topic of sexuality is interesting and all, it's not really relevant. So let's please drop it rather than turn the entire thread into a "why are romances all bisexual?" thread-- which I'm pretty sure exists elsewhere. Thanks.

It is, in fact, being discussed here.

So, let's leave this thread for discussion of the interview.

[David Gaider]

Fandango9641 wrote...
This again? Having NPC’s reinvent themselves to suit the different ways people want them to be for the purposes of romance (or any other reason for that matter) is a rotten idea. It dilutes characterisation for the sake of self-centred fantasy and for what? So people who bleat about imbalance, but refuse to roleplay different characters, can engage in the romance of their choice? How is that in any way reasonable? “I want my pick of LI’s, regardless of how I choose to play, so make that aspect of their characterisation totally ambiguous”. Selfish nonsense!

"Selfish nonsense"?

The difference here is that one side requires metagaming knowledge-- you need to have played through the game multiple times, or spent time on the forums reading about these characters, to even know that they could have romances with more than one gender PC. Thus it's the sort of opinion you'll find common here on the forums where such knowledge is considered de rigeur, but nowhere else.

"Selfish nonsense" would be restricting options for others simply to satisfy your personal need for more continuuity between your various playthroughs. And that continuuity is in and of itself fairly subjective-- such as the brand of thinking that makes some people go "Anders was straight until you made him bi!", as if him not previously declaring his sexuality made the player's perception the absolute truth. So, by extension I suppose, the romanceable followers are suddenly less able to be placed in a neat mental box and thus break the rules of your personal perception? Their potential bisexuality "dilutes" their character?

How very ghastly of them.

While I rather like the idea of a character with a set sexuality getting to mention it more specifically in their conversations, I hardly think the lack of such a discussion of their sexuality dilutes their character. Ideally we'd have the resources to include a range of options across the party, but if that's not the case then I'm going to lean towards providing as many options as I can... the "selfishness" of those players wanting the same number of romance options as other players notwithstanding.

[David Gaider]

Fandango9641 wrote...
In any case, it appears sexuality is on the flip-flop list....what’s next?

That's just my point. Their sexuality does not "flip-flop". It would only be that way if the characters discussed how they were only attracted to a gender in one version, and then discussed how they were attracted to a different gender in another version. This is not the case. Even Anders only mentioning his relationship with Karl to a male player does not change who he actually is. So I find it a bit strange that someone would paint this as inconsistencies of character when it relates only to your perception, seeing as they never discuss it... and I don't think such a discussion is always necessary.

If you wish to take issue with it regardless, that's fine. I would say the limitation is yours, however, despite your desire to push it onto others as "selfish".

Again, ideally I'd like to have set sexualities solely for the opportunities it opens up in dialogue, which we would otherwise avoid, but I don't see not having that as doing what you claim it does. And I'll leave it at that.

[David Gaider]

Fandango9641 wrote...
Thanks for the question Jonathan. For me, any talk of metagaming notwithstanding, having NPC’s reinvent themselves to suit the demands of a single player or protagonist is weak and it’s my view (though it appears David disagrees) it cheapens characterisation. I mean, let’s take sexuality out of the equation for a moment and talk magic. Would people support the idea of having Anders and Fenris flip-flop on their views about blood magic to suit those of the player? If so, what would they even stand for?

Those things are not equal.

Anders and Fenris explicitly discuss their views on mages and blood magic. If the player being a mage or not changed their views, that would indeed change their character to suit the player.

Neither Anders nor Fenris discuss their sexual preferences. They do not say "I'm gay" if the player is male and "I'm straight" if the player is female. Nor do they say they're bisexual. They don't discuss their sexuality at all. You are inferring their sexuality based on their actions, and then claiming that your inference is an objective truth. It strikes me as a "straight until proven gay" kind of attitude where "bisexuality" is some kind of inconsistent character flaw. Which is charming, really.

If you really can't see the difference between these things, then we haven't much to discuss.

[David Gaider]

Fandango9641 wrote...
As for your second point, I’m not claiming anything to be an objective truth, more than I’m stating a personal preference for a certain approach to NPC characterisation.

Which sounds reasonable, until one looks at what you're actually saying. But fair enough.

Have a good day now David Gaider, I think I’m just about done talking to you too.

As you wish. If you can't convince me that you have a point, however, you're unlikely to get what you want. But I guess you might enjoy discussing it with people. So there you go.

[David Gaider]

HiroVoid wrote...
Just out of curiosity, are there any points you've ever seen on here that you have gone 'Okay.  I can see how that could work, and we might give that a shot.'  Not saying you have to point out any examples though that would be pretty cool, but I am curious.

There are things I have read where I've said "That's a good point", yes. They don't often come with practical solutions, however. Which is not a jab at the people making those points, as there's no reason to expect them to know anything about the limitations we face as developers or even care. So while I would say it's pretty rare that someone makes a proposal on the forums which we simply implement, there are occasionally discussions which we observe and take something away from them when we go back to our jobs-- I can say for certain there have been things brought up on the forums which have worked their way into discussions of our own in meetings and so forth.

So you guys can and sometimes do influence our thinking, yes. If that's what you're looking to do, as opposed to simply venting or spending your time wishing we were making something else completely. In terms of directly implementing suggestions, however, not so much.

[David Gaider]

Dakota Strider wrote...
I have said it before in different ways, but I agree with most of what BobSmith is saying. If you are going to make a companion straight, gay or bi, keep them that way for every play through. Do not water them down, by making them do things differently depending upon who the protagonist's gender or preference is. That makes weaker characters, and weaker characters make weaker stories.

Sorry, but you guys can say this until you're blue in the face. But just saying it doesn't make it true.

All four love interests in DA2 were written exactly the same way, as a single character who responded to the situation at hand. That we left things open enough for players to interpret on their own was intentional, but to mistake that interpretation as an objective truth is myopic -- and if you can't see that, then you can't see that.

If you didn't like how the character was written, that's fine... but to ascribe it to the fact they didn't discuss their past relationships enough, or are somehow baffled that Anders would not mention his relationship with a man to a woman (in what world would someone do this?) or that bisexuality (in deed or by virtue of their natural preference) is somehow inherently inconsistent unless the person in question actively mentions past experiences, says more about you that it says about "watered-down characters".

I've always said that ideally we'd have a spread of characters that covered different sexualities, if we had the resources to do so. I can't help but roll my eyes at the thought that, should we ever do so, some of you would assume we did it to appease the people who make the "everyone is bisexual" complaint. Frankly, the more I read of this conversation, the more I'm leaning towards never doing that even if we had the resources.

Which probably means I should stop reading, as there are benefits to that kind of spread no matter how much this talk annoys me-- greater variety being one of them. I recognize there are some who will declare my participation here to be "arrogant", but I've tried my best to read and understand where this idea comes from... and I just can't do it, sorry.

[David Gaider]

It's partly my fault for engaging someone on the subject, but this thread is pretty much no longer about Felicia's interview is it? It is completely and irrevocably off topic, with those involved going round in circles. Shutting it down.